<<

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK April 2011 MIDTERM EVALUATION MIDTERM The Foundation Initiative Initiative Foundation The Rockefeller VERULAM ASSOCIATES ASSOCIATES LTD VERULAM

Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience

EVALUATION OFFICE EVALUATION

Rockefeller Foundation Rockefeller THE About Verulam Associates

Verulam Associates is a UK-based international development consultancy company with associate companies in India and Bangladesh. Verulam’s focus is on organizational learning, delivered through evaluation, review, policy advice and support for organizational change. With a long-standing commitment to work in South Asia and, over recent years, in South East Asia, Verulam’s clients include the , Asian Development Bank, and the European Commission, the development and cooperation agencies of the Governments of UK, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, as well as the Government of the Netherlands, and major international and South Asian NGOs. Verulam’s approach is based on process consultancy and informed by clinical organizational understandings and insights.

About the Evaluation Office

The Rockefeller Foundation fosters innovative solutions to many of the world’s most pressing challenges by supporting work that strengthens resilience to acute crises and chronic stresses and promoting growth with equity so poor or vulnerable populations have more access to op- portunities that improve their lives. Committed to supporting learning, accountability and per- formance improvements, the Evaluation Office of the Rockefeller Foundation works with staff, grantees and partners to strengthen evaluation practice and to support innovative approaches to monitoring, evaluation and learning.

The evaluation has been undertaken by Verulam Associates. Subsequently, the evaluation report was edited and designed for the Rockefeller THE Rockefeller Foundation Rockefeller Foundation by Maxtudio. EVALUATION OFFICE EVALUATION

VERULAM ASSOCIATES LTD Julian Barr, TEAM LEADER Chris Albertyn, Vu Xuan Nguyet Hong, Dr Amitabh Kundu, Farida Zaituni

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Rockefeller Foundation. © 2011, The Rockefeller Foundation

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK iii 6 6 11 xi vi 71 31 31 81 81 16 14 75 35 37 37 33 23 56 59 78 54 38 79 63 47 26 29 42 66 70 viii ) 11 UCCR

5 system relevance evolution 63 47 53 E 23 & 1 M ACCCRN ACCCRN Communications Scaling-out Scaling-up context Governance Phase 2 Learning and capacity building Learning City selection learning dialogues Shared Engaging vulnerable groups Phase 2 outputs Phase 2 traction Phase 3 Entry points Engagement projects Architecture Results orientation The Efficiency and management Coordination and relationships Roles Knowledge management Internal communications Risk Networking vs networks Networking vs Intersection of urbanization and climate change Intersection of urbanization Methods Relevance of urban climate change resilience ( of urban climate change resilience Relevance 5.3 5.2 5.1 3.3 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.7 3.8 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 4.1 1.1 1.2 Outcome 4 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Strategy and relevance Outcome 1 ACCCRN background ACCCRN 2.1 2.2 2.3 6. 4. 5. 2. 3. Acronyms Preface Acknowledgementsix summary Executive Introduction 1.

Table of contents 13 18 91 91 73 72 72 85 78 83 97 97 36 93 82 92 92 86 89 89 99 69 96 84 94 20 90 90 90 101 103 107 102 102 104 104 104 100 rants 74 and climate change G DRR 93 99 ockefeller Foundation R Foundation initiatives and Rockefeller team 83 risk register ACCCRN 105 90 working groups ACCCRN RF ACCCRN RF SAG UCCR architecture grants by duration and size ACCCRN 89

dministration burden of dministration burden esource use comparison: health systems and climate change use comparison: health systems esource change systems and climate health use efficiency: esource erception rating of rockefeller performance by grantees rating of rockefeller erception xtract from xtract from uggested grant deliverables llustrative S E replication Evidence-based ACCCRN Networking Scope Networking & networks Implementing acccrn as a partnership Grant management for initiative-based investment rockefeller’s Leveraging Scaling-out – the basis for adoption Evidence External communications – stimulating uptake Leaving a legacy Leaving impact Achieving Exiting I R R P A adaptation People Cities Impact measurement Sustainability Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Sustainability Impact foundation senior management for rockefeller Lessons Results orientation Insights for evaluation for Lessons City selection Achieving Conceptual and practical differences between and practical differences Conceptual ACCCRN Development of Development change approaches climate attributes of different Policy

10.2 10.1 10.3 10.4 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 8.1 8.2 Responses to the evaluation questions Responses to the evaluation recommendations Formative Lessons Impact & sustainabilityImpact & LIST OF TABLES OF LIST Table 10: Table Table 11: Table

Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table

References 9. 10. 8. 7.

Table 4: Table Table 3: Table Table 2: Table Table 1: Table

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK iv ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK v 7 17 17 17 12 35 25 52 32 65 67 43 48 64 49 49 60

ACCCRN structures approach cities web websites hosted by cities and partners by cities websites hosted architecture results framework work stream phases - hub-and-spoke schematic ACCCRN ACCCRN research learning and action - iterative ACCCRN verlap between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and climate between disaster risk reduction verlap efinitions rant summary sheet n led network country-partner eople interviewed ities within a country partnership valuation matrix valuation tatus of phase 2 engagement projects framework results against ummary streams mapping new work he stages of an initiative he three of he four phases of climate change resilience eatures erms of reference oint learning network activities oint learning network selection criteria mplementation project E P ACCCRN F T D ACCCRN G S ACCCRN ACCCRN S O A ACCCRN SLD I C J Early T T T

LIST OF BOXES OF LIST ANNEXES LIST OF FIGURES OF LIST Annex 6: Annex 7: Annex documents for this report listed can be found in the separate Annexes All Annexes Box 2: Box Box 1: Box 1: Annex 2: Annex Figure 15: Figure 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 7: Figure 9: Figure 14: Figure Figure 6: Figure 8 Figure 10: Figure 12 Figure 13: Figure Figure 11: A Figure Figure 1: Figure Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network Climate Change Resilience Asian Cities Resilience Alliance Climate Change Africa Bank Asian Development Centre Asian Disaster Preparedness Bank Development African (Indonesia) Association Of Mayors Fourth Assessment Report (Of Ipcc) Fifth Assessment Report (Of Ipcc) (Indonesia) Board City Development Department Planning (Indonesia) Development India, China, South Africa Brazil, Russia, City Advisory Committee Country Assessment Partner Climate Change Adaption City Climate Change Office Climate Change Resilience For Asia Initiative Cities Development Knowledge Network The Climate And Development Network For Africa Climate Exchange Philanthropy For Effective Center City Resilience Strategy Change Challenge To Group City Working (Uk) Department For International Development Dewan Nasiona Lperubahan Iklim (National Climate Change Body – Indonesian) () And Environment Department Of Natural Resources Disaster Risk Reduction (Staff)Full Time Equivalents Action Group Gorakhpur Environmental Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Germany) Gesellschaft (Now Giz) Cooperation German Development Capacity And Vulnerability Assessments Hazard, For Sustainability Governments International Association Of Local Studies (Uk) Institute Of Development Societies And Red Crescent International Federation Of Red Cross (Vietnam) And Environment Hydrology Institute For Meteorology, Intellectual Property On Climate Change Panel Intergovernmental (India) And Development Integrated Research Transition Institute For Social And Environmental Japan Funding for International Development ACCCRN ACCRA ADB ADPC AfDB APEKSI AR4 AR5 BAPPEDA BAPPENAS BRICS CAC CAP CCA CCCO CCR CDIA CDKN CENA CEP CRS CtC CWG DFID DNPI DoNRE DRR FTE GEAG GIS GTZ HCVA ICLEI IDS IFRC/RC IMHEN IP IPCC IRADe ISET JICA Acronyms

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK vi ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK vii Joint Learning Network for Universal Health Coverage Health Network for Universal Joint Learning Renewal Mission Nehru National Urban Jawaharlal Knowledge management capacity adaptive Local Monitoring and evaluation (Vietnam) Ministry and Environment of Natural Resources Memorandum of understanding of Action Program National Adaptation organization Non-governmental and Strategy Studies (Vietnam) Policy Science and Technology National Institute for (India) Urban Affairs National Institute of Change] (Vietnam) [on Climate Programme National Target and Development for Economic Cooperation Organisation and Planning () Environment Resources, Office of Nature, Learning network (India) Experience and Reflective Peer Results-based management Foundation Rockefeller plan (Indonesia) mid-term development Five-year Strategy and Alignment Group Resilience Programme Climate Strengthening South Gujarat Chamber of Commerce learning dialogue Shared Surat Municipal Corporation assistance Technical firm (India) Consulting Foundation Thailand Environment Institute Thailand Environment Urban climate change resilience Urban Climate Change Resilience Partnership Facility Urban Financing Partnership Human Settlements Programme Fund United Nations Capital Development on Climate Change United Nations Framework Convention Agency for International Development Bank World Summit on Climate Mayors World JLN JNNURM KM LAC M&E MONRE MOU NAPA NGO NISTPASS NIUA NTP OECD ONREP PEARL RBM RF RPJMD SAG SCR SGCC SLD SMC TA TARU TEF TEI UCCR UCCRP UFPF UN Habitat UNCDF UNFCCC USAID WB WMSC Nancy MacPherson MANAGING DIRECTOR, EVALUATION DIRECTOR, MANAGING FOUNDATION ROCKEFELLER

DIRECTOR VERULAM ASSOCIATES LTD. ASSOCIATES VERULAM is committed to learning Foundation The Rockefeller throughits activities and all promotes such learning and partners itself, its grantees for through Foundation-wide and grant portfolio initiative the assessment of levels, including at strategy, evaluation Foundation’s work. the impact of all the was the first Foun- Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) The Asian Cities Climate take an integrated approachdation initiative to and evaluation with a to monitoring the regular both covering grant single performanceof monitoring resultsthe against at midtermframework and evaluation (formative)and final (summative) stages. That strong Associates Ltd a company with a track recordgrant was awarded to Verulam in evaluation and organizational learning across Asia. are pleased to present this reportWe as part of the first evaluation conducted of that grant. the effortsThe success of this evaluation is due to people. Thanks are of many due to the grantees and partners and all the Rockefeller Foundation ACCCRN Team involved their participationACCCRN for in pleasurethe evaluation. It has been a in to manage the process and we are for all the support grateful given to the and encouragement think this report demonstrates that this has been a robustevaluation. We and effective hope process that has shown the value of independent and professional evaluation. We and that all those involved will find the lessons as they seek recommendations of use to improve their performance. would particularly like to thank Julian BarrWe of the team, con- for his leadership and not least for drafting a reporttribution to the design and methodology that com- municates the lessons, findings and manner. recommendations in a clear and positive Thornton Paul Preface

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK viii ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK ix This evaluation was undertakenThis evaluation Grantee, Monitoring and Evaluation by the ACCCRN technical direction Ltd., under the Associates of Paul Thornton.Verulam The evalu- Barr was led by Julian ation team of Chris Albertyn, and consisted (ITAD) Xuan Vu Kundu and Farida Zaituni. ResearchNguyet Hong, Dr Amitabh assistance at ITAD was provided support by Daisy MacDonald and management Associates at Verulam quality assurance by Hilaryby Masum Khan with Thornton. would like to thank all those who providedThe evaluation team support, information and views to the evaluation. evaluation office, like to thank the Rockefeller Foundation would especially We Laura Fishler (with particularNancy MacPherson, thanks for the Sharepoint site) Frazier-Martin,Juanita and supporttheir for throughout. Appreciation the to goes support Associates and ITAD Verulam Masum Khan and Daisy team, especially provided Associates monitoring team which advice MacDonald, and to the Verulam and support with interviews and country visits. Thanks also go to the Country Coor- Coordinatorsand City dinators who facilitated our countryvisits, which all ran very smoothly. were very Bangkok and The Rockefeller RF ACCCRN teams in accommo- dating of the evaluation team and responsive to all our requests. The evaluation made good use of interviews, and thanks go to all our respondents in ACCCRN cities, regionalthe ten partnerorganizations, expertsas well as on urban manage- senior Rockefeller Foundation and the change, climate development and ment team in New York. Full responsibility for the text of this report Associates and the rests with Verulam by the Rockefeller Foundation, the authors. As with all evaluations commissioned views contained in this report necessarily represent do not those of the Foundation or any of the individuals or agencies consulted. Acknowledgements x ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xi share practical knowledge on urban climate change resilience – improve the capacity of ACCCRN cities to plan, finance, coordinate and implement climate change resilience. – Networking in order(UCCR) the quality of awareness,to deepen engagement, demand and stakeholders. application by ACCCRN cities and other technical) generated by a range existing and additional support (finance, policy, of actors, particularly new donors. Organizationmanagement – ensureand (RF’s) that Rockefeller Foundation’s ACCCRN team operates effectively, efficiently and is accountable relevant and to stakeholders and the context in which it operates, providing leadership and contributing to the Foundation’s strategy and mission. assess the on-going relevanceon-going the assess urban of field the to Initiative the of rationale and climate change resilience countries, and to the needs of key stake- in developing holders. contextu- “demonstrating Initiative that the of hypothesis underlying the assess ally appropriate resilience, models of urban climate combined with cross-learning supportand replication for improvedto contribute can scaling-up, and moreand rapid development of urban climate resilience models throughout the developing world.” build climate change resiliencechange climate build the in populations urban and vulnerable poor of developing world through developing, promoting disseminating models for and community resilience resiliencebuild climate change and vulnerable small-holder farmers of poor in Africa through climate-change sensitive agricultural development practices increase funding and support for climate change resilience of poor and vulnerable world, by influenc- in the developing people in the United States and, potentially, ing US mitigation policy and practice. • Capacity • new cities taking action through• Scaling-up – expand UCCR, with ACCCRN and • 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. Evaluation objectives Evaluation The objectives of the evaluation were to: ACCCRN intended outcomes intended ACCCRN The Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network The Asian Cities Climate (ACCCRN) Of the total funds approved for the overall Climate Change Initiative, approximately weremillion $42 Resilience Change Climate Cities Asia the implement to aside set Initiative over a six-year period: 2007-2012. Network (ACCCRN) component of the Initiative overviewInitiative BoardIn 2007, the of Trustees Foundation approved of the Rockefeller $70 million in support Initiative. It has three a Climate Change of separate components: distinct and the subject of this Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN), i) the Asian Cities Climate Agricultureevaluation, ii) the African Resilience component and iii) Climate Change Policy component. the US Climate Change overall Climate Change Initiative areThe objectives of the to: Executive summary Overall, the evaluation finds that ACCCRN is a pioneering and highly highly and pioneering a is ACCCRN that finds evaluation the Overall, relevant at the right time”, enabling, supportinginitiative. It has been “in the right place and exploring approaches the and methodologies to vulnerability assessment and design of city-level resilience plans. The Foundation deserves recognition for its timely identification of this important area and for making Asian for investment, cities a core part of the larger Initiative that Building Climate Change Resilience also includes another major component on resilience in African agriculture. Urban climate change resilience represents a valuable and relevant concept for it is complex and requires a strong addressing However, urban climate change. systems orientation. At present, some people in ACCCRN cities understand the concept, and are their work. All 10 cities have developed climate using it to shape resilienceresilienceof number a exhibit which (CRSs), strategies features, but most cities and city stakeholders are still developing their understanding of the concept. The sustainability of a UCCR approach will depend on the success of continued reflection on the process, documentation and sharing of UCCR ex- periences, adoption of UCCR ideas, and the institutionalization of the city-level advisory committees and working groups. assess the effectivenessassess the and in making delivering its outputs of the Initiative in progress towardsof execution (2008– in the first phase its outcomes achieving 2010). phase in stimulating influence of the Initiative in its first assess the policy and practice at local, regional, attitudes national and and changing behaviour, agencies and donors, technical levels with governmentsociety, actors, civil academic organizations ACCCRN approaches to incorporate into and lessons their work. assess the cost effectivenessefficiency and of the Initiative in using its resources its outputs and outcomes. wisely in its first phase to achieve (human and financial) providing and leadership of the Initiative in assess the management thought lead- partners and with its technical and donor ership in the Foundation and grantees, change in the field of climate resilience. make recommendations for mid-course corrections to the Foundation on the country, approach of the Initiative (its strategies, results and work program)at city, regionalfurtheron levels; global and nurtureto needed actions the sustain and change climate urban of in the field ACCCRN of work adaptation and resilience in Asia, and to have growing lead- influence globally; and on the management and and countryership of the Initiative, including grantee engagement, relationship management, team management and resource allocation. reflect lessons to on the implications of ACCCRN’s achievements, challenges and Foundation in the areadate for the strategy and work of the Rockefeller of urban climate change resilience. and value added of both the Initiative and highlight the knowledge contributions the on-going monitoring process. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Findings of the evaluation Findings of the evaluation

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xii ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xiii In Phase 1, the RF ACCCRN team commissioned a number of studies to help a number of studies team commissioned 1, the RF ACCCRN In Phase participate cities that would identify the considered These studies in ACCCRN. and climatic exposurecriteria including geographic to climate risks and some governance-related to participate factors. They also assessed cities’ suitability in the findings were in the selection process, under-used the initiative. However, because they were either rushed not not well implemented, and thus did or provide the information needed. Some of the country studies had to be repeated. under pressureshow progress, to of the 10 ACCCRN the selection Ultimately, cities from across Asia was more seems to have run pragmatic. City selection venture a “development to counter appears the Foundation which ethos capital” as the selection factors were more strongly informed and by geographic to favor, presencethe by than factors bio-physical partners catalytic suitable of en- and by city governments.gagement with climate change issues cities in the ACCCRN initiative and Phase 2 involved engaging the 10 selected UCCR approach,in the concept and development of a and supporting them in developing CRSs through a process of iterative action-learning cycles, called shared learning and assessments vulnerability involved These (SLDs). dialogues small-scale projects.a series of sector-specific studies and They have proven to be successful processes for engaging a range of city stakeholders and developing which wereinter-sectoral working practices. SLDs, facilitated by the Institute for Social and Environmental (ISET) as a regional Transition grantee and supported by country partners, were stronger than on climate science and physical planning on social aspects and governance. Those involved in Phase 2 deserve credit and implementing a for developing process of city engagement, analysis and planning across sectors and depart- ments that has resulted on from in CRSs in 10 cities. The next step is to move processesstand-alone strategies to strategies and that are integrated into city planning and development. Many of the small-scale projects in Phase 2 take a disaster risk implemented reduction (DRR) approach. This is an appropriate entry for city engagement point as it is more to cities and meets immediate demand. Cities that have expe- familiar rienced disasters – floods, disease epidemics, sea level surges – already grapple with some of the challenges presented by climate change risks and seek solutions. is missing a roadmap the initiative that identifies how interventionsHowever, and partners evolve from their DRR orientation to the more complex UCCR approach. The steps in undertaking the shared learning dialogues – studies, vulnerability assessments – and the climate resilience strategies have been documented by partnerscity supportingand documentarythese While grantees. products from they do provide a body of experience on participaPhase 2 are of mixed quality, - tory, processes multi-stakeholder for initiating development of UCCR, which does not exist elsewhere. They are importantneed to be widely shared and as real-life effortsof examples peer-reviewmeet they not or whether UCCR, build to publica- tion standards. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Outcome 1 – CapacityOutcome ACCCRN initially aimed to establish a UCCR network among the 10 initiative to establish a UCCR network ACCCRN initially aimed finds therecities. The evaluation proposition is no compelling value for a network in the form web, which risks becoming a club. There of a 10 ACCCRN cities is certainly a demand and need to share experiences and information on UCCR, but informationing – a system of sharing the need is for network and services among individuals and groups having a common interest – rather than a more structured network. Cities already belong to a range of existing networks, such as the Association and the National Municipal League of of Indonesian Municipalities (APEKSI) Thailand. ACCCRN should therefore not attempt to duplicate established city ACCCRN’s networking effortsnetworks nationally or internationally. would be and city organizationsmuch better concentrated on linking individuals to existing networks and supporting them in promoting these fora. UCCR in with elected officials,ACCCRN focuses on cities and works public city managers, departments,sector thirdand private the and defining fully without sectors, “city”. What emerges from interviews and the empirical evidence is that the few key individuals who “get” UCCR are in out- driving success and could be critical scaling – helping UCCR reach a tipping point. ACCCRN should thus switch from on individuals – indi- a focus on cities to a focus viduals who are in, and concerned work with them to develop with, cities. It should processnet- Networking would encompass embed UCCR in city systems. skills to of the approach.working of these individuals as “champions” These champions ap- would be individuals in positions to have influence in cities, who have a solid preciationtakes for cities to adopt the approach, of UCCR and what it and who have the process to facilitate and build capacity on UCCR. skills Phase 3, which calls for implementation of a series of larger of a series implementation calls for which Phase 3, projects UCCR in risks losing relevancethe 10 cities, projects if these implementation and visibility are The projects scope and funding. too small in ambition, need to be sufficient- ly largeorder in scale and financing in interest to invite citywide and generate and internationalattention at national levels. ACCCRN intends for UCCR to reach well beyond the 10 cities with which it is There are two avenues for spreading the UCCR message to working directly. extend its reach: expanding to new cities, and ii) scaling-up – in- i) scaling-out – fluencing the policy arena and thereafter public sector investment by donors and having a body of ex- governments. Both avenues draw on, and are facilitated by, fromUCCR on lessons empirical and perience projectsACCCRN cities the 10 in - (Outcome 1). Scaling-out to new cities also links closely to the work on network ing (Outcome 2). 9. 10. 11. 12. 8. 13. Outcome 2 – Networks Outcome 3 – Scaling-up

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xiv ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xv Most progress through has been made in scaling-up donor investment mobilizing convening the Foundation’s Building on internationally. and nationally UCCR – in good progress in brokering has been made resources frompower, at the donors in both Thailand and Vietnam,national level. For example, USAID has committed cities in each country. grantee to expand UCCR into two new funds to an ACCCRN internationalconvened team ACCCRN RF the 2010, late In discuss to donors resulting in an agreement Foundation’s Bellagio Center, UCCR at Rockefeller around shared interest Urban Climate Change Resil- to develop a multi-donor ience Partnership potential commitments of over $200 million (UCCRP). This has fromgroupa DepartmentUK the including donors, of International for - Develop (the Germanment (DfID) and KfW Development Bank), for funding larger scale city interventions on UCCR. The proposal is for the UCCRP to be coordinated De- and managed by the Asian Urban Financing Partnershipvelopment Bank (ADB), using its existing Facility Development Initiative for Asia projectfinancing mechanism and the Cities devel- and managing the partnership.opment entity as a vehicle for establishing This provides a strong UCCR ideas. linkage for embedding Resilience PartnershipThe multi-donor Urban Climate Change is a significant be confident that its can the Foundation get established, does it If achievement. venture capital investment in ACCCRN has delivered a substantial return, which will further therefore climate change finance. UCCRP other influence needs to be bringing in skills on financial instruments,a major focus of attention for ACCCRN, and operation and programming of basket funds, as necessary. In contrast to the progress with donors, ACCCRN has had limited influence to date on national and sub-national governments in terms main- of their adopting, streaming and investing in UCCR. The need to better address national policy processesand actors recognizednow is has startedteam ACCCRN RF the and who understand and can work with the to put policy-focused grantees in place there is a need to ensuregovernance that such grantees are in However, context. place in all four countries whereACCCRN operates. Communicating the lessons from Outcome 1 – Shared Learning Dialogues and city UCCR projects the ACCCRN footprint, but progress – is central to expanding If the learningon external from ACCCRN on communications has been slow. UCCR is going to reach the direct beyond grantees and 10 cities, there needs to be a website and a resource base of UCCR documents. At this point of the particularlyprogram, given website is a deficiency, the lack of such a dedicated partnersthat leapfroggedhave producedFoundation and the websites, own their which link to their own SLD working documents. There material on ACCCRN. Many of the partners, is a paucity of published particularly at city level, do not have the institutional incentive to publish. There also has been some concern2 documents and hence about the quality of Phase the initiative needs to whether they are ready for the public domain. However, 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. move to a moremove to open-source approach avoid falling into and to documentation, conveying documents way, this In good”. the of enemy the is “best the of trap the tryingof experiences the reachUCCR implement to timely a in domain public the practitioners City-level even if they are academic quality. not of publishable way, experience and examples. need and want live ACCCRN’s present management architecture The RF is a hub-and-spoke model. partnersand grantees with initiative, the of hub the is team ACCCRN radiating organizationalout as spokes. This i) it model has the twin disadvantages that: and ii) it places the configuration to stimulate networking, is not the optimum coordination management and main burdenThe model team. ACCCRN on the RF results partners RF ACCCRN team’s interactions with in the being and grantees predominantly bilateral, with a consequent higher opportunity cost for coordinat- ing the initiative and sharing useful information and learning. Therepartnersand grantees for incentive or encouragement no is a in engage to more organic form of networking. Grantees and, to an extent, partners, generally have not sought to be more not paid networked, and the RF ACCCRN team has sufficient to achieving a more attention inter-dependent cooperative connected, way of working across ACCCRN as a whole. Coordination and management was the area most frequently identified by respon- dents as one for improvement. The Foundation initially under-appreciated the portfoliothe complexity of represented.ACCCRN task that management coor- A proposesnow team ACCCRN RF the which exists, still need dination addressing Groupby constituting a Strategy and Alignment (SAG), with the RF ACCCRN team and core grantees as members. had yet to hold its first meeting. Looking At the time of the evaluation, the SAG taking responsibilityahead, its success will depend on all members ACCCRN for and appreciating the synergies individual contributions. While a more among collaborative approach to coordination can be effective, the RF ACCCRN team needs to lead the process, overall boundaries and providing setting the an inte- grated sense of direction, grantees more and holding accountable collectively at the impact and outcome level of ACCCRN. The role of the RF ACCCRN team in trade-offnot a 3 is Phase about city level, but or at level high working at a between ensuring grantees do deliver reliably on their commitments. the SAG, there complement needs to be a change in behavior and orienta- To tion of all grantees. At present, only obligations are the those in the grant letters, There is no mutual ob- bilateral agreementsand RF. between individual grantees ACCCRN will not succeed ligation among grantees and little sense of collegiality. unless all grantees recognize inter-dependent roles their in achieving the initia- tive’s higher-level objectives and start to work more collaboratively. Grant is results-focused,RF but its results architecturenot fully concur. and tools do initiative’s resultsthe of end lower the at deliverables funds against commit letters 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Outcome 4 – Management and coordination Outcome 4 – Management

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xvi ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xvii chain. The Results Framework deals with the middle and upper ends of the results and upper ends deals with the middle Results Framework chain. The chain. There is insufficient Grantees own the two. In essence, connectivity between are and Impacts. Grantees owns Outcomes the RF ACCCRN team Activities, still uncertain grant fits with shared as to how their results in the larger initiative jigsaw, draw their focus towardsand the grant mechanisms individual activities. ACCCRN is routinely monitored using a six-month cycle by an M&E grantee, on the ACCCRN results assessment and producing framework as the basis for a report many of the other ACCCRN cycle. However, after each monitoring grantees perceive this as an exercise team and the M&E for the RF ACCCRN result,grantee alone. As a it, nor has it been used in they have not engaged with around grantees and the RF ACCCRN team discussions between grant perfor- findings could Better communication of monitoring mance and implementation. and a means to strengthenbecome a point of contact with grantees mutuality. The SAG provides the RF ACCCRN team with a good opportunity to promote the results architectureamong the core and to build commitment grantees to use monitoring information more across widely ACCCRN. forgrantees 18 to grants 36 issued has Foundation Rockefeller the date, To ACCCRN-related work, with one grantee receiving eight separate grants, and the There have been a large number of small, largest ACCCRN grant being $5.3 million. shortof been have which of many grants, overlapping efficienciesSome duration. arebeing achieved by Country Coordinator grantees sub-granting to city partners. consider how it could achieve betterIn general, the Foundation might usefully economies of scale in large grants and in multiple grants for individual grantees. ACCCRN aims to achieve impact at three levels: i) individual – improving the lives improving– city ii) people; vulnerable and poor of resiliencecities’ (adaptive) and capacities in relation to climate risks; and iii) national and global – influencing thinking, policy and practice in approaches cities. to climate change adaptation in Given the need to for individual impact, citizens are surprisingly absent from ACCCRN at this stage. The evaluation thus flags a concern that the second half of ACCCRN should ensure that poor and vulnerable people are fully and meaning- fully included in the implementation, within the context of different country and locally-specific governance systems. ofIt looks highly likely that ACCCRN’s high-level objective of “a diverse range effectiveapproaches, processes, resilchange climate urban build to practices and - ience” will be demonstrated in the 10 cities, and that this will scale-out to other cities. so that Impact measurement given due attention over the next year, needs to be learning and wider replication.data are This effort accumulated for accountability, particularly needs to pay attention to measuring changes in the lives of poor and vulnerable people, as current ACCCRN data collection systems do not address this aspect of the initiative’s planned impact. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Intended impact Recommendations of the evaluators ACCCRN is now halfway through its planned funding period. The global situation with regard to climate change and development has moved on since the Foundation first conceived of the Climate Change Initiative and ACCCRN was established. The evolution and organization of the climate change world has gathered pace and urban climate change is now an expanding field. These recommendations are designed to help the Foundation, the RF ACCCRN team and its grantees and partners ensure that ACCCRN delivers the best possible results in this growing field with the maximum impact.

The evaluation makes 14 recommendations, grouped into four main areas. A. Grant management for initiative-based philanthropy B. Implementing ACCCRN as a partnership C. Leveraging Rockefeller’s investment D. Leaving a legacy

A. Grant management for initiative-based philanthropy The Foundation, like many philanthropic organizations, is in transition from older style grant giving through investing in people and ideas, to a more focused, impact- targeted approach. In parallel, it has moved from funding projects and programs to an initiatives paradigm. These transitions affect the nature of the relationship the Foun- dation has with its grantees. ✓ Recommendation 1 Rockefeller Foundation senior management As a Foundation-wide exercise, should review how a results orientation affects grantee selection, initial negotiation of grantee roles, and the monitoring and man- agement of grantee performance individually and across initiatives.

While grants architecture has been modified to better suit a results-oriented way of working, for example with initiative results frameworks, there remain aspects of older granting behavior with grantees often charged with fairly low-level activity-based de- liverables, and initiative-wide synergies and objectives not always explicitly included in grant agreements or management processes. ✓ Recommendation 2 Rockefeller Foundation senior management and the grants office should review the content of grant letters ensuring i) that they articulate and develop grantees’ ownership of initiative objectives, and ii) that grantees are obliged to col- laborate with other initiative grantees in their delivery. They also should consider how financial resources can be better allocated to results rather than activity deliv- erables, with payment tranches linked to performance.

B. Implementing ACCCRN as a partnership To address the management and coordination issues in ACCCRN, two main changes are needed: i) a mechanism for grant portfolio management and partner coordination, xviii ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xix Leveraging the Foundation’s investment the Foundation’s Leveraging horizontal city-to-city spread, through e.g. national city networks vertical transfer of concepts and approaches to the national level, which are then spreadthrough programs,in national uptake their national leveraging policy and development budgets vertical international influencing of and multi-lateral conventions, and initiatives and bilateral donors, which will thereby achieve scale through leveraging their policies and investment. • • • Recommendation 5 team, countryFoundation ACCCRN grantees and regional coordinators into existing should and city concentrate on linking champions organizations and urban and international networks on city development national, regional climate change. C. Scaling-Out The emphasis for the second half of the program must be on scaling-out and amplifi- cation. If pro-poor adaptation interventions are to have any impact, it is essential that they be planned and carried out “across scales”. Scaling ACCCRN may happen in a number of ways. The most likely are: There and third is also a hybrid of the second points – scaling-out through influencing donor spending at national level, i.e. within countries. Networking & Networks Recommendation 4 team Foundation ACCCRN the networking of a growing network” to target concept of a “cities the should revise a range of stakeholders cities in the 10 from of UCCR champions (individuals) cadre to be framework will need results adjustments to the Appropriate and beyond. team supported by the M&E grantee. made by the RF ACCCRN Recommendation 3 Recommendation countrygrantees and the ACCCRN regional coordinators, team Foundation ACCCRN partnerships, coordinating for platform a as SAG the developing shouldon focus a and drives that, in turn, promotes and inter-dependence information sharing work. way they the change to expect All partners shouldACCCRN. in cultural shift of collegiality. degree will only succeed with a greater ACCCRN and ii) an initiative-wide cultural change towards initiative-wide cultural and ii) an a more partnership-based way of - simply a matter of in This is not less relianceworking, with bilaterally. on functioning troducingpartner biannual of set new a implies it – site network social a and meetings and requires team and ACCCRN grantees change management. The RF ACCCRN must appreciate ways of working that are the changes to established required. ✓ ✓ ✓ - inter alia, the proportionpopulations vulnerable to climate change; the of city ing complementarity among tiers of activity. ing complementarity amongof activity. tiers “mission creep”. design objectives, ACCCRN should avoid If it is to achieve its None- alreadytheless, the Foundation presence has an established in Africa through its agricultureand health Nairobiits work and office. There in work Foundation is also Thus: the urban sector. Country and ARUP coordinators by benefit perspective a cost should be analyzed from A sample of city initiatives supported by technical assistance from cities, respective and country coordinators grantee. a core Arup, Monitoring of effectiveness and impact assessment should not fall to the center of ACCCRN alone. Recommendation 9 Country coordinators should engage the (the M&E grantee) and ISET, Verulam drawing on support from city for monitoring and evaluating responsible departments in partner cities that are initia- their UCCR supportassessment of and their own promote to development tives. needed be will data 2014, in impact ACCCRN of evaluation summative a make To on, well-being status of citizens within ACCCRN cities; and the proportion of poor people within total city populations. These data are currently not being collected. Recommendation 7 Recommendation should stream, urban the in particularlythose management senior Foundation ACCCRN to leverage of the program consider the opportunities remainder in the Africa. engagement in lessons to benefit the Foundation’s – The basis for adoption Evidence Before being convinced of the effectiveness the ACCCRN approach of to UCCR and the private sector requireadopting and up-scaling it, donors and quantitative evidence, Therefore:ideally including cost-benefit analyses. Recommendation 8 Recommendation 6 Recommendation team ACCCRN Foundation a clear of development the partners, and grantees relevant shouldwith initiate, recogniz and international tiers, national city, at strategy for scaling and replication ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xx ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xxi Leaving a legacy Leaving Phase 3 projects are sufficiently large in scale and financing to invite city-wide attention and achieve scale change; Phase 3 implementation projects are well supported and conducted, properly reflected upon, and suitably recorded and reported shared. upon, with lessons • • Achieving impact Achieving ACCCRN’s The Rockefeller Foundation mission relates to the well-being of humanity. ultimate impact entails improving men and women. the lives of poor and vulnerable at present, citizens are not strongly visible in the initiative. Yet, Recommendation 12 M&E grantees’ monitoring team (both numbers An assessment of the participation of poor groups and vulnerable projects to which intervention engaged and quality of engagement) and the extent aims to benefit should be that ACCCRN groups of those incorporate the voices conducted. This could be undertaken by the M&E grantees’ monitoring team. Exiting ACCCRN tryingA key ACCCRN legacy will be the body of practical experience amassed while to achieve UCCR in 10 cities. Critical to this will be ensuring: Recommendation 11 team APCO and the Foundation ACCCRN communications grantee, should work with the RF ACCCRN the existing APCO, and Strategy, Communication ACCCRN the overarching revise and team to review to grantees, to a means by which communications support can be provided agree particularly country coordinators. D. Recommendation 10 Recommendation team ACCCRN Foundation appears to lie which assessment gap, the impact a means to address should devise grant on monitoring work in ISET’s grant and the routine both Verulam’s beyond indicators. resilience – Stimulating uptake Externalcommunications With must now focus on capital- level experience in UCCR, ACCCRN a body of field to supportizing on this knowledge and up-scaling. The remainder out- of the initiative therefore needs to increase of which external attention to its amplification activities, communications are and should not all be centrally central. Communications will not managed from ACCCRN needs to further Bangkok. mobilize the communications power of the partners, in a coordinated and supported way. ✓ ✓ ✓ Grants management for initiative-based philanthropy Grants management for initiative-based Recommendation 13 Recommendation team ACCCRN Foundation - implementa larger fewer, funding 3 projects, to Phase the approach should revise reflection and learning. sufficient capacity with for tion projects A. The management of the Foundation recognizes that the shift to a results orientation brings with it the need for more the planning, purposeful engagement of grantees in the Foundation. The Foundation is committed monitoring and evaluation of the work of to developing with grantees a shared vision of impact, measures of success, and re- spective roles not just for ACCCRN, but for all Foundation in achieving outcomes, Initiatives and partnerships into which the Foundation engages. ACCCRN and other Initiative teams and regional achieve this, officesTo will convene grantees to develop a shared of desired understanding outcomes, and to strength- en the collection and use of monitoring data. Initiative staff will also participate in ongoing training and coaching to strengthen their skills in managing toward results. The Foundation is also committed to continuing to strengthen the processes and throughmeans agreementsgrant which are agreedand developed grantees. with This includes clearer with grantees about initiative strategy to create communication stronger work and initiative goals. The Foundation alignment between the grantees’ reviewwill recentlyupdate and awarddeveloped describe that addendums letter initiative strategy and ensure specifically describe how a grant is contributing they to an initiative and the related expected of grantees. The Foundation’s deliverables RF management response to the recommendationsof the evaluators and The Foundation welcomes the findings the ACCCRN recommendations of Mid-Term commends the rigor with which the evaluation was Evaluation, and the RF ACCCRN team for its willingness and openness to also thank conducted. We engage in a rigorous evaluation. areand partners grantees Initiative and its of the note the achievements pleased to We the timely and constructivein the first phase of its work as well as suggestions for im- provements. Recognizing that timely feedback is essential to mid-course corrections and fine tuning performance, the Foundation has considered the recommendations and proposes the following actions: Recommendation 14 Recommendation The Foundation fully reflected are lessons 3 Phase ensure to year one by ACCCRN should extend and shared. upon, documented ✓ ✓

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xxii ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xxiii The Foundation will make a three-year grant award

Leveraging the Foundation’s investment investment the Foundation’s Leveraging Implementing ACCCRN as a partnership Implementing ACCCRN NETWORKING AND NETWORKS. AND NETWORKING C. agreesFoundation The the recommendationwith replicationfor strategy a initiate to and scaling-up. The Foundation has seen early successes in laying the groundwork for the emerging is an appropriate UCCR field and, thus, believes that now time in the B. The Foundation finds the strengtheningrecommendations of the Evaluators helpful in the coordination aspects of ACCCRN work with externalpartners, well as suggest- as ing different to consider in evolving the management of ACCCRN. models of operation However we note that with respect to management performance the ACCCRN Team has a solid record of exemplifying good management practice within the Founda- tion (strong team processes, good use of management information, regular learning had already addressed a number note that the ACCCRN Team processes, etc). We of the concernsthe evaluators prior to the evaluation. For example, they have fa- of and Alignment Groupcilitated the establishment of a Strategy (SAG) through which partners with greater collective ownership, in a more can work coordinated manner, and with greater a platform clarity on the overall goals of the Initiative. The SAG is for jointly-owned strategy development, information sharing and guidance to inform RF decision making. In futurequestions are evaluations if management addressedthe by ensurewill we evaluators, internalthe both of view complete a have teams the that and external practices of the Initiative team being evaluated. management improvedprocess diligence due and ability the understand to better us enable will toward the grantee to deliver capacity of outcomes. initiative agreenot does Foundation The performanceto payments tying that than rather is an appropriatespecific deliverables Rather it prefersroute to pursue. to continue to strengthen linked to the clarity and specificity of deliverables respective initiatives results Further, frameworks. not agree the Foundation does that where the Foun- always make a single grants to the same grantee, it should dation makes multiple grant. longer- Where appropriate,fewer larger, will strive to make Foundation the term grants; however circumstances often require distinct grants. The Foundation will closely review the role and performance of large intermediaries. to support strengthening network late 2011. A range of ACCCRN partners in will be included to ensure activities, coordinated collective buy-in to the objectives and by a core grantee (Arup) that will have the capacity to play a strong role in vertical lever- and forums.and linking with other networks aging This will build on earlier work to Forum,Knowledge ACCCRN establish an on promotionfocus will and horizontal of knowledge and exchange among cities and practitioners, national policy engagement, and mobilization of new resources for urban climate change resilience. The network throughsustainability on emphasis an include will strategy additional with linking donors and knowledge platforms so that its functions can be sustained beyond the timeframe of RF funding. Given the methodological complexity and cost Provision quality consultancy advice to country of high and city partners to to scale city-level projects;leverage donor funding Promotion the field to scale for financing new of significant projects through the Resilience PartnershipUrban Climate Change (UCCRP);1[1] throughInvesting in documentation a new partnership with the International EnvironmentInstitute of networking, building, and Development (IIED), capacity dissemination; communications and Investing in country and in a new partnership policy engagement with the Interna- tional Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) to increase access urban climate change resilienceto academic and practical training on across a larger cohort of government, and private sector practitioners; civil society of the first ten cities that will enable a morePiloting tools based on the experience rapid adoption of urban resilience practices in new cities in India. UCCRP, a multi-donor partnership that has been mobilized by the RF ACCCRN team, seeks to establish a multi-donor partnership that has been mobilized by the RF ACCCRN UCCRP, [1] a $100mn grant fund for the expansion of innovations in the field of urban climate change resilience. As in the field of urban climate change innovations of a $100mn grant fund for the expansion donors prominent the fund, and several to host Bank has agreed Asian Development described above,the commitment shown a strong have Department for International Development including the United Kingdom’s fund would then be linked to parallel financing (debt, equity) for such a fund. This core resources to providing has also been expressed. interest for which active sector, the private banks and potentially development from

• • • • • EVIDENCE – THE BASIS FOR ADOPTION. FOR BASIS THE – EVIDENCE of undertaking climate change-sensitive cost-benefit analysis, the ACCCRN team will explore the opportunity of accurate cost-benefit analyses to support high quality, selected city initiatives that can be undertaken at relatively low cost, particularly in the context of the additional documentation resources being considered in the proposed IIED partnership to scale-up documentation and lesson-learning. The team also will supplementarya consider award En- for Institute the grantee, ACCCRN existing an to vironmental Transition and Social (ISET), to undertake such cost-benefit analysis case India. studies on, for example, the new Peri-Urban Agriculture Project in Gorakhpur, Initiative to devote greater devote to Initiative resources and focus date to investments the leveraging to for greater a clearer ACCCRN team is developing impact. The scaling and strategy for replicationlink three which will streams among donors, leveraging funds of work: key actors, and projectnetworking among a funding at city level. This will include number of key elements: These investments will address expertise both the generation of new financing, and policy support such (the supply side) as well as the expansion of city capacity to absorb for the majority of additional resourcesinvestments (the demand side), and account that are being requested in order to maximize the full impact potential of this work. scaling-up of effortsIf successful, it would enable a significant ACCCRN in existing cities plus initiation of UCCR work in approximately 40 new cities. to exploreIn late 2012, the Foundation will begin lessons from how to leverage in Africa. The Foundation could facilitate ACCCRN to benefit our engagement and mayors or ministers of local governmentmeetings between ACCCRN grantees in African cities in either a road show format or convening to discuss the work of action plan for similar work in Africa. ACCCRN with the aim of developing an 1

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xxiv ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xxv The RF ACCCRN team agrees The Foundation sees the value in funding projects that are of large Leaving a legacy Leaving EXITING ACCCRN. EXITING ACCCRN. EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS – STIMULATING UPTAKE. STIMULATING – COMMUNICATIONS EXTERNAL that country coordinators more and other stakeholders need communications support, and will endeavor to provide it through enhanced investments in the existing commu- nications grantee, APCO, and through integrating the work of a Communications OfficerAsia in the We regional officeincreasinglyare confident (proposed for 2012). deliveryof the capacity of APCO to step up its in areas website such as the ACCCRN new dissemination channels, providing(launched in August 2011), generating media supportand coordinating effective ACCCRN presence regionalcritical at global and further discussing be will forums.support We and – 2011 beyond grant its extend to – will use this to revisit the overall communications strategy. D. The Foundation fully appreciates the importance of having an impact on the lives that, in part,of vulnerable communities, but feels the evaluators have not made a sufficient between participation distinction early ACCCRN and impact. Many of the processes were to include the participation not designed of poor and vulnerable groups (e.g. technical studies on climate impacts) while others were (e.g. community we do fully agree that specific interventionsvulnerability assessments). However, that emerge from processes these should benefit poor and vulnerable populations, either the M&E grantee, with Verulam, The ACCCRN team will work directly or indirectly. to clarify the ACCCRN and impact goals to carefully assess how our design processes and how M&E indicators can better capture need to be adjusted, progress in this regard. The ACCCRN team will utilize the SAG mechanism to strengthen the SAG mechanism team will utilize The ACCCRN - city-level monitor ing and ensure with ACCCRN results alignment there indicators. While framework is in termsa natural lag of producing results, team will step the ACCCRN as an interim and documentation across to generate new knowledge, evidence also engage grantees the ACCCRN partnership on a more real-time basis. - to adjust data collec will work with the M&E grantee, Verulam, The ACCCRN team tion methods in order to link routine monitoring data more effectively to impact as- explore will utilizing the resilience the possibility of better sessment needs. Verulam indicators are These through being developed a consultative indicators work of ISET. process partners with city to reflect the characteristics of at the level of resilience and systems, and can servehouseholds, communities an important as to complement the formal work. evaluation scale, or that are team has been working with country scalable. The ACCCRN coordi - nators to generate larger projects and the average project size has increased through in linking ACCCRN projectshas been actively engaged also team ACCCRN 2011. The to largerand hydrology donor investments, such as a water supply assessment in Danang, Vietnam, that would enable the incorporation of a climate change perspec- tive into an $80 million water infrastructure investment by the Asian Development Bank. In addition, the Foundation strongly feels that the evidence and feedback from external stakeholders (technical experts, donors, and governments) suggests that the variety of projectsof variety arethat emergingthis in ACCCRN under generated being field has considerable learningmerit and leveraging value. As such, the Foundation sees in generating diverse projects would not as a critical contribution to the field and such diversity. envisage always prioritizing scale over Through conducting a rigorous Mid-Term Evaluation, the Foundation is in a position correctionsto make a range of deliberate course and new investments that would enable a high performing and impact in a initiative to achieve significant influence highly relevant above in terms field. Much of what has been described of proposed aroundinvestments and strategies new policy training, networking, documentation, and resourceengagement, dissemination, communications leveraging are intended also enable moreto enhance the impact of ACCCRN, but sustainability and a path through which the Foundation can exit. As such, the Foundation is requesting an ad- ditional appropriation with a 2-year of $16.6 million, extension for making awards to 2014 and payout to 2016.

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xxvi ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xxvii AUSTRALIA TIMOR-LESTE VIETNAM Da Nang Can Tho BRUNEI INDONESIA MALAYSIA Semarang Quy Nhon Da Nang Can Tho VIETNAM Bandar Lampung CAMBODIA LAOS Hat Yai Rai THAILAND THAILAND Chang Rai Hat Yai Chiang CHINA MONGOLIA BURMA BHUTAN

BANGLADESH INDONESIA Semarang Bandar Lampung Gorakhpur NEPAL SRI LANKA INDIA KYRGYZSTAN Indore Surat TAJIKISTAN KAZAKHSTAN UZBEKISTAN INDIA INDIA Gorakhpur Indore Surat PAKISTAN

AFGHANISTAN

TURKENISTAN

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK xxviii IRAN AZERBAJAN ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 1 Mid-term evaluation This mid-term evaluation was conducted in March2011, three and April years into the imple- work of ACCCRN, which now is moving into a phase dominated by city-level mentation projects. This is a formative evaluation, meant to provide learning for mid- course corrections and improvements in the strategy and implementation of ACCCRN by assessing how ACCCRN is performing against its results framework. A summative evaluation will be undertaken at the completion of ACCCRN. According to recent ac- will live in cities, 2.5 billion Asians by 2025, nearly studies, for almost 54 percentcounting Sankhje, (Dobbs and the world’s urban population of increased2010). This at increased puts communities urbanization impacts risk of the of climate hazards. was launched in Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) The Asian Cities Climate resilience change to build climate actions range of a 2007 to test and demonstrate in urban areas. now works with 10 Asian cities across It India, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, supporting and implementing climate resilience them in developing strate- of threegies. ACCCRN is one Foundation’s Developing Climate components of the to ACCCRN, has a component on Initiative, which, in addition Change Resilience AgricultureAfrican Adapting for a component and Resilience, Change Climate for for climate change resiliencebuilding new constituencies policy in the United States. City-level climate resilience strategies in developing countries are important since cities are considered, and promoted of economic growth, as, engines accounting for an increasing share income. Through of national the cities’ resilience strategies, the Foundation hopes to improve the lives of poor and vulnerable men and women. rather than Asia’s veryACCCRN selected “second-tier” cities large metropolitan areas because larger cities have already attracted the attention of large donors and interna- tional financial institutions to support climate change mitigation and adaptation activi- ties while second-tier cities, where urbanization is generally more rapid, have received much less support. In linking its participating cities and other partners hopes to into a network, ACCCRN on urban climate change resiliencefacilitate sharing of practical knowledge (UCCR), a termthe project.by coined a replicable This includes building learned,base of lessons successes and failures, assisting cities in developing climate change resilience-build- ing processes, them. Ini- and also building their capacity to implement and continue scaling-out to new cities, and enhancing sus- tiative goals also call for scaling-up and tainability through building an effective and efficient ACCCRN team that is relevant the fact that all 10 cities have in spite of and accountable to stakeholders. However, developed city resilience (CRSs), which exhibit a number of resilience strategies features, most are still grappling with the concept. Thus ACCCRN activities also focus on raising public understanding of the importance of factoring resilience goals into climate change activities. Introduction considers the relevancethe considers of concept central its and initiative the of of the evaluation presents of the evaluation the background context for ACCCRN’s and considers ACCCRN’s impact and sustainability within the results draws together the lessons emerging from the findings in the previous presents formative recommendations the Foundation, the Founda- to help responds directly to the evaluation questions in the evaluation’s terms of

concerns 2 – knowledge networking on climate change resil Outcome - focuses on Outcome 1 – building the capacity of cities to plan, finance, 1 – building the capacity of cities focuses on Outcome focuses on Outcome 4 – the organization and management of ACCCRN. covers Outcome 3 – scaling-up UCCR, particularly covers Outcome 3 – scaling-up UCCR, to new cities and new work and outlines the methods used in this evaluation. used in this evaluation. outlines the methods work and CHAPTER 2 2 CHAPTER CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER UCCR, vis-à-vis other approachesUCCR, vis-à-vis other the effects to tackling of climate change and arewhat other donors field. It also discusses the doing or planning to do in this throughevolution of ACCCRN of initiative development the Foundation’s stages engagement with cities. and ACCCRN’s deepening 2. 1. CHAPTER 8 8 CHAPTER 9 CHAPTER 10 CHAPTER CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER 5 CHAPTER CHAPTER 3 CHAPTER The next four chapters consider the ACCCRN Outcomes 1–4 in turn. consider the ACCCRN Outcomes The next four chapters tion ACCCRN team and its partnerstion ensure that ACCCRN delivers the best possible resultsimpact. The recommendations which have a maximum are presented under four headings: ience. This mainly considers different types of, and approaches networking to to, support goals. ACCCRN’s framework. In the three chapters: concluding coordinateresiliencechange climate implement and takes ACCCRN’s This strategies. learning-by-doing how this learning model and considers relates to other approaches to climate change. It then reviews the process used to select the participating cities, the development of the cities’ resilience implementa- strategies, and the selection and tion of UCCR projects in the cities. donors. This chapter reflectschapter This donors. increasing for avenues main two the on a of adoption the UCCR approach: scaling-out to new cities through expansion, and scaling-up through influencing the policy arenadonors and gov- and, thence, public sector investment by ernments. It also reviews use of communications as part ACCCRN’s of its efforts to increase awareness and use of the UCCR approach. chapters, It considers the architecture ACCCRN, the structural of relationship among the main organizations the coordination involved, and management of the initiative, efficiency of resource the use of a results-based use, management approachin a grant-based risk analysis. initiative, the M&E of ACCCRN, and ACCCRN’s reference, under five standard evaluation headings, and

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 2 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 3 Terms Reference of Definitions Grant Summary Sheet ProjectsStatus of Phase 2 Engagement Stream Framework ACCCRN Work Evaluation Matrix People Interviewed Grant management for initiative-based philanthropy for initiative-based Grant management partnership ACCCRN as a Implementing Rockefeller’s investment Leveraging Leaving a legacy • • • • Annexes 1–7 can be found at www.rockfound.org Annexes 1–7 can be Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4 Annex 5 Annex 6 Annex 7 4 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 5

2 1 countries agreed in principle 2

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa India, China Brazil, Russia,

emissions by 2050. The major industrialized and BRICS emissions by 2050. The major industrialized to a global cap-and-trade system for emissions as the basis for a replacementto a global cap-and-trade system for emissions to Kyoto. It was these implications for the futureIPCC, together with a general as laid out by the lack of action and a general bias towards provided mitigation, which the context for a adaptation. Foundation initiative on climate change The Foundation sees resilience as a core and highly relevant approach to addressing uncertaintiesthe uncertainthe to due change, climate of nature impacts. climate of A 2009 Foundation White Paper expressed the importance of resilience, pointing out possibly preparethat no one individual or institution can for or recover from all of the resilientpotential climate change scenarios, while systems survive greater a range of situations when faced with extreme or unexpected impacts, because they “fail grace- giving time to recover key functions” (Rockefeller Foundation, 2009). Under this fully, approach,emerge systems from resources,the combining individuals institutions, processesand of case the in which functions, specific of set a accomplish to needed resilience, redundancies also includes building of resources, multiple response paths and safety nets. Urban development brings increased vulnerability to climate hazards, but the impact of climate change results from more than exposure settlements to climate of urban risks. Understanding urban climate change resilience (UCCR) also requires rec- ognizing that socio-economic issues, gender equity and governance structures are For example, in terms of the socio-economic key determinants of adaptive capacity. children, minority groups and women, the elderly, dimension, evidence suggests that the urban poor are particularly vulnerable to climate risks. 2 Developing Climate Change Resilience the Developing Climate Change Resilience The Rockefeller Foundation developed Initiative in 2006 and 2007, when the Intergovernmental Climate Change Panel on (IPCC) had produced its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) emphasizing the likely the ratify to yet had countries developed major time, that At change. climate of extent Kyoto protocol, of halving global CO although the 2007 G8 Summit had set a goal ACCCRN background ACCCRN 1. – an assessment of the rationale, niche, role,comparative advantage and et al. (2007) Asia was 31.9 percent urban in 1990, 37.1 percent urban in 2000, Methods Intersection of urbanization and climate change and of urbanization Intersection To what extent is ACCCRN based on a sound rationale that fits with need? what extent To does ACCCRN have a clear role what extent and comparative advantage in the To field of UCCR in developing countries? What is ACCCRN’s value proposition, and to what extent is it adding this value? • • • RELEVANCE The evaluation, conducted by a team of five consultants over a period of about four The evaluation, conducted by a team of five consultants over a period of about weeks, used a combination of document review and semi-structured interview tech- niques. Structured around evalu- an evaluation matrix (shown in Annex 6), it used the set develop a (DAC) to Committee criteria of the OECD Development Assistance ation of evaluation questions and sub-questions to address the Terms of Reference (shown in Annex 1) and to guide the interviews.focused on The main evaluation questions areas of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. In combining urbanization with climate change, ACCCRN brings together two of the ACCCRN brings together climate change, urbanization with In combining areasFoundation’s According and climate change. – urbanization of work Satter- to thwaite and reached 42.5 percent in 2010. Dobbs and Sankhe (2010) predicted urban that by for almost 54 percent Asians would live in cities, accounting 2025, nearly 2.5 billion of very while Additionally, the world’s urban population. large metropolitan cities already largethe attention of attract international and donors to support institutions financial where and adaptation, second-tier cities, climate change mitigation is urbanization generally more rapid, have received much less attention. just about population growth.Urbanization is not economic growth It is about and the demand that increased population places on the services cities provide and, in turn, respond.to abilities cities’ about acrossvaries This region.the invested has China powerfulheavily in urban planning and has made political appointees as mayors, whereas India has underinvested, devolved little real power and accountability to its that has largelycities, and has an urban-planning system failed to address competing urban realityto its up waking still is “India Thus space. for demands opportuand the - nities that its cities offer for economic and social transformation” (Dobbs and Sankhe, 2010). the seriousness of the combined effectsACCCRN has been a pioneer in highlighting strategy papers fromof urbanization and climate change. Recent two multilateral or- (2011), support (2010) and UN-HABITAT Bank the rationale ganizations, the World for ACCCRN. The ACCCRN approach, illustrated in the intersecting circles of Figure 1, is operation- throughalized and vulnerability assessment change climate analysis, systems urban intersection of these threeassessments. Resilience operates at the areas. value added of ACCCRN. 1.2 1.1

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 6 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 7 What are the direct and the direct What are impacts indirect of climate change? RISK URBAN URBAN CHANGE CHANGE CLIMATE CLIMATE direct impact direct change Climate Urban systems irect impact irect DISASTER Resilience D indirect impact indirect – an assessment of the products and services planned and provided, the to shocks and stresses Who is least able to respond Who is least able to respond groups To what extent has ACCCRN achieved its planned outcomes? what extent To have the capacities of individuals, institutions and networks, what extent To policies and resources been increased, and to what extent has ACCCRN contrib- uted to these changes? How effective has ACCCRN been in developing a shared vision for the program with key stakeholders? is ACCCRN based on clear and shared what extent program logic, theoryTo of change and results framework? Vulnerable • • • • EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS changes or outcomes that have occurred, as well as the impact ACCCRN has had on the capacity of individuals, institutions and networks, policies and resources. Effectiveness in achieving high quality results: Effectiveness at the formative stage: URBAN URBAN POVERTY POVERTY REDUCTION

The ACCCRN approach The ACCCRN How does : Arup, 2010a. : Arup, the city work? FIGURE 1: 1: FIGURE SOURCE

3 – An assessment of the extent to which ACCCRN develops both – An assessment of the use of resources to obtain results, including the – An assessment of the changes in the state and condition of people and the and condition of people changes in the state of the An assessment – (outputs)? what extent are the products and services:To of high quality? of sufficient quantity to bring about change? What unexpected direct and indirect positive and negative UCCR changes have occurred as a result of ACCCRN, and what are the lessons derived for this? To what extent has ACCCRN provided the planned products and servicesTo Has ACCCRN used program funds efficiently to obtain results and demonstrate value for money? are what extent the human and financial To resources appropriate to deliver the ACCCRN strategy? has the Rockefeller Foundation demonstrated best management what extent To and governance ACCCRN? practices in the oversight and guidance of To what extent has ACCCRN developed both financial and/or institutional support what extent To to continue its work after project terminates? funding are what extent the resultsTo ACCCRN has achieved likely to be sustained? Principally conceptual frameworks for UCCR and resilience strategies Principally conceptual frameworks for UCCR and resilience

• • • • • • • • • • SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT EFFICIENCY environmentdirecta as live they which in indirector result Foun- the of work the of extent to which the Rockefeller Foundation uses best management and governanceextent to which the Rockefeller Foundation practices, and to what extent are those practices providing good value for money. 3 financial and/or institutional support to continue the work initiated by ACCCRN.

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 8 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 9 desk reviewdesk documentation, grant including – documents of stakeholder interviews with: field visits to ACCCRN grantees and partners field visits to ACCCRN grantees and in the 10 Asian cities analytical review of the portfolio under the of all grants funded climate change leaders, policy-makers and practitioners in Asia and globally and practitioners in Asia and globally climate change leaders, policy-makers partner organizations and other climate change funders in Asia and globally including the President;RF staff Vice President, Foun- and New York, in Asia dation Initiatives (VPFI); Vice President, Strategy & Evaluation (VPSE); Chief Operating Officer (COO); all ACCCRN and Climate Change Initiative team members other relevant Initiative and operations staff. of the Initiative • • • regional trip reports, work plans, conference reports, financial reporting, budgets and monitoring reports. COMPONENT 4: 4: COMPONENT COMPONENT 1: COMPONENT 2: COMPONENT 3: COMPONENT ACCCRN Initiative To what extent has ACCCRN achieved its planned outcomes and contributed to achieved its planned outcomes and contributed what extent has ACCCRN To its intended impact? What unexpected direct and indirect and negative UCCR changes have positive occurred result as a of ACCCRN, and what are the lessons derived from this? • • • • • • For Component 2, the field visits, the evaluation team included a team leader and For Component 2, the field visits, the two pairs of consultants from Indonesia, Vietnam India, (Durban and South Africa country- the cover to change) climate urban of field the in city pioneering a is and city-level assessments. The country pairs were India and Indonesia, and Vietnam and Thailand. Each pair of consultants visited both countries, spending two to three days in the capital cities interviewing the country coordinators, government representa- tives, donors and NGOs. They then visited the participating cities together or sepa- rately for up to three days, to interview city coordinators, members of the ACCCRN city advisory committee and city working groups, and other stakeholders, particularly in city government. one country The team leader joined each pair in and undertook most of the stakeholder interviews (Component 3). dation, its grantees and partners.and grantees its dation, instances most in that understood generally is It but that many and its grantees alone, the Foundation not be achieved by impact will level of change. contribute to this others will Informed by theory-based approaches, this formative was organized evaluation around Results Framework, and concerned the ACCCRN relation with the causative - outcomes and impact. As a mid-termships among outputs, attention evaluation less The approachwas paid to impact. was also informed by process evaluation approaches to and implemented being was initiative the well, how and orderin how, understand to make recommendations for mid-course corrections. The evaluation included four main components: 10 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 11 2 4

Relevance of urban climate change resilienceRelevance of urban climate See Annex 2 for definitions of common climate change terms See Annex

4 The Rockefeller Foundation has made resilienceThe Rockefeller Foundation has made a core concept of its work. In light of transformationsystemic “dynamic, the to respondneeded is that consequences to the of climate change, especially future impacts that are difficult to predict,” the Foun- resilienceconsiders dation morea comprehensiveand positive accurate, term than ACCCRN itself refersadaptation (Rockefeller Foundation, 2009). change re to climate - or individual system, organization,silience as “the capacity over time of a community, and implement multiple adaptive actions.” to create, alter, The Foundation has identified a number of basic elements required for climate change resilience in Box 1, can be integrated to produce – elements that, as shown a systems response is a conceptually appropriate to climate change. UCCR and robust approach to climate change in cities, albeit a complex one. A recent review under the DFID-funded Strengthening Climate Resilience (SCR) Programme (Bahadur et al., 2010) found that the term “resilience” is increasingly used within policies, practical programming and thinking around both climate change adaptation (CCA) and disaster risk reduction (DRR). There is increased recognition of the value of mainstreaming climate change adaptation into disaster risk reduction activities to reduce and increase vulnerability 2011). resilience (Harris and Bahadur, In particular, the term “climate resilient is increasingly development” used to describe This chapter considers the relevance resilience of ACCCRN and urban climate change (UCCR) in the context of other approaches to addressing climate change, as well as what other donors are doing or planning to do in this field. what it considers the threeThe Rockefeller Foundation has identified stages of an ini- tiative, while ACCCRN is working through and implemen- four phases of development activities over the Rockefeller Founda- tation. This chapter superimposes ACCCRN’s relationship,tion’s initiative stages to show their close ACCCRN’s and then discusses deepening engagement with cities. 2.1 Strategy relevance and 2. Rockefeller Foundation, 2009. Foundation, 2009. Rockefeller SOURCE: SOURCE: to prepare for identified impacts for to prepare Planning and foresight possible to plan for every While it is impossible and risks. effect cases the cumulative and in many set of impacts, itself brings of impacts is unknown, planning process the resilience. builds skills and helps create learning, response Diversity and decentralization of planning, has greater of options A diversity activities. and recovery particularpotential to match the scenario of impacts parts while decentralization allows for of the that occurs, if other parts of the even to continue operations system down. are system not happen gracefully, Break-downs Plans for failure. catastrophically the extent to which cities understand the complexity of urban climate change the extent to which cities understand the complexity of urban climate change resilience the extent to which cities distinguish between disaster risk management, urban climate change adaptation, and urban climate change resilience • • whererisk reductiondisaster and adaptation change climate povertywith intersect a phrase to describe tackling climate change and development, and is now becoming impacts in a development context. While the various approaches to climate change response may be somewhat blurred or overlapping, distinctions remain. 1, the resilience As shown in Table approach has governancepolycentric includes it as multi- is and degreehighest the complexity, of scale, long term and calls for self-organization. The review SCR Programme of the also found that the increased recognition of “re- silience” in the climate change adaptation, disaster reduction risk and development fields perhaps it due, in part, was represents a readily to the fact that, semantically, recognizablereturnto ability the – concept previousa to quickly condition. good) (and It also found “resilience” used across a range of disciplines with multiple and diverse meanings. While UCCR is a relevant and ACCCRN has developed a sound approach concept, through three which to operationalize UCCR, issues emerge for ACCCRN in relation to UCCR: BOX 1 at individual, organizational and systemic and systemic at individual, organizational Flexibility and contribute able to respond with each level levels, and to shifting to respond to each situation, and circumstances. unpredictable for including skills needed Multi-faceted skill set and detail- such as comprehensiveness preparation, such as quick decision-making orientation; for survival, such as recovery, and for rapid and resourcefulness; and diligence. innovation and response capacities Redundancy of processes, within an institution, community or system, pathways or within a system which allows for partial failure institution without complete collapse. to planning multi-sector approaches Collaborative No one sector has a monopoly and recovery. execution, on a particular impact and thus understanding the and gaps between sectors is critical. overlaps Features of climate change resilience of climate Features

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 12 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 13 There is evidence RESILIENCE APPROACH RESILIENCE Keep approach polycentric, polycentric, approach Keep participatory of Emphasize the interaction to act at all multiple scales & need scales Plan for long-term future public sector, society, civil Involve managers resource capacity Enhance systematic self-organization, for learning, recovery of rapid, Minimize probability change undesirable and irreversible VULNERABILITY APPROACH VULNERABILITY Centralize, based on social contract Centralize, with public sector communities, Identify places, groups Identify past and present vulnerabilities vulnerable Include public sector, groups likely to populations most Protect harm experience Minimize social inequity in current impacts; maximize capacities of groups disadvantaged the extent to which the differencesthe extent adaptation and resilience between have wider change. in the field of climate implications the extent to which cities understand the complexity of urban climate change the extent to which cities understand the complexity of urban climate change resilience the extent to which cities distinguish between disaster risk management, urban climate change adaptation, and urban climate change resilience the extent to which the differences between adaptation and resilience have wider implications in the field of climate change. • • • • IS THE CONCEPT BEHIND THE PHRASE UNDERSTOOD AND SPREADING? AND UNDERSTOOD PHRASE THE BEHIND CONCEPT THE IS The review of the SCR Programme also found that the increased recognition of “re - disaster reductionsilience” in the climate change adaptation, development risk and fields perhaps it was due, in part,represents a readily to the fact that, semantically, recognizablereturn to ability the – concept previousa to quickly condition. good) (and It also found “resilience” used across a range of disciplines with multiple and diverse meanings. While UCCR is a relevant approach concept, and ACCCRN has developed a sound through which to operationalize UCCR, three issues emerge in relation for ACCCRN to UCCR: that some people understand the concept and are using it to shape their work. While resiliencecity developed have cities 10 all aremost (CRSs), strategies grappling still resilienceWhether concept. the with approachplanning a as embedded becomes in cities will depend on the success of continued reflection and learning dialogues (the Phase 2 Shared Learning Dialogues [SLDs]) in Phase 3, and the institutionalization of city advisory committees (CACs) and city working groups (CWGs). ADAPTATION APPROACH ADAPTATION Democratic decentralization Sector focus Short- risks and medium-term partnerships Public-private risks known & evolving Address at reduction Maximum loss minimal cost Policy attributes of different climate change approaches attributes of different Policy

POLICY POLICY Miller et al., 2008. ATTRIBUTE Governance system to system Governance manage process Spatial scale of implementation of emphasis Temporal implementation Actors goal Policy outcome Desired TABLE 1: TABLE SOURCE: This question operates at a number of ACCCRN relevance ACCCRN should use the termACCCRN should use change adaptation”, at the very “climate least for strategic reasons arena in the adaptation funding resiliencedesired the is climate change, to to adapt taken actions of outcome meaning that resilience is the desired Foun- “end state of adaptation” (Rockefeller dation, 2011a). • • DID, AND DOES, ACCCRN RESPOND TO A NEED? NEED? A TO RESPOND ACCCRN DOES, AND DID, levels – from– levels through needs citizens’ prepareto need global the to needs cities’ for climate change. The following looks at how ACCCRN addresses rec UN-HABITAT’s - ommended approach climate change into urban planning. to incorporating agreedcommitments change climate national that Realizing through international most of the mecha- negotiations require local action, yet according to UN-HABITAT, nisms within the international primarily address climate change framework national governments and “do not indicate a clear process by which local governments, stake- directlyACCCRN 2011), targets may participate”actors and holders (UN-HABITAT, this local demand for mechanisms. York Only a handful of city-wide initiatives – such as in London, Durban and New – have begun to grasp the need to address some of the complex linkages between At an ACCCRN Workshop held in Bali in 2011, there held in Bali by the ACCCRN was debate, led Workshop At an ACCCRN Advisory resilience i.e. adaptation vs. Foundation, (Rockefeller Board on terminology, 2011a). Two key points were made: of resilienceAlthough the idea not seem to cohere as an “end state” does with the of the systems” definition or with a number Foundation’s “dynamic resilience models reviewed SCR Programme, by the it does resonate resilience with the fact that is an in the ACCCRN resultsimpact-level objective framework. The concern terminology about and climate finance is pertinent and relates to and associated resourceACCCRN’s Outcome 3 – scaling-up – brokering activities. The Advisory Board view was that primary funding streams with “climate identify needs to avoid exclusion fromadaptation” finance, and that the Foundation replication the Advisory opportunitiesHowever, due to semantics. Boardadaption that also noted that ACCCRN has the potential to is still a young and evolving field, and refine and re-define what climate change adaptation is. ACCCRN therefore needs to consult with partnersconsidereda take and terminologyover decision with stay to way a finding – definition of stated its more but also align with a resilience of use evolving and fluid terminologythe field. It is worth in April 2011, Internet noting that as of searches revealed very few hits for “UCCR” that were not in some way related to ACCCRN. enthusiasm among donors for add to this discussion, the evaluation found some To resilienceresiliencesaw They adaption. than rather supportingas planning in cities for an uncertain future, was viewed as trying while adaptation to address better quan- for down-scaling climate models and data to tified risks, which was driving a demand a resolution at which accuracy was severely compromised. 2.2

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 14 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 15 develop a vision of wheredevelop a vision of to go and find ways to they want their development relate change responses climate aspirations to urban development community participationexpand the scope of and action by representatives of the neighborhoods (especially the poor) and grassroots groups, as well private sector, as opinion leaders of all kinds an inclusive, participatoryconduct vulnerability assessments using process to identify common and differentiated urban development plans and risks to their differenttheir and ways to reduce sectors, and decide on objectives demographic those risks. • • • mitigation, adaptation and development, and have launched programs accordingly. launched programs and have adaptation and development, mitigation, accordingly. According one, is to and it is an immense “The challenge, (2011), to UN-HABITAT a global responseknit together in which a wide variety and potentials, to urban needs of partners the elite group what they do best”. ACCCRN is expanding each contribute of cities addressing this complex area. urban policy-makers should begin suggests that the local level, UN-HABITAT For from an awareness and preferences, of local development aspirations local knowledge realitieslocal options, and needs of innova- for potential local and choices shape that urban local authorities should: tion. In this context, ACCCRN directly addresses this recommended approach to incorporating climate change into urban planning, and thus addresses local need, as expressed on the global stage. The urban focus is highly relevant. City-level climate resilience strategies in devel- oping countries are very important since cities are considered, and promoted as, growth,economic of engines an increasingfor accounting sharenational income of growth(Vliet, 2002; HPEC, 2010). While demographic in metropolises has slowed and capital cities, it has increased in middle-level cities – although the increase has taken Larger metrosand cities economic of concentration a with way. unplanned an in place arepolitical power and able to increase infrastructureinvestment, both from public and private sources, therebyprioritizing investment in both climate mitigation and adaptation. appropriateis it Thus, wherecities, medium-level on focus to pressurestwin the of absorbing a growing to higher natural growth population (due and migration) and providing services these cities have paid infrastructure and economic combine. Yet less attention to long-term planning (Kundu, 2009). this macroTaking context into consideration, ACCCRN is very relevant, with a urban de- distinct comparative advantage, able to add significant value in the national velopment field. climate The ACCCRN team members have simultaneously shaped the field of urban change resilience and responded to the needs of that field. At the outset of ACCCRN, While cities, particularlyunderstanding of climate change resilience was new. coastal cities, were risk reduction, planning for disaster planning for the uncertain effects of climate change remained many. novel for However, awareness is currentlyHowever, limited to the 5 ACCCRN evolution SLDs are explained in detail in Chapter 3. in detail in Chapter explained SLDs are

5 This section outlines the phases and summarizes the evolution of ACCCRN, which This section outlines the phases and summarizes the evolution of ACCCRN, will be further expanded upon in the following chapters. It also shows the correspon- ACCCRN has presentedACCCRN a carefully change of climate balanced blend of supply-push awareness (responding and demand-pull (field building) to needs for information and approaches). into implementation of resilienceAs ACCCRN moves projects (its Phase 3), there many cities, pull is now strongeris evidence that for cities than push – ACCCRN are and looking for approaches, “getting it”, and information. models For example, understood in Indonesia, whereACCCRN is clearly the city advisory committees change in termsalways look at climate of resilience their regular during meetings and shared learning dialogues (SLDs). city advisory committees. in varies slightly with respectAt city level, the situation to national context. However, peers is that ACCCRN is “in the right place at general the view of the evaluation and the right time”, enabling, supporting and exploring approaches and methodologies to of city-level adaptation plans. vulnerability assessment and the design In Vietnam, ACCCRN, through facilitation partner, its lead the Institute for Social and Environmental Transition (ISET) and the international NGO, Challenge to Change (CtC), is acknowledged and respected at the right for having been in the right place time to provide selected cities with important support foundation at the outset. Vietnam’s Policy and Strategy Studies Technology National Institute for Science and has played an important(NISTPASS) role across in linking some key national, provin- cial and city stakeholders. informingto contributed has work pioneering This Vietnam’sof design the ad- national of 63 province-levelaptation and mitigation template for development requested plans Programby the National Target plans have been completed, and (NTP). Six of these contracts for development of 20 more awarded by the Ministry Resources of Natural and Environment (MONRE). There is strong social capital and reputation established as the program is so well aligned in support of the objectives of the NTP. The Vietnamese government is preparing a national climate change response strategy that reflects how Vietnam’s structured governance system works. The needs of the cities – determined through provincial and national coordination initiatives within the Programframework of the National Target and the National Socio-economic Develop- ment Strategy – are The other countries do not express closely linked. national-level need as well as Vietnam.Thus, while there is need, ACCCRN is not yet aligned to particular policy directives or investment programs. In Thailand, there of buy-in from is good evidence the city of Chiang Rai. Even though city funds have yet to be directly allocated to UCCR work, there is substantial in-kind contribution in terms of staff and time. attention 2.3

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 16 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 17 EXECUTION 2012 Implementing urban strategies resilence Phase 4 3) Phase 3 showed that replication had shifted and par- 2011 6 4) Replication DEVELOPMENT capacity building 2) City engagement & 2010 The three stages of an initiative The three Four phases of development and impementation Four phases of development SEARCH selection search was part of the larger process forming of the Developing Climate Change Resilience Initiative, and thus occurred prior to city selection, development occurred selection and the early development of an during city approach for city engagement, of implementation the and engagement city of elements major included execution resilience strategies. 1) City scoping & Arup (2010d), ACCCRN: Phase 3 Grant Proposal (Rev A). (Rev Phase 3 Grant Proposal Arup (2010d), ACCCRN: Phase 2

FIGURE 2: FIGURE • • • Comparing the two sets of stages, the evaluation found: Comparing the two sets of stages, the threeReplication was intended to parallel all stages onto stages, however mapping the a real-time frame, illustrated in Figure 4, 6 dence between the three the between dence Rock- the by identified initiative an establishing for stages (Figureefeller Foundation and implementation stages of development 2) and the four by ACCCRN (Figureidentified 3). alleled only the later phases. FIGURE 3: FIGURE 2009 Phase 1 ACCCRN phases ACCCRN 2008 FIGURE 4: 4: FIGURE

7 Implementing urban strategies and resilience projects Replication EXECUTION City engagement and capacity building City scoping: city developing selection criteria, city long & short final selection lists, DEVELOPMENT Shaping ACCCRN Shaping ACCCRN the and evolving UCCR concept Phase 1, City Selection – completed in late 2009. in late 2009. Selection – completed Phase 1, City in 2011. – completed and Capacity Development Level Engagement Phase 2, City of urban resiliencePhase 3, Implementation projects – has commenced with the selection of intervention projects fromin three cities countries for the first funding round in March announced 2011. – builds on the knowledge and processPhase 4, Replication models generated through 2 and 3. Phases 1, , its budget was not fixed , its budget was not fixed Initiative Building Climate Change Resilience is part of the large Althugh ACCCRN a few thematically related grants, In addition to ACCCRN until recently. envelope initiative within the larger such as a documentary initiative, funded out of a special opportunities budget in the larger grants were Production. by Rockhopper to climate change produced series on the challenges that cities face with respect being conducted of subject of a separate evaluation the and are grants, ACCCRN not considered These are 3 only includes cross- . Table Initiative components of the Building Climate Change Resilience non-ACCCRN 3 includes all grants. while Annex grants dedicated to ACCCRN, initiative

• • • • shows that ACCCRN’s searchACCCRN’s that shows Rumbiatis Dr to grant scoping a with commenced phase continued with grants to Stratus Consult- del Rio (grant 207 SRC 102) in early 2007and Development Studies (IDS) (2007 CLI 206) to ing (2007 CLI 202) and the Institute of provide with an schemes by which cities could be selected for ACCCRN. It concluded internal CLI 101) to host a partners grant (2007 meeting. to ArupThe development phase involved grants 304), ICLEI (2008 CLI (2008 CLI through 3) to undertake302), and TARU ISET (2008 CLI 306) (Table city assessments The city assessments in in Thailand and Vietnam, Indonesia, and India respectively. Thailand and Indonesia did not identify suitable cities and partners, and were done again with other local partners. Mercy Corps undertook the Indonesia assessment PreparednessDisaster Asian the and TEI and 2011), CLI 2008 (grant Centre (ADPC) undertook further in Thailand (grants 2009 CLI 303 and 304 respectively). studies The city assessments did not take full advantage of the search phase studies, and city selec- moving into execution before development was fully complete. tions were made quickly, In execution, Phase 2 commenced with larger grants to partners, notably 2008 CLI 327 to ISET to develop and lead the Phase 2 methodology – the Sustain- of over $5 million Specifically: the approximate 2 shows Table correspondenceFoundation’s generic between the initiative formation phases: stages and ACCCRN’s 7 In mapping ACCCRN grants onto the Foundation’s threeIn mapping ACCCRN grants onto the 3 Table initiative stages, SEARCH Shaping RF Building Climate Change Resilience Initiative Development of ACCCRN and Rockefeller Foundation initiatives Foundation and Rockefeller of ACCCRN Development

: constructed from interview notes and Rockefeller/ACCCRN documents. notes interview and Rockefeller/ACCCRN : constructed from RF INITIATIVES RF ACCCRN TABLE 2: TABLE SOURCE

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 18 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 19 - - ing vulnerability assessments and designing city-level adaptation plans. The sustainability of a UCCR depends on the approach success of continued reflec and the tion on the process institutionalization of city advisory committees and city and (CACs working groups CWGs). is “in the ACCCRN Overall, right place at the right time”, supporting and enabling, and approaches exploring methodologies for undertak highest degree of complexity of complexity highest degree to climate of the approaches change. some In a number of cities, people the UCCR understand using it concept and are to shape their work. All 10 city developed cities have strategies (CRSs), resilience a number of which exhibit This is features. resilience an important achievement. cities and most However, city stakeholders many still grappling with the are concept. process addresses UN- addresses process recommended HABITAT’s to incorporating approach climate change into urban and thus addresses planning, on local need, as expressed the global stage. the introduced ACCCRN concept of UCCR, which and a valuable represents - concept for address relevant ing urban climate change. involves resilience However, governance, polycentric multi- and is multi-scalar, long-term and stakeholder, giving it the self-organizing, able Learning a set of country ACCCRN made During execution, Dialogues (SLDs). M&E (2009 for coordinator grants (e.g. Verulam of specialist grants, and a number recent, CLI 314)). The most (2009 and APCO for communications CLI 317) 2010 a grant to countrycoordinators, on-granting to significant grant elements for included projects.cities for Phase 3 implementation The overall impression from of medium-sized 3) is the number table (Table the grants runninggrants ($400,000–$800,000) to several partners simultaneously and a small largenumber of dominating This means a large grants. amount of grant activity to coordinate. Summary an addresses ACCCRN issue important high-level at the conjunction of climate change and urbanization. the is expanding ACCCRN - of cities address elite group area. ing this complex The focus on second-tier as is the cities is relevant, and aim of developing testing practical approaches to climate to responding change. participatoryThe inclusive, learning dialogue shared M F 2014 J D N O S A J J 2013 M A M F J D N O S A J J 2012 M A M F $$96,440, (2009 CLI 317) J D N O S E X E C U T I O N A $149150, (2009 CLI 313) J $69,920, (2010 CLI 324) J 2011 M A M F J $479,150, (2010 CLI 331) $1,582,240, (2010 CLI 323) $337,800, (2010 CLI 325) $367,160, (2010 CLI 326) $189520, (2010 CLI 327) $509900, (2010 CLI 328) $239850, (2010 CLI 330) D $1,300,000, (2010 CLI 316) $233530, (2010 CLI 329 ) $781,790, (2010 CLI 315) N $825420, (2010 CLI 318) $180000, (2010 CLI 313) O $1649960, (2010 CLI 310) S A $785780, (2010 CLI 306) J J 2010 M A M F J $83000, (2009 CLI 304) $490000, (2009 CLI 328) D $1200000, (2009 CLI 317) $$48,200, (2009 CLI 303) N $650,000, (2009 CLI 314) $200,000, (2009 CLI 316) O $146500, (2008 CLI 311) S A $424900, (2009 CLI 308) J J 2009 $525000, (2009 CLI 302) M A M F J $1,000,000, (2008 CLI 328) D $5,348,800, (2008 CLI 327) $225000, (2008 CLI 326) N O S A D E V E L O P M E N T O P D E V E L J J 2008 $570,100, (2008 CLI 306) M A $152052, (2007 CLI 202) $357800, (2008 CLI 302) $473900, (2008 CLI 304) M $$54,000, (2007 CLI 001) F J D $134,842, (2007 CLI 206) N O S A J $34,000, (2007 SRC 102) J 2007 S E A R C H R A S E M A M F J ACCCRN grants by duration and size grants by duration ACCCRN

ISET ISET MercyCorps TARU TARU ISET MercyCorps ADPC GEAG ISET ISET ISET MercyCorps Arup TARU APCO Ashoka Verulam TEI IFRC/RC ADPC MercyCorps TEI Arup ISET MercyCorps Arup ISET IDS Rockefeller ICLEI Arup Grantee ICLEI Intellecap C. Rumbaitis del Rio Stratus TABLE 3: TABLE

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 20 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 21 M M F F 2014 2014 J J D D N N O O S S A A J J J J 2013 2013 M M A A M M F F J J D D N N O O S S A A J J J J 2012 2012 M M A A M M F F $$96,440, (2009 CLI 317) $$96,440, (2009 CLI 317) J J D D N N O O S S E X E C U T I O N E X E C U T I O N A A $149150, (2009 CLI 313) $149150, (2009 CLI 313) $149150, (2009 CLI J J $69,920, (2010 CLI 324) $69,920, (2010 CLI 324) J J 2011 2011 M M A A M M F F J J $479,150, (2010 CLI 331) $1,582,240, (2010 CLI 323) $337,800, (2010 CLI 325) $367,160, (2010 CLI 326) $189520, (2010 CLI 327) $509900, (2010 CLI 328) $239850, (2010 CLI 330) $479,150, (2010 CLI 331) $1,582,240, (2010 CLI 323) $337,800, (2010 CLI 325) $367,160, (2010 CLI 326) $189520, (2010 CLI 327) $509900, (2010 CLI 328) $239850, (2010 CLI 330) D D $1,300,000, (2010 CLI 316) $233530, (2010 CLI 329 ) $781,790, (2010 CLI 315) $781,790, (2010 CLI 315) $781,790, (2010 CLI $1,300,000, (2010 CLI 316) $233530, (2010 CLI 329 ) N N $825420, (2010 CLI 318) $180000, (2010 CLI 313) $825420, (2010 CLI 318) $825420, (2010 CLI 313) $180000, (2010 CLI O O $1649960, (2010 CLI 310) $1649960, (2010 CLI 310) $1649960, S S A A $785780, (2010 CLI 306) $785780, (2010 CLI 306) CLI (2010 $785780, J J J J 2010 2010 M M A A M M F F J J $83000, (2009 CLI 304) $490000, (2009 CLI 328) $83000, (2009 CLI 304) $83000, (2009 CLI 328) CLI (2009 $490000, D D $1200000, (2009 CLI 317) $$48,200, (2009 CLI 303) $$48,200, (2009 CLI 303) CLI 317) (2009 $1200000, N N $650,000, (2009 CLI 314) $200,000, (2009 CLI 316) $650,000, (2009 CLI 314) $650,000, (2009 CLI (2009 CLI 316) $200,000, O O $146500, (2008 CLI 311) $146500, (2008 CLI 311) S S A A $424900, (2009 CLI 308) $424900, (2009 CLI 308) $424900, (2009 CLI J J J J 2009 2009 $525000, (2009 CLI 302) $525000, (2009 CLI 302) $525000, (2009 CLI M M A A M M F F J J $1,000,000, (2008 CLI 328) $1,000,000, (2008 CLI 328) D D $5,348,800, (2008 CLI 327) $225000, (2008 CLI 326) $5,348,800, (2008 CLI 327) $225000, (2008 CLI 326) N N O O S S A A D E V E L O P M E N T O P D E V E L D E V E L O P M E N T O P D E V E L J J J J 2008 2008 $570,100, (2008 CLI 306) $570,100, (2008 CLI 306) M M A A $152052, (2007 CLI 202) $357800, (2008 CLI 302) $473900, (2008 CLI 304) $357800, (2008 CLI 302) $473900, (2008 CLI 304) $152052, (2007 CLI 202) M M $$54,000, (2007 CLI 001) $$54,000, (2007 CLI 001) F F J J D D $134,842, (2007 CLI 206) $134,842, (2007 CLI 206) N N O O S S A A J J $34,000, (2007 SRC 102) $34,000, (2007 SRC 102) J J 2007 2007 S E A R C H R A S E S E A R C H A S E M M A A M M F F J J The height of the bars is scaled to be proportional to the size of the grant The height of the bars is scaled to be proportional its bars Each grantee has been assigned a unique colour for $150k approximate ended. Only an Consortium when the Provention was returned portion of the IFRC/ RC grant award A large NOTES: • • • was spent. ISET ISET MercyCorps TARU TARU ISET MercyCorps ADPC GEAG ISET ISET ISET MercyCorps Arup TARU APCO Ashoka Verulam TEI IFRC/RC ADPC MercyCorps TEI Arup ISET ISET MercyCorps ISET Arup MercyCorps ISET TARU TARU ISET MercyCorps ADPC GEAG IDS Rockefeller ISET ICLEI Arup TARU ISET ISET Grantee TEI MercyCorps Arup Arup APCO Ashoka Verulam IFRC/RC ADPC MercyCorps TEI ISET MercyCorps Arup ISET IDS Rockefeller ICLEI Arup Grantee ICLEI Intellecap C. Rumbaitis del Rio Stratus ICLEI Intellecap C. Rumbaitis del Rio Stratus 22 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 23 3

Learningcapacity building and Outcome statement: Capacity and implement capacity finance, coordinate to plan, is improved There cities. ACCCRN strategies within climate change resilience Much of what is evident as ACCCRN activity in the 10 ACCCRN cities is closer to Much of what is evident as ACCCRN activity in the 10 ACCCRN cities is disaster risk reduction climate change resilience (DRR) than (CCR). Even though groundingUCCR solid a with those projects,the in elements CCR identify can partnerscity more throughthem view often for question critical The lens. DRR a ACCCRN is whether and how cities will progress from DRR to CCR in both thinking and practice. This chapter discusses the conceptualization and implementation of Outcome 1: This chapter discusses the conceptualization participatory cities to employ a multi-stakeholder, It calls for selected process Capacity. to produce and update their climate resilience strategies and plans to include poor and resilience It assumes these vulnerable populations. incor- be will strategies and plans porated into medium-term planning frameworks, based upon viable revenue streams, and developed in a coordinatedand that they will be technically sound fashion among NGOs and local key stakeholders, including governmentthe private sector, entities, communities. The Outputs underlying Outcome 1 relate to engaging with city partners so they own and institutionalize an approach skills to deal with uncer- to UCCR by building new based their own, technically sound resilience implementing activities strate- tainty, gies, and identifying lessons from reflecting on practice. Using ACCCRN’s learning- by-doing model, this chapter considers how this learning is consistent with different approaches reviews to climate change. It then the process used for selecting the 10 cities in which ACCCRN is taking place, the development of the cities’ resilience strat- pilot-scale and subsequently and implementation of UCCR egies, and the selection larger projects in these cities. 3.1 Outcome 1 3. Nonetheless, there is a concern such projects that only demonstrate sin- may 8 how people reacted intervention(s) to the capacity-building – was the customer satisfied? what they learned – was the desired learning outcome achieved? what they did differently (in their job) as a result of the capacity building intervention(s) – what change in job behavior resulted from the capacity building? www.geagindia.org/Solid_waste_management.html • • • gle-loop (first order) learning about how to solve the problem, and not generate trans- formative about climate change and building resilience thinking to it. Argyris (1995) argued and Schon that double-loop learning is necessary for organi- problemszations and their members to manage changing that originate in rapidly and uncertain such as climate change resilience. contexts, They defined single loop, or adaptive, learning as incrementalsolving problemsfocused on and present in the without examining the appropriateness of current learning behaviors. Single-loop learning to solve problems uses knowledge existing assumptions, often based on Double-loop, or generative learning,based on what has worked in the past. focuses on transformational change of the status quo, using feedback from past actions to question assumptions underlying current and to create views new insights. Their work regarded individuals as the key to organizational learning and was based maps guide how they act when planning, imple- on the belief that people’s tacit mental menting and reviewing their mental their actions. People’s behavior is consistent with models, and single-loop learning does not lead to an examination of these. Thus, because climate change resilience requires a new way of thinking and acting, it learningdouble-loop demands organizationshelp people in techniques, which learn together and helps organizations change to meet uncertain futures. Outcome 1, capacity-building, aims to build city capacity to plan, finance, coordinate resilienceand implement climate change other words, strategies. In this is about cities Most evaluations of capacity building use an approach based to behaving differently. some degree four-stage Kirkpatrick (1998) model, which considers: on the 8 DRR is certainly an appropriate entry effective point, especially in cities with fairly recent 1994 outbreak such as the experience of disasters, in plague and 2006 flood of and organizations which left people Surat, India, to avoid the effects keen to take steps Thereof potential disasters. is evidence from ACCCRN that DRR can progress outside change. to thinking about climate in this appears to be a model or a roadmapThe missing element for moving interven- understanding of the interventions,tions, and the local from DRR to CCR, encompass- ing much higher degrees the need for more of uncertainty, multisectoral planning and response, probably and longer time spans. service that disaster planning and immediate It is understandable delivery concerns are management waste solid example, For citizens. their and cities for high priorities in Gorakhpur is discussed only in terms of current waste volumes and current disease loads.

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 24 ADAPTATION TO TO ADAPTATION CLIMATE CHANGE CLIMATE ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 25 Engagement & capacity building Interventions Replication Network Dissemination Resources & brokering Resources Knowledge management Summary framework results against streams mapping new work Arup, 2009. 2009. Arup, what results were important achieved (the most – what organizational stage) changes were effected as a result the capacity building? of what the return the return was – what was building? on investment in capacity Outcome 1 Outcome 3 Outcome 2 • • SOURCE: Some models also include a fifthSome models also include step. This coheres individuals learn, with a model in which but people act collectively, normally in some form of organization. It is also broadly with ACCCRN’s consistent work streamsexplanation of how to deliver the outcomes (Fig.5), combine over time whereinintervention is built and put into practice in capacity projects, learning is shared are and lessons to replication. disseminated, leading The key aspect of the Kirkpatrick model is that individuals’ capacities are built, but reallyonly is this orderhigher to leads it if successful organizational and systems according to Simister and Smith (2010), the time from capacity changes. However, building to systems changes can be as long as 15 years. ACCCRN provides both direct capacity building and, through implementation projects, the opportunities to put new behaviors and systems changes into practice. At present, to determine it is too early in Phase 3 whether implementation projects will lead to systems changes, rather than first order problem solving. There are good in- dications that capacity building has resulted in some individuals behaving differently which is likely to affect organizational changes, but this will require good monitoring they areof both individuals whose capacities have been built, and systems changes able to catalyze. FIGURE 5: 5: FIGURE air pollution glacial melt sea level rise coastal storms. • • • • increase in temperature change in precipitation heat stress infectious diseases • • • • City Selection These risk indicators were used to develop a preliminary ranking of relative risks across 2080. 50 Asian cities to eight potential climate change impacts in 2030 and (IDS) was then given a grant to work with aThe UK Institute of Development Studies group of Asian research partnersa rapid governance to complete and capacity assess- et al., 2009). This assessment cities (Tanner ment of ten South and Southeast Asian was designed to addressand implement the ability and willingness of the cities to plan integrated climate change resilience programs, elaborating some of the key governance and informing more vulnerability analyses and detailed issues mediating this capacity, the development of pilot projects prior to scaling-up in priority cities. The 10 cities studied in this desk-top rapid governance capacity assessment were: and Minh Bangkok, Chennai, Chittagong, Cochin, Dalian, Da Nang, Hangzhou, Ho Chi These cities were Ningbo and Surat. the current chosen using criteria such as City, and future climate hazard burden, or tide-influenced location, very coastal high rates of urban population growth,a track record disaster management efforts, of and an even geographical spread across the region. They wereassessed using an “Asian good governance an integrated climate framework” for their “ability to plan and implement change resilience program”. concluded These significant studies, with grants totaling nearly $300,000, essentially the search phase, providing ACCCRN with a list of 50 cities, ranked by exposure governance-relatedthe for assessed cities, 10 of list separate a and risk, climate to capacity to implement a climate change program, as well as findings on the impor- tance of governance in climate change resilience. In 2007, ACCCRN awarded to undertake a grant to Stratus Consulting a detailed desk- based study of the candidate cities’ exposure to climate-related risks (Smith et al., 2007). The risks analyzed were: Capacity development throughCapacity development training and awareness programs and hands-on shared learningdialogues will require more than a one-off 2. It will require cycle in Phase repeated and on-going learning and expansion, on-going application support re and - and leaders through and ACCCRN management team flection for the innovators the GroupsStrategy and Alignment ACCCRN recognizes (SAGs). this and is providing further capacity building through: supplementary i) support for capacity development to country coordinators assistance to support and ii) $250,000 of dedicated technical shared learning project dialogues, science support development and climate in ISET’s Phase 3 grant. There in a climate and devel- is also a plan for a major investment opment training centre in the region that can provide cycles of follow-on support to and beyond. ACCCRN stakeholders 3.2

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 26 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 27 : in an order of priority that factored in government capacity and city- : based on factors including exposure to climate risks, existence of : based on factors including city responsiveness,on factors : based technical partners and : Gorakhpur or Surat (on the basis of flood risk), Hubli-Darwhad: Gorakhpur or Indore or build the political momentum for involvement in the RF Resilience Network build the political momentum for involvement (and potentially Phase II) regionally and develop personal relationships with key stakeholders locally, nationally to work on climate vulnerability assess the capacity of local stakeholders re-configure the desktop review as needed. potential partners, responsive government, recommendation: and stakeholder Samut Prakarn and Cha Am (though Arup was not convinced by either of these choices and recommended further Chiang work, to include Hua Hin, Rayon and Mai) INGO activity: Can Tho, Hue and Quy Nhon. level partners: Surabaya Makassar and Bandung, Palembang, Bogor, INDONESIA THAILAND VIETNAM INDIA (on the basis of water stress, Kakinda (on the basis of cyclone/storm and surge/ sea level rise) develop criteria for selection of Indonesian cities develop criteria for selection of Indonesian reviewsidentify 5 to 10 cities and implement desktop of relevant information as stated in the proposal visit each city to: • • • • • • • • • • • It is evident that the final ACCCRN cities only bear a partial resemblance to those proposedend of Phase 1. After this first by the CAPs prior to the round of scoping, The next step was to make countrystep was to make The next of the readiness assessments cities to of these the analysis of each of to develop an the projectengage with resilience on finally, and, with respectselected cities In economic contexts. social, political and to their physical, addition, the IDS researchers noted: “A more political economy detailed analysis of the in the final set of cities chosen as partof decision-making program of the Foundation’s the implementation of climate resiliencewill help to expedite programs, as it will aid targeting with the power and resources of individuals and institutions to overcome barriers.” Grants were awarded then to organizations that would serve as Country Assessment Partners (CAPs) with the role cities a small number of potential ACCCRN of selecting undertakingin their countries, and visits to build support city for possible ACCCRN chosen CAPs included the International The Association of city. involvement in the Local Governments for India, and Arup for Sustainability (ICLEI) for Indonesia, TARU for Vietnam and Thailand. indicators for the CAPs’ projectICLEI’s grant letter (2008 CLI 302) set deliverables and milestones: Arup 2008, and the and ISET visited all four countries during July and August CAPs’ assessments were reviewed in a partners’ in late August meeting in London 2008. The country recommended assessments for ACCCRN engagement as cities follows:

9 is that Phase 1 was not managed as efficiently as it might The RF ACCCRN team includes Rockefeller professional staff members based in Bangkok, plus one team staff members based in Bangkok, professional team includes Rockefeller The RF ACCCRN ACCCRN. who make significant inputs to member in New York, THE EVALUATION FINDING FINDING EVALUATION THE in Bangkok. Being the initiative’s “late starter” in Bangkok. Being has meant having reduced time-frames to catch up with process and funding cycles. The Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre (ADPC, 2008) produced an extensive evalua- tion of anticipated climate hazard for Thailand’s five short- impacts and vulnerabilities listed cities, and the Thailand Environmentcontributed an analysis of Institute (TEI) Some of the highly vulner- of vulnerability. the human, social and economic aspects able cities identified were sufficiently tourist-oriented and consequently not interested Yai was made by of Chiang Rai and Hat in engaging in ACCCRN. The final choice countryTEI, which had become the designated coordination partner. Both cities had and had been identified as vulnerable to climate change worked with TEI previously, scored reportthe ADPC in highest Yai Hat impacts. of vulner- on combined ranking points); while Chiang Rai was thirdability factors (37 out of a possible 40 (24 points out of 40). out of 40) behind Udon Thani (26 points The evaluation found only limited documentary evidence for how the specific cities wereMercy eventually chosen. The Corps Indonesia City Selection Report (2009) many of those provides some clarity on the methods as well as the criteria. However, interviewed for the evaluation reported spent well over a year developing that, having and tryingselection criteria, consulting, discussing – not entirely successfully in the engage, ACCCRN could with which cities select to – Indonesia and Thailand of case therewas pressure broughtfromto bear engage- into quickly Foundation to move the ment (Phase 2). The selection process to have been pragmatic. appears ultimately is furtherThis as (such factors of new selection final the in consideration by illustrated Bank in Semarang). Ultimately this raises questions about the presence of the World assessing outcome achieve- as a baseline for be used the criteria can to which extent ment in monitoring and evaluation. 9 ACCCRN completed selection for India and Vietnam in 2008, engaging with Gorakhpur, for India and Vietnam completed selection ACCCRN with Gorakhpur, in 2008, engaging Indore Surat and (Vietnam).Nhon and Da Nang and Can Tho, Quy (India) However, a second round and Thailand conducted Indonesia Indonesia selecting of scoping, with and Thailand selecting Lampung and Semarang by mid-2009 the cities of Bandar noted that there at the end of 2009. It is was limited reference Yai Chiang Rai and Hat as it relates and public sector investment context to the national policy to climate selection. change in the above choice of an ACCCRN partnerFor Thailand, the and pro was a much debated - tracted process the RF ACCCRN team among various players, including have been. Much of the desk and field study work from work study field and desk been. Much of the have ultimately not was period this used in forwarding the initiative, although the thinking, especially around governance to be relevant. continues and capacity, grants ofAlthough the Stratus and IDS scoping grants of almost $300,000 and Phase 1 over $1 million produced most of their required deliverables, these deliverables were not either: drawn-on in the subsequent phases of the initiative. Reasons for this appear to be

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 28 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 29 Governance context weaknesses in study design – the IDS study was rushed, IDS study was the design – in study weaknesses from little input had the or region chosen in New York, a sample of cities and was based on and Indonesia. in Thailand – initial city assessments execution • • Nonetheless, it may be that in the Foundation’s initiative model, this type of learning- be that in the Foundation’s initiative Nonetheless, it may by-doing, whereby of the evolving understand- some initial work is inevitably a victim pay for this approach. is the price the Foundation is willing to ing of the initiative, With laboredhindsight, it now appears that ACCCRN the benefit of unduly over the process there UCCR was a new concept and of city selection. were a large of number Coastal, estuarine cities in Asia in which to pilot its application. potential second-tier or riverine, and drought-prone second-tier cities represent with most urgent those with ACCCRN were change. Cites capable of working need to consider climate likely identified more Suitable cities could have been to be those with some activity already. rapidly and cost effectively en- with a lighter study that had better focus on enabling vironment. The Bumblebee reportthere found that were low levels of awareness and interest among candidate cities. It also found that, in in climate change adaptation issues general, generating sufficient awareness became a priority that was elevated above that of making an analysis of the governance and administration context of these cities – factors taken more round into consideration in the second selection studies in anticipated the likely low levels of awarenessThailand and Indonesia. ACCCRN had and interest, but it supported selecting cities with some a rationale for purposively DRR or CCA work already in hand. in relation to city selection, the above processes led to a question about the Finally, in- for strategy and work on its Foundation decides the which in fundamental way approachIts vestment. ventureas “development been described has capitalism” innovative areas with a time- and resource-bound initiative, to – investing in new, be scaled by attracting other investors. This generate substantive momentum that can requires partners having and efficient that can take the model to success quickly - for example, proactive cities with partnersly, level engaged in the topic. While the of engagement was given greater prominence in city selection in the second round countries (Thailand and Indonesia), this was as part more geo- of a matrix of other, graphic and bio-physical factors. It is not clear that the presence of suitable catalytic partners was a major factor in selection, which seems to run counter to a development venture capital ethos. Choosing “cities” as the unit of analysis implicitly assumes an engagement with gov- Choosing “cities” as the unit of analysis implicitly assumes an engagement governanceernance issues are central to the and administration. According to ISET, of adaptive capacity of cities and communities, and for enabling adaptive strategies are exacerbated by poor provision of infrastructureindividuals. Vulnerabilities and services, pre poor land-use management or urban planning, and inadequate disaster - paredness or response. ... Issues of governance cut across ca- all vulnerabilities and 2009). pacities” (ISET, 3.3

that the development phase of ACCCRN was rushed. that the development phase of ACCCRN reached from assessing the current progress towards na- and the evaluation concurs, that had the governance-basedand the evaluation concurs, that had the analyses mapping key actors and their inter-relationshipsmapping key actors (including city and regional officials) mapping the informal and formal systems of control and accountability and marginalizedidentifying how poor groupings might be supported to influence city policy-making in the with practical examples. processdescribing the policy-making in the city, a shorter list of cities relativethe of sense a importance and national at agenda change climate the of local levels clarity on which cities are worth with more engaging deeply acknowledgement that raising awareness anything is fundamental to making happen. • • • • • • • • A FURTHER CONCLUSION, FURTHER A THE EVALUATION CONCLUDES EVALUATION THE ISET CONCLUDED, CONCLUDED, ISET tional-level scaling-up, is that, with the light level of city governance assessment, there paid to the national-level governance was little attention and policy context. theoryACCCRN the as prioritized, not was policy National emphasized change of building a body of credible practice in cities as a driver for UCCR. An assessment This seems to have been in response to a Foundation desire to move to action, are initiatives Foundation five-to-seven-year when light that in seen been can and considered. type of initia- This calls into question whether the timeframe for this tive risks compromising some areas. quality in A five-year initiative in a new field, with a limited number of partners, faces a difficult task forming field, a conceptual building partners’ capacities and demonstrating progress on the ground. As is now evident from mid-term perspective at the start of Phase 3, city projects require sufficient time for implementation and reflection. Putting time pressure on earlier phases may not be the best solution to this problem. Although, in a fairly adaptive management environment where understanding is continually evolving, it is not always clear how long different stages will take. undated) notes that successful interventionsnotes that successful undated) require inter-departmental support and are predicated cities. It was originally commitment in executive-level upon of the social, political 1 also would include an analysis anticipated that Phase governance of the selected cities, and considering and economic context factors, which meant: This did not happen because the process implementing a meth- of developing and odology for identifying partner cities in Phase 1 took much longer than anticipated, resulting in a “compressedthe rest time-frame” for envisaged process of the of Phase 1. In effect, the unanticipated length of time taken to complete the first steps of Phase 1 meant that short-cuts or exclusions had to be made for the other planned steps. In reflecting learned, upon lessons 2010; Tyler (Opitz-Stapleton et al., ISET et al., occurred, Phase 1 would have resulted in:

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 30 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 31 - Participants contrib- Local stakeholders represent- Participants have multiple opportunities to share, Sharedlearning dialogues bring together local, regional, Shared learning dialogues Phase 2 PLINARY BOUNDARIES. PLINARY ing disparate sectors, scales or perspectives should learn from each other, leading ing disparate sectors, scales or perspectives should learnfrom each other, to mutual understanding. national and global scientific perspectives and seek to overcome knowledge system divides typical of sectors. ute their views and experiences, and have time to absorb and think about the ute their views and experiences, and have time to absorb and think about information and perspectives of different groups before they interact again. THE PROCESS INVOLVES STAKEHOLDERS IN AN OPEN MANNER. OPEN AN IN STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVES PROCESS THE DISCI AND ORGANIZATIONAL AND COMMUNITIES, SCALES, CROSSES PROCESS THE ITERATIVE. IS PROCESS THE THE INFORMATION SHARING IS MULTI-DIRECTIONAL. MULTI-DIRECTIONAL. IS SHARING INFORMATION THE generate and understand new knowledge (Fig. 6). Multiple iterative sessions generate and understand new knowledge (Fig. 6). Multiple iterative sessions develop high-quality, multi-stakeholder resilience proposals for at least eight cities develop high-quality, host four ACCCRN partner meetings produce shared learning dialogue (SLD) workshop reports from at least six cities resiliencevulnerability analyses, conduct studies and two sectoral assessments for at least six cities. • • • • • • • • Shared learning dialogues are an “approach to participatory planning and problem by non-extractive, mutual learningsolving in complex situations, characterized among SLDs have specific key attributes. by ISET, 2010b). As practiced participants” (ISET, Phase 2 had a threefold objective: i) increase cities’ awareness of climate change approachissues, ii) develop an by which cities could start to develop resilience; and iii) engage cities to undertake actions to develop climate change resilience. ISET received a significant $5.35 million grant (2008 CLI 327) to lead this process in Phase and deliverables as follows: 2. Its grant letter specified milestones These objectives were addressed through the SLD process, a series which included of activities interspersed with reflective workshops including: exploratory workshops, and engagement projects.vulnerability assessments, sector studies 10 cities, In the country coordinators have supported the successful establishment of city advisory groupscommittees (CACs) and city working and imple- (CWGs) as the focal point menting agent in each city. of the political economy of climate change and the key policy actors might have have might actors policy key the and change climate of economy political the of led to a different of country choice in India, as has now happened coordinators or, of additional partnersselection circles in national policy better placed to operate than the country coordinators, as they can take advantage of policy windows who arise. It is recognizedordera tall that this is – finding countrypartners simul- in city and national policy is difficult.taneously well located RF ACCCRN The countryteam now has advised partners to seek complementary relationships, or ACCCRN has brokered these directly. 3.5 3.4 reflect Monitor, Monitor, using SLDs document and Act SLDs to revise plan revise review lessons review reflect Monitor, Monitor, using SLDs document and Act

Local experience, scientific study experience, Local plan allow for sequential growthallow for to increased and typically lead in understanding comfortof levels moreand participants. among dialogue meaningful Each typically introducesiteration process knowledge into the new or enhanced 2010b). (ISET, lessons revise lessons revise SLDs to review SLDs to review reflect Monitor, Monitor, using SLDs The iterative learning cycles have revolved around namely vulner- sets of analyses, ability analyses, resilience studies, which were assessments and sectoral followed by pilot/engagement projects and reflection analyses, and production on the of city re- The countrysilience strategies. coordinators have brought both process facilitation broughtexample, TARU For knowledge. skills and technical knowledge of climate projections information and geographic mapping system (GIS) tools for vulnerability that were appreciated highly by Indore Surat. Nonetheless, the evidence from and the they wereSLD materials is that stronger science and physical planning on climate than they were on social aspects and the governance context. Shared learning dialogues are not dedicated climate change planning tools, but rather a structured, participatory multi-stakeholder, approach. planning ISET (2010b) found that the dialogues benefitted from facilitation. highly skilled, active meeting Partners recognized with an adequate working the advantage of engaging facilitators this case, climate change – so that they would knowledge of the subject matter – in feel comfortable presentingtopic and not risk misinforming on the the or confusing participants. The SLDs have proven successful, engaging a range of city stakeholders across a range fashion on cross-sectionalof institutions, to work together in non-silo The value issues. document and Act SLD - iterative learning and action research SLD - iterative SLDs to plan Implementation Time + Time Learning FIGURE 6: 6: FIGURE

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 3232 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 33

10 Engaging vulnerable groups In Surat, the high level of engagement and activity of the CAC is largely due the strong involvement and involvement due the strong is largely activity of engagement and of the CAC In Surat, the high level success of the SLD and Phase 2 (SGCC). The overall commitment of the South Gujarat Chamber of Commerce and dynamic commissioner. can also be attributed to a committed city government process

which will enable it to engage more enable it to engage which will formally with city government funds, and manage and in Vietnam, City Climate Change Offices (CCCOs) arewith Phase being funded in Phase 2 deserve3 grants. Those involved credit for developing and implementing processa acrossplanning and analysis engagement, of departmentsand sectors that has resulted city resilience in cities. strategies in 10 and all partnersACCCRN is pioneering, and de- have had to feel their way in defining termining provided need. The initial lack of definition space for government agencies supportedand cities themselves, by SLDs and other interventions, to further develop for determiningtheir own capacities ACCCRN their needs. It was found that the initial rationale and approach Vietnam meshed well with the need in the context. Nonetheless, a question remains of the replicability of SLDs in the absence of signifi- cant inputs from one of only a few partners. successful SLD processes ISET managed Indonesia and Vietnam.in India (as did TARU), However in Thailand, which started later and had verythe SLDs and their outputs were little ISET input, not to the same standard as the others. As the initiative starts to look at replication, it is not yet clear if, the supportor how, to SLDs will be securedprocess so that the achieves institutional and CCCOs are While CACs they will need becoming institutionalized, sustainability. plus cost benefit analyses, to secureevidence of impacts and successful outcomes, resources in and facilitate such extensive processes. to invest 10 The ACCCRN experience indicates that learningThe ACCCRN experience indicates that with vulnerable groups requires a multi-layered approach,and pilot projectsassessments SLDs, vulnerability in which each play a role. In all four countries, representatives of vulnerable communities participated large in the multi-stakeholder SLDs. It is difficult to assess the level of city resiliencecommunity engagement in the SLDs. The little process strategies have information about their production, they are and strongly oriented towards physical social impacts of physical changes. For the planning, although they do examine SLDs in Indore,TARU-led 1250 households from 125 settlements were interviewed to generate income, education and social capacity indices, which were geo-referenced this is a more data-extractive than participafor the vulnerability analyses. However, - tory approach. Community-based surveys and focus groups conducted through vulnerability as- sessments allowed much greater insight and participation for these groups. Such in- where the NGO teractions were and successful in Gorakhpur, especially extensive Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group (GEAG) has a long-term presence and con- thereforewas and communities those to nection a deeper level. at engage to able Partnerswereinteractions the that indicated City the and GEAG for only not helpful, Advisory but for stimulating city, Committee’s analysis of climate vulnerabilities in the cities give to their city advisorycity their to give cities groups working city and committees by indicated is to a trustconstitution changed its For example, Surat institutionalize them. moves to 3.6 poor and encouraging social-political organizations,encouraging social-political to institutions, NGOs and companies invest in climate change resilience activities such as research, and data education communication supporting and promoting community participation sharing experiences of efficient climate change resilience activities participating change projects in climate departments and plans of city and other districts. • • • • them. Therevulnerable communities, rather than with were exceptions. For example, ward-level was very solid-waste management planning in Gorakhpur inclusive. But where communities are not well represented on City Advisory and City Committees Groups, there is an enduring need to ensure inclusivity is maintained into Working Phase 3. Community participation helped ensureexperiences of these communities that the weregrowingthe in included of design that understanding; and knowledge of body and pilot projectsvulnerability assessments, sector studies, reflected their priorities; and that community representatives developed a greater understanding of their vul- nerabilities to take back to their communities. Many partners were conscious of the limitations of multi-stakeholder meetings for engaging populations that are and/or marginalized. poor They identified the signifi- certaincance of unequal power dynamics during interactions leading to dominance of perspectives and marginalization dynamics can be mitigated of others. Unequal power to some degree skilled facilitation and alternative by communication tools such as mapping exercises,cards note and small break-outsessions. Large promote meetings multi-directional by gathering all parties knowledge sharing in one place – yet they certainsharing of knowledge constrain also may partnersthese who cannot attend meetings or feel uncomfortable in that setting, such as many women, marginalized groups, and representatives of poor communities. This points to the need for excellent facilitation if the voices of the poor and vulnerable are not to be lost in the process. Structures and processes are needed to ensure on-going participation (rather than just consultation of) poor and vulnerable communities. long-term appearance of participants (evinced by the community engagement months officeslater at GEAG community members and assisting follow up conversations) for in approaching elected officials as informed ACCCRN Indonesian cities, citizens. In also represented an unprecedented opportunity for NGOs to work on an equal basis with city government representatives. community In Vietnam, existing government and party-led structures provided for effective a conduit decision- discussions and in a and targetingmaking in identifying vulnerability at local level. Overall however, structures,matter what the and no as this such pioneering initiative thereto be needs incrementalawarenessleadership, building of on-going and and reflection processes to enable progression through DRR approaches towards developing resilient systems. CCCOs in VietnamThe functions of the include: requirementinstitutional an of model This promoteto participationcommunity to is concernbe commended, given the evaluation’s that some Phase 2 implementation projects approached vulnerability reduction as a planning task carried out for

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 34 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 35 reduction Disaster risk Adaptation to climate change Overlap between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation and climate change adaptation between disaster risk reduction Overlap Entry points Mitchell and van Aalst, 2008. Aalst, Mitchell and van Long-term adjustment to Long-term climate changing average conditions (including benefits) Climate risk management (including weather extremes) Risk management of hazards geophysical SOURCE: While there increasing has been convergence of DRR and climate response globally, national barriers remain, due to separate DRR and National Adaptation Programs of platforms, (NAPA) Action policy-mak- of communities separate and funding to access ers, practitioners and researchers (Mitchell and van Aalst, 2010). From the city resilience both and interviews strategies (CRSs) with city stakeholders, are the “now” issues early in ACCCRN, that, as identified it is evident crowding out people and organizations“next” issues for many in cities, and concerns relate more change (Arup,to disasters than climate ACCCRN’s entry 2008a). has point into cities commonly been through disaster risk reduction change (DRR) rather than climate resilience (CCR). There are between DRR and climate change many overlaps in concept and objective response key distinctions. The 2006 Stern 4), but also some 5, Table (Fig Review stated that about two-thirds are of disasters caused by climate hazards which are in- creasing The main overlap between and severity due to climate change. in number reducingin is (CCA) adaptation change climate and DRR extremesweather of risk the and the management of hydro-meteorological hazards, because “DRR needs to take account of changing hazards, resilience and adaptation needs to build to their impacts” (Mitchell and van Aalst, 2008). Both approaches share the objective of reducing the uncertaintiesand risks anticipating by shocks of impacts reducingand vulnerabilities. adaptation considers long-termHowever a key distinction is that climate changes in climatic conditions whereas DRR is predominantly interested in extremes. DRR is not resilienceas building same the changing practicing DRR in a change, and climate to climate requires new and different thinking. FIGURE 7: 7: FIGURE 3.7 CONVERGENCES Climate change adaptation specialists nowClimate change adaptation being water and sanitation, engineering, from recruited health and DRR sectors agriculture, Existing climate forward-looking. DRR increasingly is an entry change point for climate variability adaptation adaptation tools that more recognition Increasing DRR needed and must learn from are disaster events that climate-related None, except likely to be analyzed and debated now more are to climate change with reference ADAPTATION Nonetheless, top-down urban physical systems do need to be balanced with Nonetheless, top-down urban physical systems do need to be balanced with Origin and culture in scientific theoryOrigin and culture – i.e. concerned with the future Most risks uncertainty/new addressing Limited range of tools under development agenda, high political emerging New, interest 11 ACCRA’s bottom-up approach offers an example: community.eldis.org/accra community.eldis.org/accra example: an offers bottom-up approach ACCRA’s

11 In relation CCR to be a to this, the evaluation found that DRR is close enough to pragmatic and effective entry point for ACCCRN. This is particularly true of the Phase 2 engagement projects, creation. which have aspects of field shaping and demand been made clear to partners, the distinction between DRR and CCR has not However, particularly the advisory committees and working groups at city level. This is more of a concern moves into Phase 3 implementation projects. as ACCCRN It would be narrativea see to useful theoryor wherebychange of partnerscity progress from a DRR orientation to a CCR modality. Resilience, especially urban resilience, is a multi-scalar concept. There is a need for a macrofrom view that considers matters at city and higher levels. It is also clear social and ecological systems approaches to resilience that there should be engagement at level – to the extent that this school of resilthe local, community or even household - ience considers that “any program or project aiming to build resilience should engage use the community as an entry possibly, point” (Bahadur et al., 2010). This locally or, “importanceacknowledges the participationcommunity of processespolicy in de- and centralized institutions, and conceptualization of resilience often uses the community as the unit of analysis rather than only an individual or community context.” This aspect of resilience systems and community engagement – is less – social prominent expected from in ACCCRN than might be an organization such as Rocke- feller Foundation with a strong orientation. Urban systems inevitably encompass social planning for large-scale infrastructure and service delivery, which needs central co- ordination. to some extent in contrast with rural This is systems wherein farmers can act more to climate change on their smallholdings (ACCRA, individually in adapting n.d.). urban social systems. DIFFERENCES DRR Conceptual and practical differences between disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation change adaptation reduction and climate risk between disaster and practical differences Conceptual

: Adapted from Mitchell and Aalst, 2008. Mitchell : Adapted from Origin and culture in humanitarian Origin and culture event assistance following a disaster – i.e. concerned with the present Most risks existing addressing and Full range of established tools developing low to development, Incremental moderate political interest TABLE 4: TABLE SOURCE

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 36 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 37 Phase 2 outputs Engagement projectsEngagement strong methodologies for health in Surat good vulnerability analysis supported in Surat and Indore by TARU good health capacity and vulnerability assessments in the three Vietnam cities strong summary report and vulnerability assessment on climate change impacts in Can Tho demand, and flooding in Surat, linking to good case studies on water supply, climate change projections, in Vietnam, and vulnerability breaking down who and why. • • • • • The SLDs produced a raft of products from assessments, all 10 cities: vulnerability city resilience strategies. This is an importantsector studies, and ultimately, achieve- 3, although these productsment. As discussed later under Outcome have been widely made been not have they ISET, by facilitated workshops city at discussed available. Although there were claims that these were not produced for publication, most cities or country coordinators now provide links to the documents on their websites, so they are in the public domain. Arup (2010f), under its Phase 2 grant, quality assured Phase 2 products. a sample of these They concluded that quality was mixed. Strengths included: Phase 2 included a set of small-scale pilot projectspilot of small-scale a set included Phase 2 multi- a how demonstrate to projectstakeholder through identified how differentSLD might be implemented, an approachstakeholders would project or where implementation, there might be demand for further projects, at a larger possibly scale. During Phase 2, these projects were re-named “engagement projects”, to manage cities’ expectations This re-orientationPhase 3. in scaled up be all would the pilots that the projects of for the cities, the might fit in the overall SLD process.explains how they However, name is largely they are immaterial, small-scale projects designed to reduce risk and Some are cross-sectoral and others at a larger scale but most are small vulnerability. (Annex 4). The projectsscale and single sector largely have achieved their design a multi-stakeholder projectaim – to show how through identified an SLD might be implemented. These projects have enabled a closer working relationship among and with city partners, that UCCR is more demonstrating than studies and workshops, and providing an opportunity to support cities in addressing pressing urban management issues that are the en- likely to be exacerbated by climate change. Whether they have deepened gagement with city partners and improved understanding of UCCR is less the level of certain. in the following section, the extent to which the projects As is shown have has been variable. It has certainlycatalyzed buy-in and UCCR-orientation occurred in other cities, they arewith stakeholders in some cities, but seen more as another project.donor It will be important reachesACCCRN that as 2, the the end of Phase projectsexperience of implementing small-scale is reflected with a UCCR orientation upon and written up as part of the continuous learning that the SLDs represent, and that these reflections are also shared. 3.9 3.8 The level of traction that ACCCRN achieved in Phase 2, working with cities to institu- The level of traction that ACCCRN achieved aspects of Phase 2 have had better traction tionalize UCCR, has been variable. Some traction than others. The scale of the task than others, and some cities have had better should not be underestimated for “improved and, indeed, although Outcome 1 calls capacity to plan, finance, coordinate, implement climate change and strate- resilience aregies within ACCCRN cities,” the cities unlikely to be resilient by the end of the initiative. In designing resilience strategies, there has been very positive feedback regionalabout the technical competence of ACCCRN and country partners who have facilitated Phase 2. startTo have been with the challenges, the ACCCRN rationale and UCCR concepts not been understood and adopted by some individual actors in cities, but they have widely absorbed among partnerhad particularly cities, and ACCCRN has limited impact in shaping a UCCR field in Thailand. In Thailand, ACCCRN outputs are pursued to the extent they arein the grant memorandum. Key city stakeholders do contained not engage with ACCCRN at the level of the theory of change and to a very limited extent with ACCCRN results. In Vietnam, the ACCCRN rationale is not clear or of significant importance to partners. Most view this engagement primarily as an opportunity to mobilize resources (as required by Vietnam’s Programme National Target on Climate Change) in order to promote provincial achievement of their own local and national immediate work ob- The theoryjectives. of change and results ACCCRN aresought by understood well by the Phase 2 in-country though it may take some time national partner, NISTPASS, However, there were of the missing the perspective as sector studies also gaps, such However, determining to tackle how capacity, on adaptive as they focused most vulnerable, infrastructurecity-wide while remaining issues es- the most vulnerable, focused on of researchtablishing a comparison the SLDs, and generally producing tools used for more than analysis and diagnosis. description Some evaluation respondents were also concerned in the early that, as identified Stratus report, climate change projects techniques for down-scaling are not yet suf- ficiently or of fine enoughrobust make accurate city-level resolution to projects. The 2 planning is based arounddanger is that Phase a projected future that seems more certain than it really it is based on scientific data, which are is, because in fact not as made clear which does not appear to have been seem. The danger, dependable as they by city-level downscaled might adapt for a situation indicated to cities, is that they data, rather than becoming resilient against an uncertain future. they offerOverall, while the Phase 2 city-level products are of mixed quality, a body participatory,on experience of processes multi-stakeholder for initiating UCCR. Cities need This does not exist elsewhere, and there is no single or right answer. to continue to be reflective, and ACCCRN partners need to ensure 2 that the Phase documents are shared way they have been produced, in the as real life examples of trying to do UCCR. 3.10 Phase 2 traction

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 38 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 39 The cities have considered the Phase 2 outputs in the process of their plan prepa- rations, which reflects of ownership of the pilot projects some kind by the local government. The cities have proposed and adopted some of the experiments and instruments of intervention in their own plans. They are associating with and seeking help from Mercy Corps in developing some of their projects. None- theless, to some of the partners at local, state and central levels, the ACCCRN rationale is not very or considered important. clear, Despite considerable local • for the newly employed national coordinator employed national for the newly to understand for Phase 3 (via ISET) resultsand own the and theory framework city and provincial of change. At the level, interventionthe ACCCRN is perceived donor intervention. as another The theory of change and resultsowned by the city partners. framework is not understood or More important ACCCRN provides to them is that opportunities that are for some activities cities and arebeneficial to their NTP. in alignment with the importanteven or to some clear, is not yet rationale ACCCRN Indonesia, the In partners require or at central levels. It will repeated and reflection application to stick. Here, it would be ambitious to despite considerable local engagement, resilienceinclusive an have to cities ACCCRN the expect Cities’ place. in strategy has been increased change and capacity development knowledge on climate through training and awareness programs carriedand the SLDs. They value the experiments out under the project, and the resilience documents. The developments in the two cities are at a stage when they would like to consolidate their learning from the past fromexperience but also to take assistance ACCCRN in preparing future develop- ment plans, reflecting climatic concerns. There are good avenues for this. In Bandar Lampung, one city advisory member also heads the committee for the committee local Mid-Term Plan, which has been approved Development by the mayor and is approvalawaiting from messages key the Thus council. legislative the by ACCCRN are entering the formal planning process through informal channels established at the city level. ACCCRN is considered by evaluation respondents to have been timely and valuable in enabling, supporting and exploring approaches and methodologies to vulner- city-level adaptation plans. In Vietnam,ability assessment and the design of this pioneering contributed to informing the design of a national template (adaptation for the development of 63 province-and mitigation) which is to be implemented This is an important achievement. Six of these level plans as required the NTP. by contracts for the development of 20 plans plans have been completed, with the awarded throughthe Ministry Resourcesof Natural Environment and (MONRE). The government preparing is a climate change response strategy to be applied for the whole country. ACCCRN, through to Change (CtC), is acknowledged and ISET and Challenge respected right place at the right time to provide for having been at the cities with important support has played a key “access” role in linking the outset. NISTPASS at across key national, provincial and city levels. In Indonesia, there are several positive developments. engagement, it would be ambitious to expect the ACCCRN cities to already ACCCRN cities to to expect the it would be ambitious engagement, have resiliencean inclusive of the concerned in place. A few strategy officialsnot do and, thus, at CAC as binding or the decisions outputs of ACCCRN consider the departmental for immediate implementation in their cannot accept these work, follow-up instructions.unless backed up by well and achieved resultsThe SLD has worked in terms of capacity building related and dialogue has adaptation with stakeholders. Networking to the climate change improved, and the linked learning process and a knowledge management system throughhas been implemented projects. the pilot BoardThe City Development as well as the mayor have committed (BAPPEDA) signed MOUs commit- the city development plans, and have to use the output in ting to use it. and Semarang, the resilienceIn Bandar Lampung interventions and strategies are plan. In Semarang, the city is discussing included in the city development budget five-year mid-termwhether to include this in Indonesia’s development planning (RPJMD), starting in 2012. • • • In India, the establishment of City Advisory Committees in participating ACCCRN advisorycities, and their functioning, even as bodies to the existing planning and with the exception of Surat. In Gorakhpur, administrative system, has been limited, the key functionaries of the city government have often attended the CAC meetings, but as guests of honor or to preside,They have not rather than being fully engaged. carried from any messages functioning or in planning the CAC into their day-to-day their future activities. The results under assessments and sectoral studies conducted vulnerability of the espe- ACCCRN have been presented and discussed in the CACs, often as a formality, cially in the Indian cities. Their recommendationsformally have not been used in the on-going planning process or even discussed at important fora to obtain comments from formal planning bodies or local civil society organizations, although a few issues receivedhave given being outputs of expectation The documents. policy in mention is, levels higher and city the at agents change key by used or policy-making in weight therefore,There time. ambitious at this impact in sensitizing has yet to be significant importantlycities or, coordinating in India, state-level planners. City-level ACCCRN agencies have not been associated with the committees or deliberations for preparing countrythe spatial plan at local level. This is indicative of a need for CACs and city and coordinators state and and engage with governance to understand processes at city, national levels. Notwithstanding this, the real of Phase 2 must be recognized outcomes in terms of their high level of technical competence and for initiating a participatory process of negotiation and decision-making. In Indonesia, the CAC has had semi-formal status as there by the city governments. is some kind of ownership The members attend the meetings with considerable seriousness and consider these to be a part of their The concernedofficial local departments responsibility. are aware of the agreement of ACCCRN with the central government the country and always look to coordinator of ACCCRN to play an effective role in policy mobilization at all levels. In Surat, the CAC is being formalized, but otherwise there is generally no formal recognition.

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 40 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 41 A general issue in India, expressed most clearly in Gorakhpur, is the unwillingness of is the unwillingness issue in India, expressedA general in Gorakhpur, most clearly a part agencies to become the planning by an NGO. an initiative launched of, or lead, There is reluctance tool of planned intervention, or its CAC, as a to accept ACCCRN or administrative supportwithout sponsorship from the relevant line department or even an informal of approval indication from A civil society orga higher authorities. - governance can find only limited space in local nization, on its own, and finds it hard to create of ownership. The local partners a spirit in all three cities look to the Indian national and international partners to create a higher level support system but the This is role does not explicitly stipulate this design of the framework for any agency. policy-level partners inclusion of TERI and IRADe as national still missing, although to addressnow goes some way National Institute of Urban Affairs this. Inclusion of the (NIUA), through partnering Learning it with Peer Experience and Reflective network further(PEARL) would add support, as NIUA is a parastatal body. institutions and multi-stakeholders fora for The change in capacity of the individuals, designing programs in and plans to achieve ACCCRN outcomes have to be examined terms of short- and long-term goals. The country coordinators have shown innova- resourcefulnessthinking, tive specific and implementing designing in dedication and schemes in Phase 2 projects for micro-environmental improvement and tackling current problems of water and environmental sanitation. These indeed provide scope for up-scaling, certainly in the selected cities, if not at higher levels. city resilience sound get a technically to The key issue is not just strategy prepared, but to make it integral to the planning process ACCCRN at the city level. The ability of to influence the city planning processes will be difficult in India and Indonesia, unless governmentof levels higher the are formally as partners.taken state gov- In India, ernments play an important role urban development is a “state subject” as per since officialsthe Constitution. In Indonesia, local-level in the cities strongly desired more substantial engagement of provincial governments project. in the In Vietnam, this is less of a concern. In Vietnam’s structured governance systems, the needs of cities are closely linked and determined through provincial and national co- ordination initiatives within the framework of Vietnam’s Programme National Target on Climate Change (NTP) and its 2011–2020 development strategy. city level elsewhere, at the the major issue concerning planning is insuf- However, ficient coordination among the different agencies that function at central, state and state ir- local levels, and their interaction with private actors. In Surat, for example, the rigation department is associated with ACCCRN, while the pollution control officials, no knowledge of it. have located in the city, There ACCCRN and its city advisory is thus plenty of scope for committees and working groups their membership. This needs to be a clear aim to continue to expand and this for Phase 3. As it stands, the aim of being “citywide” is mainly ACCCRN’s, needs to be a common objective for city partners. The linkages between A second issue at the micro to the whole city. level is scaling-up the current problems of vulnerability and climate change are accepted by ACCCRN’s on poor and in the project. It is also for Phase 3 projects. While 12 Recently agreed with Rockefeller Foundation to be $38 million with Rockefeller Recently agreed

not sufficient to fund major infrastructure development across the 10 cities, it is con- sidered that this corpus will support city-scale interventions, rather than the more micro-scale engagement interventions in Phase 2. There is a risk of losing relevance and visibility if the Phase 3 projects are too small in ambition, scope and funding. The 12 Phase 3 has only just commenced. The decision on which Phase 3 projectsPhase 3 has only just commenced. The to fund in projectimplementation initial the roundfunding in was evaluation the while taken was much about the progressthe field. Hence it is not possible to say of Phase 3. However, findings about the Phase 3 process to date are presented below. ACCCRN has produced a clear and well-conceived process and set of criteria for selecting Phase 3 implementation projects (Rockefeller Foundation and Arup, 2010). the evaluation notes that the criteria are an illustration of “planning for” However, criteria (Fig 8) include impact rather than “planning with” thinking. The vulnerable populations, but not the extent of their involvement vulnerable populations, but not the extent national and regionalnational and partners, organizations, of civil society select members the and commer- of industrial few enlightened members community and a academic cial organizations. city those to scale-up to the is not adequate This, unfortunately, throughinitiatives launched pilot projects in a couple of wards. In both India and supply have generally been on waste management and water Indonesia, these pilots there is no effectivesuccessful and commercially viable. Yet, to prepare demand and adopt climate resilience and the community or city level. In designing strategies at schemes for microimplementing specific environmental improvement, the concerned and have addressed innovative thinking and commitment, agencies have shown the problems has created capacity at the city level. This of inadequate a scope for up- for creating integration of the schemes scaling, but the inter-sectoral a framework for a resilience is yet to take shape. strategy not clear from these criteria whether the extent to which projects draw on and emerge from the city resilience strategies was part of the selection process, though it was a required of the project element template. There are typologies of participation, many going back to Arnstein’s ladder (Arnstein, forms1969), but they generally have asymmetric of engagement at one pole (inform, consult) and more inclusive ones at the other (partnership, citizen delegation). Urban but it has become increasinglyplanning has traditionally been a city function, inclusive (i.e. beyond consultative). The concern ACCCRN is that, despite the strong in social systems dimension of resilience thinking, citizen participation as it is not as evident might be, as illustrated in these criteria. The RF ACCCRN team and Arup have developed a good process and set of criteria, and the country coordinators have worked with city partners funding sub- to develop missions to secure project funding from the Phase 3 fund. ACCCRN has earmarked $20 million of its overall budget 3.11 Phase 3

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 42 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 43 PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY PRIMARY GATEWAY GATEWAY GATEWAY GATEWAY GATEWAY SECONDARY SECONDARY SECONDARY CRITERIA WEIGHT CRITERIA For this reason,“depth-versus-breadth” questions emerge in relation to project selection. Single projects need to be sufficiently large in scale and financing to: i) invite city-wide attention, and ii) demonstrate sufficient impact for poor and vulnerable com- munities to have potential to generate attention at national and international levels. The project selection criteria already identify scale as a key criterion. This might be Therefore ACCCRN needs to reassess its guidance broadened to include visibility. larger interventionsand funding plans for Phase 3 projects. Fewer, will progress the Initiative from Phase 2 to Phase 3 more clearly and better support the achievements of Outcome 1 and Outcome 3. approach in addressing of various other donors oppor- and adaptation both mitigation city level will receivetunities at increasing the ACCCRN interventions attention, and a city-wide priority. UCCR is not yet attention since need to demand 1. Contribution to building urban climate change resilience to building urban climate change resilience 1. Contribution Contributes to urban climate change without negatively straining or degrading ecological systems or or degrading ecological systems straining to urban climate change without negatively Contributes practices unsustainable in environmentally resulting tradeoffs consequences or producing to urban climate change without generating negative Contributes integrity while impacts on poorthat would yield detrimental and ecosystem and vulnerable populations solution a wider-scale attempting to achieve of poor and vulnerable populations 2. Impact on lives building measures integrate with other resilience to 3. Potential at city level 4. Scale of impact 5. Technically and operationally viable 5. Technically 6. Financially viable and sustainable for timely implementation Prospects 7. ownership 8. Local 9. Ability to leverage other resources (financial, human, technical) other resources Ability to leverage 9. 10. Prospects for replication in other places for replication 10. Prospects scale 11. Ability to achieve 12. Ability to contribute new urban climate change resilience knowledge and practice 13. Innovative 13. Innovative 14. Contribution to a diverse and balanced set of projects and balanced set of projects to a diverse 14. Contribution ACCCRN-wide and interventions Implementation project selection criteria Implementation project : : Rockefeller Foundation and Arup, 2010. Foundation and Arup, Rockefeller CRITERIA PRINCIPLES Credibility Credibility Ecologically sustainable development Do no harm Viability and sustainability Leverage capacity Leverage Replicable and scalable Innovation Innovation Portfolio balance balance Portfolio FIGURE FIGURE 8 SOURCE:

14 ACCCRN SHOULD BE EXTENDED FOR FOR EXTENDED BE SHOULD ACCCRN as dedicated city coordinators, is a start. 13 complete the physical aspects of the project while integrated urban solid waste management master plan to increase resilience to climate change in Bandar Lampung City pre-feasibility harvesting study of rainwater to reduce climate change vulnerabil- ity conjunctive management of water supply systems in Indoreconjunctive management of water supply end-to-end early warning system for Ukai and local floods – Surat ward-leveland institutionalizing developing, testing micro-resilience– a planning model for replication – Gorakhpur city climate resilience coordination offices hydrological modeling for urban planning – Da Nang feasibility study for reducing households vulnerability of poor female-headed Nhon Binh climate impacts on urban planning for In Vietnam, ISET has opted for one national coordinator. “Hard” adaptation measures usually imply the use of specific technologies and actions involving capital goods, capital goods, the use of specific technologies usually imply and actions involving adaptation measures “Hard” focus on information, adaptation measures “soft” whereas buildings, seawalls and reinforced such as dikes, and institutional arrangements. policy and strategy development, capacity building,

INDIA ($1.23 MILLION) ($1.23 INDIA MILLION) ($0.42 INDONESIA VIETNAM ($2.36 MILLION) ($2.36 VIETNAM • • • • • • • • • ONE YEAR TO COMPLETE THIS PHASE OF WORK ADEQUATELY. ADEQUATELY. WORK OF PHASE THIS COMPLETE TO YEAR ONE across three countries: Larger projects are be technically and managerially more going to demanding. City advisory and working groups committees to step up to this challenge, and will need morebe required. technical assistance is likely to specialized The three regional partners assistance to support have drawdown funds for technical Phase 3, but this appears small in relation to the scale of the challenge. Larger projects are the context of ACCCRN, if they only going to be meaningful in are a full action-research/action-learning able to complete loop during the life of the initiative. As it stands, they should ACCCRN is live (although this may be tight for projectsACCCRN is live (although this may be the last round in of funding in 2012), but it is doubtful that full reflection and learning loops will be completed shared and disseminated within the available time. Therefore, to gain the maximum value from the Phase 3 implementation projects, The selection of the first batch of implementation projects was an involved process, following the agreed process. City partners and national coordinators felt that the funding procedure was intensive and put them under strong time pressure to complete their funding submissions. They were then disappointed that the process seemed to 13 14 So far, $4.01 million has been awarded to nine “soft” projects” (World Bank, n.d.) awardedhas been million $4.01 projects”“soft” nine to (World far, So With fewer, larger interventionWith fewer, projects, to be assured ACCCRN needs that it has the necessary support in place. Country systems coordinators’ for ACCCRN systems it is small grant projects. implementation of established to help have been However, not entirely scaled-up to support clear if they have themselves the larger Phase 3 projects, staff although in most countries,

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 44 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 45 A MEANS BY WHICH FURTHER FURTHER WHICH BY MEANS A ROUNDS MIGHT CARRY A LOWER BURDEN FOR THE RF ACCCRN TEAM SHOULD BE SOUGHT. SOUGHT. BE SHOULD TEAM ACCCRN RF THE FOR BURDEN LOWER A CARRY MIGHT ROUNDS slow down once submissions were once submissions slow down the for appraisal. At RF ACCCRN team with the cities and countrytime of writing, coordinators had not receivedwhy feedback on their proposals part need this, as it is – or failed. They had succeeded of the learning process. Without the processa solid engagement with all applicants, risks being a means for cities to obtaining standardgamed and becoming donor funding. approvalRecognizing that ACCCRN procedures are perceived as slow by partners, has subsequently modified the the RF ACCCRN team review and feedback process, It has also negotiated having learned significantly from the initial funding window. provisiona unique and special headquarters, with Rockefeller Foundation whereby once a concept is approved a full proposal, for taking to Foundation manage- senior that they will not reject commit proposal, the final except on legal ment in New York or due diligence grounds. The selection process also has been intensive and placed quite a burden the RF on so throughoutACCCRN team, and will continue to do 2011 as further funding rounds This intensity of project-level engagement may be a facet of the hub-and-spoke occur. structure and of ACCCRN (see Outcome 4 section), which leads the decision-making coordination team. It may similarly back to the center – back to the RF ACCCRN that only it has sufficientbe a facet of the RF ACCCRN team believing command of the overall initiative picture to decide what complementary set of Phase 3 projects evaluation finds that this level of directwould be to best deliver Outcome 1. The RF ACCCRN team orchestration of Phase 3 projects is not necessary, and the time in- vestment carries a high opportunity cost in regard to other tasks that only the RF ACCCRN team can perform, as opposed to project selection, which could equally be an expertdone by a grantee, possibly working with panel. Summary

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) phase of ACCCRN was are needed to ensure the The ACCCRN rationale and is the entry point for much rushed. on-going participation, UCCR concepts have been of the city engagement. rather than just consultation, understood and adopted This is an appropriate entry A five-year initiative in a new of poor and vulnerable com- by some individual actors point, especially where cities field, with a limited number munities. There is a need to in cities, but they have not have fairly recent experi- of partners is faced with a ensure inclusivity in Phase 3. been widely absorbed among ence of disasters, but also difficult task that combines partner cities, and ACCCRN where there is increasing forming a conceptual field, The value which cities place has had limited impact in convergence of DRR and building partners’ capacity in the city advisory commit- shaping a UCCR field in the climate change adaptation and demonstrating progress tees and working groups cities generally. There are, ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK approaches. on the ground. Putting a (CACs and CWGs) is indicated however, some very encour- time pressure on earlier by moves to institutionalize aging areas of traction, such ACCCRN is currently missing phases may not be the best them. For example, Surat as with the National Target a roadmap that progresses solution to this problem. is changing its constitu- Programme on Climate interventions and partners However, in an adaptive tion to a trust and Vietnam Change (NTP) in Vietnam. from DRR to climate change management environment City Climate Change Offices resilience (CCR), which where understanding is (CCCOs) are being funded In Phase 3, there is a risk involves higher degrees of continually evolving, it is with Phase 3 grants. of losing relevance and uncertainty, more multi-sec- not always clear how long visibility if the implementa- toral planning and response, different stages will take. Phase 2 engagement tion projects are too small in and probably longer time projects have enabled a ambition, scope and funding. spans. The SLDs have been success- closer working relationship Projects need to be suf- ful processes through which with city partners, demon- ficiently large in scale and The selection of ACCCRN to engage a range of city strating that UCCR is more financing to invite city-wide cities was ultimately stakeholders across a range than studies and workshops, attention, and demonstrate pragmatic. Although it of institutions, and develop and providing an opportunity sufficient impact to generate followed a number of studies inter-sectoral working to support cities in address- attention at national and on city selection criteria and practices. However, SLD ing pressing urban manage- international levels. scoping cities’ eligibility, materials were stronger on ment issues that are likely to those findings were under- climate science and physical be exacerbated by climate The intensity of RF ACCCRN used in the selection process, planning than on social change. team involvement in because they were rushed or aspects and the governance selection of second-tier not well executed and, thus, context. Those involved in Documentary products grants is not the only, or were not sufficiently fit for Phase 2 deserve credit for from Phase 2 are of mixed necessarily best, model for purpose. developing and implement- quality, but provide a body of project selection. It carries ing a process of engagement, experience on participatory, a high opportunity cost The scoping exercises found analysis and planning across multi-stakeholder processes and indicates some under- low levels of awareness and sectors and departments for starting to develop performance of country coor- interest in climate change that has resulted in city resil- UCCR which does not exist dinators. A means by which adaptation issues among ience strategies in 10 cities. elsewhere. Cities need to further selection rounds candidate cities. Thus, gen- The next step is to move to continue to reflect on these might carry a lower burden erating sufficient awareness strategies and processes processes and ACCCRN for the RF ACCCRN team became a priority. Conse- that are integrated into city partners need to ensure that should be sought. quently, governance and the planning and development. the Phase 2 documents are national policy environment shared in the way they have were not well considered Community groups were been produced, as real life in the selection process. involved in SLDs, but examples of trying to do Overall, the development structures and processes UCCR.

46 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 47 4

Networking vs networks Outcome statement: Network for knowledge,Outcome statement: Network for learning and engagement practical knowledge to build urban climate change resilienceShared engagement, demand and applicationdeepens the quality of awareness, by cities and other stakeholders of ACCCRN The Foundation sees networks as an important part of the way it works, recognizing them as an “inherently powerful means of bolstering global resilience” (Rockefeller capacity and ability to network were not evidently partFoundation, 2009). However, of the selection criteria for cities. networks many Already, agents. many among and levels many at work can Networking relevant to ACCCRN themes are in existence. Thus, the formation of a formal network climate of 10 Asian cities working with Rockefeller Foundation funding on urban change resilience may not provide the functions that ACCCRN, its partners and wider audiences most require in terms of learning, sharing and scaling-up. This begs the question of “why network?” At a general level, this is fairly self-evident (learning, sharing, supporting), an ACCCRN advisor of network- but a 2011 review by J. Raynor, above ing options for ACCCRN questions the value of an ACCCRN network over and Outcome 2 concerns creating exchange. Knowledge a network for knowledge occur throughexchange does not necessarily need to However, a network vehicle. func- a of existence the upon depends 2.2 Output and network, a as titled is ACCCRN tional network. Therefore, this chapter mainly considers different types of, and ap- proaches to, networking and their fitness for purpose in ACCCRN. Stream 2 is presently focused on networking among the 10 ACCCRN cities, Work component appears to have changed over time. although the intent of the networking The ground formulations, is now shifting to discussion of other network including ones possibly centered around individuals in cities rather than cities per se. 4.1 Outcome 2 Outcome 4. COUNTRY COUNTRY ACCCRN An ACCCRN cities web An ACCCRN between stakeholders within ACCCRN cities between ACCCRN cities within each country (outlined above) between all ACCCRN cities between ACCCRN partners (different levels, especially national partners) between ACCCRN cities and non-ACCCRN cities within countries between ACCCRN cities and non-ACCCRN cities globally COUNTRY FIGURE 9: FIGURE • • • • • • other networks out there.other networks to network is designed extent to which the It is unclear the form partof the ACCCRN theory scale-up aspects sharing and then of the knowledge or serveof change, ceases. ACCCRN once funding element of as a key sustaining reviewRaynor’s currentACCCRN’s of a identifies functions network potential and this evaluation has found, a options. Of these, he states that, as number of network formthe in network initial the been have to seems 9) (Fig cities web ACCCRN 10 of a offers though it is not clear that such a network intent of ACCCRN, compelling “a value proposition for cities acrossregion.” the A risk of an ACCCRN 10 cities web is that the cities become more insular, if they face the cities become moreA risk of an ACCCRN 10 cities web is that insular, internallytowards its outside network the expand to incentive less have network, the direct ACCCRN membership, and thus less able to support achievement of Outcome club. It also risks that Rockefeller Foundation 3. The network essentially becomes a might become proprietorial is clearly about “its 10 cities”. Ownership of the network made awarewith its membership. The evaluation was and ICLEI that UN-HABITAT cities”. had both fallen in a trap of having “their what is startingHowever, to emerge is a hybrid cities-within-countries network model (Fig 10), facilitated by country partners who have a relationship (Fig with ACCCRN 11). As Raynor (2011) notes, a cities-within-counties arrangement seems to be where there is traction and where the country and regional partners can best act to support networking. A range of networking configurations is possible: Cities arefirst instance this is most practical In the looking to learn from each other. cities for networking within countries, because it facilitates knowledge sharing among

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 48 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 49 COUNTRY COUNTRY ACCCRN ACCCRN A country-partner-led network COUNTRY FIGURE 11: 11: FIGURE COUNTRY COUNTRY What is the purpose of a network? This is not yet clear, though ACCCRN has What is the purpose of a network? This is not yet clear, identified a number of objectives for the network, such as building relationships between cities and groups improving of cities, awareness and interest in UCCR issues for a range of stakeholders, and improving ability to implement UCCR ac- tivities and, then, to disseminate best practices on this. Why would members join the network? What is its value to them, in relation to other possible affiliations? Here ACCCRN identified a number of challenges, • • with common or similar governance regimes common language. “Networking” and a refers to a system of sharing information and services among individuals and groups having a common interest, rather than a more structural “network”. This networking supportsaims dissemination the than rather 1, Outcome of aims capacity-building the of Outcome 3. ACCCRN needs to ensure that its emerging knowledge management is supportivesystem particularlycity-to-city knowledge sharing, of within country. exchange is the recentA good example of city-to-city knowledge national Sustain- able Cities Conference Surat Municipal Corporation hosted by Surat, and at which the (SMC) promoted its city resilience strategy (CRS). The city interviews by the evaluation revealed conducted evidence of the development of intra-city network relationships. Strong and common comments from those inter- viewed indicated that the committees formed in response to the ACCCRN opportunity have provided valuable neutral spaces for the development and nurturing inter-depart- mental communities of practice. There is also some evidence of inter-city communica- tions occurring in relation to ACCCRN, with emerging examples of practical planning and implementation solutions being shared. ACCCRN’s recent ways 2011) of its networking and potential internal review (Raynor, forward who” questions of the in- for Outcome 2 asks some fundamental “what, why, tentions behind Outcome 2, which, even at the mid-point of the initiative, are unclear. ACCCRN ACCCRN Cities within a countryCities within partnership COUNTRY FIGURE 10: 10: FIGURE 16 held a week-long climate 17 areaddition needs (in Rockefeller the type of people 15 which the evaluation also heardwhich the from partners, including insufficient commonal- language and organically, network development stakeholders to drive ity among barriers that require input. a heavy moderating aimed at? The narrativeWho is the network has been around network”. a “cities unit for a city entity is the most useful it is questionable whether However, likely to be either in- or for networking. Membership is network membership presentstitutions, which may problems with staff turnover but still can engage engagement and act as champions or individuals who can maintain substantively, It is increasinglywithin city systems. apparent that aiming to connect a number of be a better value proposi influential individuals is likely to dynamic, engaged and - tryingtion for ACCCRN than network, which would to establish a 10-city or wider networks. duplicate other existing A person who is a trusted expert in a particular field, who seeks to pass knowledge on to others A person who is a trusted expert jointlearningnetwork.org/content/practitioners-and-experts cdkn.org

• ACCCRN focuses on cities, and works variously with elected officials,ACCCRN focuses on cities, and works sector public departments,the private and third and sectors, without fully defining “city”. What emerges from interviews evidence is that a few key individuals who and the empirical “get” UCCR areout-scaling. driving success and could be critical in ACCCRN already talks about tipping points, but might make more use of Gladwell’s 2000), an analysis of types of individuals that tipping point “ of the Few”(Gladwell, help drive expansion. Using his terminology for types of people that help ideas spread are “connectors” stick, and importantclearly approachintegrated an developing in to resilientsystems; “mavens” city Action Lab, to develop a series of innovative prototype ideas for dealing with climate compatible development. One of the prototypes– smart cities – called for intelli- supportto engagement gent climate-smartof development urban and leaders local DFID’s flagship support to responses to climate change in developing countries – the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), 15 16 17 to its own maven behaviors) to amplify and spreadto its own maven behaviors) to amplify “salesmen” the UCCR concept; and are likewise part of the spread. ACCCRN should thus switch its focus from cities to individuals – individuals who are in, and concerned with, cities and work with them to develop process skills that will supportembedding UCCR in city systems. The resulting group be promoted also could as a cadre or community of practice, or as a directory of resource experts, such as the Asian Development Bank – Cities De- the Rockefeller Foundation Health Systems velopment Initiative for Asia (CDIA) and Initiative’s Joint Learning Network (JLN). For example, JLN says: “At the heart of the Joint LearningNetwork are the people who are involved. Country practitioners, and the knowledge and experience they hold, represent the network’s single greatest resource. Practitioners from JLN member countries have made a commitment to exchange ideas, share and problem-solve experiences around key challenges for the benefit of any and all other participants. An ever-growing experts number of technical and advisers, representing a variety of backgrounds and geographies, also contribute to the knowledge base and practitioner-based learning activities”.

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 50 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 51 the Clinton 23 20 25 26 19 UN-HABITAT Sustainable Urban Development Urban Sustainable UN-HABITAT 18 managed by the National Institute of Urban Affairs managed by the National Institute of Urban 24 21 World Bank Institute – Urban Knowledge Exchange Bank Institute – Urban World 22 Climate Initiative (NIUA) and linked to the Jawaharlal Nehru(NIUA) and linked to the Jawaharlal Renewal Mission National Urban (JNNURM) (APEKSI) Indonesia: Indonesia Association of Mayors Network – SUD-Net; Inclusive Cities India: The Ministry Peer Experience and Reflective of Urban Development’s Learning network, (PEARL) Cities alliances focused on larger cities and mainly mitigation (covering issues climate leadership group;such as waste and water): C40 cities Bank - Cities Development Initiative for Donor initiatives: Asian Development Asia (CDIA); Thailand: National Municipal League of Thailand Thailand: National Municipal League of Internationally: Mayors Council Governments Local for Sustainability/World (ICLEI); Change Climate on www.worldmayorscouncil.org www.indiaurbanportal.in wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/content/urban-knowledge-exchange-and-connectivity www.nmt.or.th c40cities.org

cdia.asia/about-cdia/background

www.apeksi.or.id inclusivecities.ning.com

www.clintonfoundation.org/what-we-do/clinton-climate-initiative • • • • • 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • cities empowering networks, existing with work to planned likewise has CDKN DFID’s as climate change actors at an international up leaders to debate climate level, gearing November in II (WMSC) Climate on Summit Mayors effectivelychange World the at 2011. ACCCRN has targeted 2011, a world congress the ICLEI Resilient Cities on cities and adaptation to climate change in Bonn in a similar manner. active It is notable that other Rockefeller initiatives have succeeded in establishing networks. The prime example is the Joint Learning for Universal Health Network planners to build smartplanners to cities. According prototype to CDKN, “The a pilot suggests city departments, network between based on a two-way model test of an eco-leadership committee and a a collaborative climate champions, institutions, leaders, knowledge community support design group.” many of ACCCRN has been piloting models with these features. There is a good opportunity for ACCCRN to explore synergies with CDKN on this prototype of individuals” model. which is consistent with a “network other networks relevantAs indicated above, exist. ACCCRN should certainly to UCCR Its and internationally. established city networks nationally not attempt to duplicate networking efforts cities to concentrated on linking ACCCRN would be much better supportingexisting networks and in promoting them than estab- UCCR in these fora, probablylishing a parallel and less sustainable structure. has identified the existence of a number of ACCCRN’s own work (Nachuk, 2010) networks at different cities either are, levels of which potentially become, or could members. These include: country experiences Documenting

& analysis existing networks and sup- existing porting them in promoting UCCR in these fora, than by establishing a parallel and less sustainable probably structure. is a clear opportunity There to find out more for ACCCRN about the RF Health Systems – about how and Initiative it works. why - Operational research Operational research Information and evidence Web Portal Web whose website is currently a in development, but has learning ing efforts would be better by concentrating on served cities to linking ACCCRN individuals who are in, and individuals who are concerned with, cities to act and work with as champions, process them to develop skills that will support UCCR embedding in city systems. shouldnot attempt ACCCRN to duplicate established city networks nationally and Its network internationally. 28 which has five key functions (Fig 12): on-demand learning (Fig 12): on-demand five key functions which has and Practitioner-based Practitioner-based 27 Multilateral Learning Multilateral Learning workshops Joint learning network activities Joint Learning Network for Universal Health Coverage. for Universal Network Joint Learning www.jointlearningnetwork.org On-demand learning & exchange cenafrica.net Networking, which means a Networking, of sharing informa- system tion and services among indi- having a viduals and groups is needed common interest, than a structured more network. individu- The few key UCCR are als who “get” driving success and could be critical in out-scaling. shouldthus switch ACCCRN cities to its focus from FIGURE 12: 12: FIGURE SOURCE: exchange, multilateral learningexchange, research workshops, operational docu- and analysis, menting country portalis JLN’s virtual that Web and an online experiences, home. their relationshipsThese functions and are very all similar to those required to make network function work. Therethe ACCCRN knowledge is a clear opportunity for moreACCCRN to find out works. about how and why JLN ACCCRN’s sister project on adaption in rural Africa, Adapting African Agriculture Resilience, is funding the recentlyfor Climate Change established Climate Exchange (CENA), Network for Africa dynamic, rather than static, flavor. Again, there may be opportunities static, flavor. dynamic, rather than for experience sharing heretoo. 27 28 Coverage (JLN), Coverage Summary is not a compel- There for proposition ling value a network in the form of cities web. a 10 ACCCRN Although this was the initial it risks intent of ACCCRN, becoming a club. within of a “cities A hybrid country” network model fa- is starting emerge, to cilitated by country partners with a relationship that have ACCCRN

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 52 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 53 5

new cities using knowledge generated in ACCCRN new cities using knowledge generated more cities working on UCCR ACCCRN UCCR concept influencing donor and government policy and practice additional funding being mobilized for UCCR. Outcome statement: Expansion, deepening of experience, deepening of experience, Outcome statement: Expansion, scaling-up and with ACCCRN is expanded (UCCR) Urban climate change resilience and additional support (finance, existing new cities taking action through technical) generated by a range of actors. policy, • • • • This chapter considers ACCCRN’s approaches to increasing the adoption of a UCCR approach. It also reviews use of communications as part ACCCRN’s of increasing the awareness and use of the UCCR approach. of experience and scaling-up occurringOutcome 3 envisages expansion, deepening through a number of channels: Outcome 3 is thus about spread, i.e. increasing impact via two avenues: scaling-out by expansion to new cities, and scaling-up by influencing the policy arena and, thence, public sector investment by donors and governments. these sit four work Beneath streams: management, resources communications and knowledge brokering, dissem- Stream Framework (Annex 5), the RF ination and replication. 2010 Work As per the ACCCRN team leads the latter three of these streams. From3), this cluster of work streams the phasing of ACCCRN (Fig and the success- ful achievement of Outcome 3 were meant to run parallel to the city-level work from it has only recently startedthe outset, though in reality, (Fig 4). With the city work Stream 1) now well underway, ACCCRN needs to adjust the stream (Outcome 1, Work balance of attention towards Outcome 3. Outcome 3 Outcome 5. Scaling-up identifying donor priorities and networking and engaging with individual donors identifying donor priorities and networking and engaging with individual donors on UCCR relatedissues Building on the Foundation’s convening power, good progress has been made in convening power, Building on the Foundation’s aim to influence national and sub- the brokering resources from However, donors. national governments to adopt, mainstream in developing countries and invest approachesUCCR in progressed.well less much is level, national the at Scaling through governments, donors and areas, be separated into two distinctive should and dissemination strategies. with dedicated communications Scaling starts at home. There approach negligible evidence that the ACCCRN is initia- Foundation in other Rockefeller up taken been have concept the UCCR and tives, particularly grants and search urban stream. phase work under the While there is a clear desireinitiatives to connect, it may be that the incentives to for this. have distinctive initiatives militate against Climate policy has a very global dimension and scaling-out can be used significant to influence international policy processes such as the IPPC Fifth Assessment Report. There is a grant to support two authors of the urban chapter of AR5, but influencing as a separate strand of work it might be useful to identify global policy with dedicated resources. Scaling can occur downwards but rather de- as well. This is not downscaling, naturecentralization and devolution. The centralized the RF of ACCCRN, and 3, implicitly lays the onus of scaling ACCCRN team leading on most of Outcome seen in relationbe will As team. ACCCRN RF the on - a central communications, to ized structure increases the burden on the team and undervaluesthe power of a distributed network. More could be done to support partners as scaling agents. Thereincreaseoption to may be and mainstreamingthe institutionalization of UCCR concepts and practices through posts in target co-funding strategic orga- throughand nizations partners,ACCCRN in secondments funding example for a UCCR post in a city government or funding a short of a city staff secondment member into a partner organization. • • • • • • ACCCRN’s strategy for scaling-up has three broad components: Conceptually, the scaling-out (expansion) and scaling-up model works. However, a However, model works. and scaling-up the scaling-out (expansion) Conceptually, review of scaling approaches that additional Poate, 2002) suggests (Hancock and some segregationavenues and of approaches may be useful. The ACCCRN theory developing an approach of change involves and building to UCCR practical experience with implementing in cities, so that there is empirical evidence to support efforts to expand and scale-up the use of UCCR. There is thus a designed link 1 (learningOutcome between and (expansion Outcome 3 and evidence) empirical and and scaling-up). This link is less evident in practice. The field is developing rapidly, resourceits postpone not to chose rightly ACCCRN brokering replication and activi- ties until the delivery with this body of evidence in progress, of Outcome 1. However, there is a need to ensure connection among the Outcomes. The evaluation found that the main utility of Outcome 1 for Outcome 3 so far has been to strengthen ACCCRN’s convening power by providing the credibility of an active field program. It has yet to provide a bank of practice lessons from city-level experience. 5.1

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 54 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 55 facilitating coordinationfacilitating donors among UCCR partnership. a concept for a multi-donor developing ISET received grant from USAID for ~ $2 million to expand UCCR activities into two new cities in both Thailand and Vietnam. Mercy Corps received grant from to support USAID Indonesia for ~ $1.5 million CCA and DRR in four provinces. are AFD and the ADB actively coordinating funding their climate change RF, programs in Da Nang, to leverage local capacity development and resilience planning efforts supported through ACCCRN. An MOU is being developed between the three organizations. RF and UNCDF areto support developing potential collaboration in Quy Nhon, further local government-led resilience-building efforts. Quy Nhon was selected for work by UNCDF in part because of ACCCRN’s presence there. India on climate change and cities, in orderRF and DFID held a joint workshop in to raise policymakers’ awareness face as a of the vulnerabilities that Indian cities meeting Collaborating on this result of climate change, urban growth and poverty. improved progress the visibility of the event, which highlighted ACCCRN’s to date. • • • • • • • ACCCRN has undertaken a thorough in regard study of donor policy and investment (Sjögren,finance climate to provided This 2010). overview an of and strategy donor of specific country-level existing and future and mapped mechanisms funding strategy, partners.suitable for ACCCRN assessed alignment of adaptation investments It also through pooled resources, believed that more as it is structured collaboration would of the knowledge and awarenessenable amplification of what effective practice looks like, through greater with resilience experimentation building approaches, and would promote a more shared programming vision for expanded in the future. del Rio, 2011) reportsACCCRN (Rumbaitis engagement that its team and the donor key donors on potential options to build offconsultant “maintained dialogue with of Foundation in ACCCRN.” This engagement the investment made by the Rockefeller contributed to a number of “new areas of support for ACCCRN partners and greater the following. collaboration in selected cities” including In addition to these funding commitments, there are on-going opportunities to leverage synergies, coordination and complementary actions with other donors who are increasingly active in climate change. In Vietnam, a number of evaluation respon- dents considered Vietnam that ACCCRN’s intervention would be strengthened by al- post locating at least one additional networking/knowledge management/facilitation for coordination other donors. with In relation coordination, to donor the Foundation is well connected and has convening power that is founded on morethan operating a field program under Outcome 1. In ACCCRN convened November 2010, at the Foundation’s Bellagio Conference Center, a meeting for donors working on, or interested but not yet active in, UCCR in Asia. Par- Bank and Swiss Re World ticipants – including ADB, AFD, DFID, GIZ, JICA, UNCDF, – discussed ways for donor organizations investments and resources to align their for building climate change resilience at the city level. The meeting resulted in an agreement improving and implementing UCCR practices in an expanded initiating generation, utilization and spread of knowledge on UCCR improving local capacity to plan, finance, coordinate, and implement climate provide help create early-stage or seed capital investment financing to Scaling-out number of cities through improvedharmonization of existing sources of support and from technical) generated by a range of actors additional support (finance, policy, change resilience strategies within rapidly growing medium-sized cities in Asia KNOWLEDGE: CAPACITY: IMPLEMENTATION: FINANCE: financing confidence and build a pipeline so that adaptation, credible investment in particular, in general, are and climate change, attract private better able to sector and additional development partner finance in scale. • • • • The proposal is for the UCCRP to be coordinated and managed by the ADB, using its existing Urban Financing Partnership Facility (UFPF) financing mechanism, projectdemand-driven (CDIA) Asia for Initiative Development Cities the using and and managing the partnership.development entity as a vehicle for establishing To are: commitments to UCCRP donor indicative date, staff ADB in-kind of contribution resources management as part for fund of the Urban Financing Partnership; KfW: and some grant funding, DFID: £65 million as $100 million in parallel loan financing a significant tranche grant fund, Rockefeller Foundation: $5 million; plus, potentially, Bank. There are details still many of parallel funding from the World AFD and possibly but this level of donor commitment at this stage is to be worked out on modality, extremely does get established, as signs indicate it will, then encouraging. If UCCRP the Foundation can be confident that its venture capital investment in ACCCRN has delivered a significant return, which will further influence other climate finance. In addition, ACCCRN can be confident that its Outcome 3 objectives at the supra-national level are entirely met. ACCCRN, therefore, UCCRP a major focus of its needs to make attention and, as necessary, bring in the skills on financial instruments, and operation and programming of basket funds. Scaling-out horizontally can occur through a number of mechanisms, including: networks, networking (e.g. in conferences), leveraging national and sub-national aroundshared interest Resilience Climate Change a multi-donor Urban in developing Partnership concept for the in developing the taking the lead with ACCCRN (UCCRP), partnership, from substantive inputs with help address DFID. UCCRP will the ADB and that there (2011) by UN-HABITAT the issue identified “inter- is little clarity about how adaptation (particularlynational funding for work with integrated into development) can and serve local governments society groups” and civil in urban centers. producedACCCRN in FebruaryUCCRP concept the of draft discussion a 2011 and ADB, 2011) with a proposed(Rockefeller Foundation statement: “Local Outcome champions have increased capacity and resources to build climate to take actions change resilience in an increasing for poor and vulnerable communities number of rapidly growing globally have a deeper cities in Asia, and diverse range of actors on urban climate change resiliencebase of knowledge building approaches, based on empirical practice and learning.” Its Outputs would be in the areas of: 5.2

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 56 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 57 - . 29 In India, evaluation respondents felt that TARU, as a private sector consultancy, In India, evaluation respondents as a private sector consultancy, felt that TARU, did not have was not the right type of organization. While well connected, TARU the level of connection in the policy sphere to be effective in policy processes. change climate national first the drafting in engaged was TEI Thailand, In and TEI subsequently withdrew not accepted was this draft but from strategy, the national climate change policy arena. It has continued to focus on local-level interventions,thereforemay and engage- policy for capital political the have not ment at the national level. The evaluation found that the Arup Country Report on 2008b) highlighted a primary need for the national institutional Thailand (ARUP, framework and policy on adaptation to be strengthened in order to enable more effectiveinterventions (Januarytime that At level. local at had Cabinet the 2008), just approved strategy for climate change, and there Thailand’s first four-year was opportunity for engagement at the national level to assist in promoting a national approach to adaptation. Compared to the national focus on mitigation, there has since been limited guidance and support to adaptation issues at the national level, and this would have been an opportunity for ACCCRN to identify and partner with a nationally engaged organization issues. with a focus on adaptation ACCCRN addressed international donor policy and funding in its Bellagio meeting, and it is also evident in UC and it is also evident international donorpolicy and funding in its Bellagio meeting, addressed ACCCRN CRP; hence this is not covered again here. CRP; hence this is not covered

• • 29 policy, and spontaneously from city to city. Networks and networking are and networking Networks with dealt spontaneously from and city to city. policy, replication spontaneous and 2, Outcome under This difficult obviously is for. plan to the policy environment by influencing focuses on scaling-out section thus for climate change, at both country and international levels The scoping of cities, Phase 1, took cities as the unit of analysis and the primary Phase 1, took cities as the unit of analysis The scoping of cities, point only in level national the with dealt it meant this obvious, seemingly While entry. of looking at the structure descriptive level of detail – of governmenta shallow, and the main relevant leveraging funding for UCCR is national policies. A key means for in funds can be substantial. For example, These through national policy. influencing Nehruthe Jawaharlal India, Mission (JNNURM), an urban Renewal National Urban modernizationyears, to $20 billion in 65 cities over seven initiative, aims to spend of efficientfast track planned development urban infrastructure and service delivery mechanisms, and support community participation accountability of local and agencies. paid little direct ACCCRN to influencing national policy and attention Until recently, In India, therethence domestic public sector investment. has been recent work by the dedicated partners.Foundation in this area, can, as in with new, While the Foundation Foundation its approachBellagio, convene bilateral donors, as a is different to that of a which is by default government-to-government.bilateral donor, National government is not a mandatory starting point for Foundations. government”’,“does Foundation the whether asked evaluation the when Thus, the priority, specifically in ACCCRN, it has had a lower broad answer was “yes”. However, ACCCRN’s Similarly, particularly when the focus has been on city activity. early on, choice of partners for all phases has tended not to feature those with strong national policy orientation. Clearly, policy processes policy differently operate Clearly, Vietnam in the ACCCRN countries. is led from it drives down policy that has a national adaptation the center and provincesto through following and cities, with investments Target National its Program.environmentpolicy the and thus federal India is differentlyfelt is in cities in differentcities have flexibility to develop their generally states. However, own approachesand opportunities policy to loop their experience back up to the with a strong mayoralty, arena. has a similar level of city level flexibility, Indonesia processes, mix of top-down and bottom-up policy and Thailand has a with the monarchy an important playing role. • ACCCRN now recognizes the need to address national policy actors and processes. provided which has India, in evident most is This through grants, Country the TARU Coordinator’s(ISET, Delhi in events policy host to IRADe grant, to TERI and head Vietnam,In 2010c). role,this plays well-placed similar needs ACCCRN but NISTPASS the with work and understand who countries, all in place in grantees policy-focused governance their countries. These are grain in likely to be policy-oriented think most tanks. The initiative should not overlook indirect national level. influence channels at the In Vietnam, donors indicated they would welcome ACCCRN’s participation in donor coordination meetings in relation to climate change. ACCCRN has these links across the program, and should realize the opportunities. not appear In Thailand, TEI does throughto be engaged in taking UCCR issues not clear to the national level. It is this of TEI. In this respect,how much the RF ACCCRN team expects there does not appear to be a uniform description of roles and responsibilities national coordi for - nating partners.that each agreement it appears Foundation and between the Rather, partners is different. together representativesIn its grant memo, TEI sought to bring of Samut Sakhon and and Chiang Rai partnersUdan Thani into a round-table meeting with the Hat Yai in the second half of 2010. The TEI project policy extension memo scheduled a national roundtable meeting for January 2011. By the time of interview, this meeting had not occurred. Further information was requested but has not been received – it cannot be confirmed that learning and knowledge sharing processes have been established. There horizontal expansion in Indonesia, to Blitar. has been some spontaneous It is also important not to overlook second-tier government – states and provinces. In cities in India and Indonesia, scaling-out within ACCCRN cities and thence to other the state, province a more or nationally necessitates formal approval – such as signing an MOU with state and provincial and mainstreaming authorities community advisory committee activities into the system of preparing spatial plans. This is required as a priority in both the countries, particularly India. In Indonesia, Mercy given Corps has very good support, linking across some key national, provincial and city levels, but similar vertical linking is less evident in other countries. of set a test and develop to 313) CLI (2010 grant scaling-out new a has ICLEI India, In calibrated tools, materials and processes for engaging new cities and begin to replicate

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 58 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 59

30 Communications Resilient Cities 2011: ICLEI 2nd World Congress on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change. Bonn, Germany, on Cities and Adaptation to Climate Change. Bonn, Germany, Congress Resilient Cities 2011: ICLEI 2nd World 3-5 June 2011 resilient-cities.iclei.org/bonn2010

and facilitating a meeting of private sector actors concerned and facilitating a meeting of private sector about UCCR in the de- veloping world. A small amount of support is being provided to TEI for publicity in Thailand, but there is very little draw-down resource in the communications grant for country or city partners. at this point of the program.The lack of a dedicated website is a deficiency ACCCRN with links to partners’has a page within the Foundation website, websites and a limited a morenumber of documents. The absence of “resource-full” website or a functioning of scaling-out and networking. Intranet militates against the twin aims APCO produced 2010, but it did not meet a draft version of an ACCCRN website in requirements. It suffered a number of problems in development, including multiple editors and contact points in the RF ACCCRN team, lack of involvement by ACCCRN partners, lack of agreement the publica- on which documents should be uploaded to tions section, outdated sections, problems with accessing content, and ultimately – though late in the process from – feedback the RF ACCCRN team that the design was unsuitable. 1.0 model, meaning It is understood that the new website will be a traditional Web 2.0 interactive approach. It is unclear how ACCCRN’s it is static, rather than a Web three proposed electronic presences and the proposed – the ACCCRN website social networking site for partners and its related knowledge repository under Arup’s Phase 3 knowledge management grant – will inter-relate and if they will build in sufficient 30 The broad area of related of “communications” covers a number communi- activities: disseminating knowledge, supportingcating ACCCRN’s lessons, partners in sharing public relationsknowledge and employing the initiative. These are about closely related tightly to networking and resource and link brokering, as well as to knowledge management (internal- The focus in this section is on communica communications). tions that supportscaling-up, but it also touches networking. producedThe communications grantee, APCO, strategy in a draft communications with the RF ACCCRN team but little consulta- 2010, after having intensive interaction tion with regional of it. The level of had little ownership partners who, consequently, detail was fairly rough, but it covered the main elements of a communication strategy: the strategy and tools and tactics. However, audience and stakeholders, key messages, formallynot was itself presentedAPCO Instead, adopted. three-pointa de- 2011: for plan presenceveloping a website, facilitating ACCCRN’s at the ICLEI conference in Bonn, the successes of ACCCRN. This also will integrate other approachesThis also will integrate of ACCCRN. the successes to assessing Resilient Bank approaches, and planning adaptive climate risk including the World and GTZ EnvironmentCities Primer Three Change Program and Climate (PAKLIM). selected cities dissemination of this tool. The the for selected been cities have Indian would receive training in the process of formulating climate resilience strategy plans. 5.3 31 Semarang ACCCRN YouTube channel: YouTube In Indonesia: Semarang ACCCRN is There www.youtube.com/watch?v=b53MDS1YAwc. also a twitter feed: twitter.com/#!/ACCCRNINDONESIA Indonesia blog site: In Indonesia: ACCCRN acccrnindonesia.wordpress.com/about/ In Thailand: www.thaicity-climate.org/index_en.html by TEI) (hosted Vietnam website: www. In Vietnam: ACCCRN vietnamcityclimatechange.net/En/Home/All// Hosted by the Surat chapter of ACCCRN, “a coalition of organizations and individuals with shared vision of and individuals with shared coalition of organizations “a by the Surat chapter of ACCCRN, Hosted a bud- are We competencies and networking. leveraging synergies, Surat city by fostering climate resilient ideas and in out of box believe We and individuals. ding coalition, a coalition of open minded organizations welcome new partnerships.” cross-linkages.resources of ACCCRN will link to a number The website have that assuredbeen quality the Foundation should team. It is right that the RF ACCCRN by recognizeshould this but initiative, the for website a have fact the upon build and that cities and partners have leapfrogged and produced the Foundation their own 2). to their own working documents (Box websites, which link 31 The evaluation heard the expert view that climate change adaption and UCCR are “works in progress”, et al., 2010) with concepts and terms (Bahadur still being defined. As awareness of climate change adaptation and resilience grows, understanding of the learningconcepts will change. ACCCRN’s own about UCCR has been organic, reflec - tive and iterative in Phase 2 and the shared learning dialogues (SLDs) have been apparentthe with contrast in this sits desire concentrate to However, this. on based effort on a relatively small number of well-polished publications for ACCCRN’s com- munications portfolio. for the Initial planning for ACCCRN’s website identified over 80 initiative documents “resources” section. This was reduced by the RF ACCCRN team to 20 documents that needed to pass a high editorial bar. A number of factors apparentlycontributed to this, including the desire to present a good external Phase 2 documents were face, some lack of clarity about whether

BOX 2 In India: www.suratclimatechange.org/page/13/ acccrn-and-surat.html In India: www.suratmunicipal.gov.in/content/ by Surat Municipal climate_change/main.shtml(hosted Government) site, ACCCRN (Indore In India: www.imagineindore.org Phase 2 page and links to Indore’s including a resources documents) page: www. Indonesia Facebook In Indonesia: ACCCRN facebook.com/pages/Asian-Cities-Climate-Change- and Resilience-Network-Indonesia/141972125826132, page: www.facebook. Facebook Semarang ACCCRN com/media/set/fbx/?set=a.166105060079505.32348. 141972125826132&comments=1. ACCCRN websites hosted by cities and partners websites hosted ACCCRN

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 60 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 61 intended for publication (partnersintended for argue they were to publication standard not written academic partner that ISET – as the as the intention), not communicated as this was 2 architectand Phase particularly the mandate for publishing, – held towards the peer- reviewed of the spectrum, end and some tension among partners over intellectual property (IP). The result because paucity of material on ACCCRN, exacerbated is a many partners are “execution partners” publish. with less institutional incentive to a field and needs to be an open learningACCCRN is shaping program. This means moving to a more open source approach not falling into the trap to documentation, of the good”. In promotingof the “best is the enemy learning a approach systems to and the acceptance to encourage risk-taking, experimentation UCCR, ACCCRN needs made and can be learnedthat mistakes will be from. is giving a misleadingly The risk representationpolished approachescities’ the of towards skewed is that UCCR to a thus needs to mobilize the strengthsingle “right way” of doing this. ACCCRN that network of partnersexists in what might be seen as a distributed (identified in Box 2), who can report on and communicate their own experiences. ACCCRN needs to target international on urban and national discussions and debates climate change. UCCR is currently ACCCRN’s and its underlying concepts need more promotion to gain wider acceptance. ACCCRN has targeted the ICLEI Bonn confer- ence and has the intention to support UCCR contributions to the IPCC AR5. This it is hard for ACCCRN is the right set of activities, and more are needed. However, ACCCRN needs to put into place to contribute if it has only limited documentation. Many partnersmeans by which to better document itself. are execution focused, and documentation is not core a sound business. The RF ACCCRN team is thus pursuing partner.strategy of involving a dedicated writing is mentioned in Output 2.2 relatedBranding, another dimension of communications, is concerned the Rockefeller Foundation about to the “brand” of UCCR. However, its own brand and receiving due recognition for its initiatives. The arrangement of partners, particularly national partners,can obscure and the the RF/ACCCRN brands identity of the partners. a Mercyas known ACCCRN is Indonesia, in example, For Corps programthan rather a Rockefeller Foundation one. Cities are aware that the Foundation provides funding support,Mercybut identify with the one responsible Corps as its implementation. for ACCCRN relationship with the being mediated through a countryHowever, coordina - is two steps removed the city level from the Foundation. Hence, identities can get tor, blurred. This has consequences for the Foundation capitalizing on city-level work and also may result confused messages. in acknowl- Nonetheless the evaluation found that all grantees have been quite diligent in edging ACCCRN funding and including the initiative logo on papers, presentations and websites. As communication channels further develop and ACCCRN moves into to wherea scaling and amplification phase, the Foundation should guide grantees as and how it would expect the RF and ACCCRN logos to be used, while recognizing it is UCCR rather than ACCCRN that needs to endure, that, to improve sustainability, and that cities also need to own the concept and results. Summary

Outcome 3 is about the Foundation can be grants, through the TARU link to their own working spreading UCCR through confident that its venture Country Coordinator’s head documents. avenues: scaling-out capital investment in grant, to TERI and IRADe. There is a paucity of through expansion to ACCCRN has delivered a NISTPASS plays this role material on ACCCRN. new cities and scaling-up significant return, which in Indonesia. ACCCRN Many of the partners do through influencing the will further influence other needs to ensure that it has not have institutional policy arena and, thence, climate finance. similar well-placed policy- incentive to publish, and public sector investment by focused grantees in all Scaling-out needs to there has been concern donors and governments. countries, who understand ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK influence international about the quality of Phase and work with the national Building on the policy processes (e.g. 2 documents. The initiative governance grain. Foundation’s convening IPCC AR5). This should be needs to move to a more power, good progress has identified as a separate There is negligible evidence open-source approach to been made in brokering strand of work with that the ACCCRN approach documentation, and avoid resources from donors at dedicated resources. and the UCCR concept have falling into the trap of the national level. been taken up in other “best is the enemy of the ACCCRN has had limited Rockefeller Foundation good”. ACCCRN convened influence on national and initiatives, particularly international donors sub-national governments ACCCRN is promoting a other urban programs. on UCCR at Bellagio, adopting, mainstreaming learning systems approach resulting in an agreement and investing in UCCR. Progress on external to UCCR and needs to around shared interest in Scaling through donors communications has encourage risk-taking, developing a multi-donor and governments should been slow. The lack of a experimentation and the Urban Climate Change be separated into two dedicated website is a acceptance that mistakes Resilience Partnership distinctive areas, with deficiency at this point of will be made and can be (UCCRP). This has potential dedicated communications the program. learned from. The risk commitments of over $200 and dissemination is that a misleadingly ACCCRN needs a website, million from a group of strategies. polished representation of but should recognize donors. the cities’ approaches to ACCCRN now recognizes and build upon the fact UCCR is given, and one that UCCRP is a significant the need to address that cities and partners is skewed towards a single achievement. If it does national policy actors and have leapfrogged the “right way” of doing this. get established, as signs processes. This is most Foundation and produced indicate it will, then evident in India, with their own websites, which

62 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 63 6 The work stream framework also 32

Architecture partners’ performance and grantees’ satisfaction of partners, donors and networks with the responsiveness of the RF ACCCRN team practices by ACCCRN. the influence of RF initiatives and management ACCCRN does not have a term to describe “the RF ACCCRN team + implementing partners”, which is perhaps team + implementing partners”, a term to describe “the RF ACCCRN does not have ACCCRN Outcome statement: Organizational excellence, management, excellence, Outcome statement: Organizational accountability and learning and relevant and is efficiently, team operates effectively, The RF ACCCRN operates; andit which in stakeholderscontext accountable to the and to the Strategy contributes and Mission of RF. leadership in RF, provides illustrative of the hub-and-spoke culture in the initiative. in the initiative. of the hub-and-spoke culture illustrative • • • ACCCRN has evolved its partner architecture a number of arrangements over to arrive at its present structure. During scoping Phase 0 (Search), the structure was very 32 This chapter relates to the organization and management of ACCCRN. The topics under reviewarchitecture include the of ACCCRN and the structural relationship among the main organization involved, the coordination and management of the ini- tiative, its efficiency of resource use, the use of a results-based management approach ACCCRN and ACCCRN’s risk analysis. in a grant-based initiative, the M&E of Outcome 4 is assessed with three indicators: While not preciselythese indicators identify the overarching specifying, leadership and management roles of the RF ACCCRN team. shows that the RF ACCCRN team has lead technical functions in the areas of resource brokering, dissemination and replication. As the work streams mapped to outputs and outcomes in the results shows, the activity areas framework which the RF ACCCRN team leads primarily contribute to Outcome 3. 6.1 Outcome 4 Outcome 6. ICLEI ISET Arup PHASE 1B PHASE Corps Mercy Mercy ICL Aru ISET PHASE 1 PHASE simple: the RF ACCCRN team connected to two research connected to two RF ACCCRN team simple: the grantees (Fig. institution model, which servedto a hub-and-spoke 1, this evolved 13). In Phase the purpose. For Phase 2, and moving into Phase 3, the hub and spoke model has expanded with For Phase 2, and moving into Phase 3, new branches – notably country coordinators in each of the four countries, and a second tier of city-level partners for implementation projects with branching spokes where country coordinators support more than one city (Fig. 14). Introducing country coordinators has been a positive step, bringing more proximal country-specific knowledge and support to cities. They provide a conduit for ACCCRN funds to partnersin the country, coordinate country provide activities, technical as- sistance to city partners, support knowledge management and resource brokering in the country, and are the channel for submitting intervention projects to ACCCRN. areThey in-country,ACCCRN” of “face the be to meant also providing for clarity national government (Arup, 2010f). The evaluation found that while all country co- ordinators this national face role, can play they are not equally motivated to do so or equally placed to lead the national policy engagement role. Country coordinators are a relatively recentnot innovation of the RF ACCCRN team, which means it has has been possible to make a full assessment of the extent to which this tier of grants addressed past weaknesses in supporting city partners. partners,initial The termednow regional partners (Arup, to exist ISET), ADPC, provide support to the RF ACCCRN team and to country coordinators. ICLEI was also an early partner. For Phase 3, the regional partners provide a supporting role to country coordinators (ISET is the country coordinator for Vietnam), for which each has a small drawdown fund for technical assistance that city partners can access. major roles their as regional partnersHowever, are in reflection, documentation, knowledge management, dissemination and replication, i.e. in Outcome 3, although the separation between their individual roles is not entirely clear for Phase 3. Arup will also continue to provide support to program management.

Stratus IDS SCOPING Early ACCCRN Structures Early ACCCRN FIGURE 13: FIGURE

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 64 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 65 Semerang B Lampung Can Tho Quy Nhon Hat Yai Indonesia Mercy Corps Mercy Rai Chiang Da Nang Vietnam ISET Thailand TEI ISET RF India GEAG Arup phur Gorak ADPC ICLEI India TARU Indore ACCCRN – hub-and-spoke schematic – hub-and-spoke ACCCRN Surat FIGURE 14: FIGURE Grantees providing one-off Intellecap, and communications deliverables, Ashoka and areAPCO, grantee, the M&E grantee, representednot 14. Nor is Verulam, Fig in which cuts across and provides tiers and countries feedback across the initiative, based on the resultsThe aim of the schematic is to show the overall shape framework. The only point of ACCCRN’s present architecture, and to show the hub dependency. This has twin disadvantages: it is at which one can view the whole is from the center. coordinot the optimum configuration to stimulate networking and it places the main - nation role ACCCRN team. on the RF A particular manifestation of the hub-and-spoke model is what a number of partners identified as bilateralism in the way ACCCRN interacts with partners and grantees. brings partners and grantees together periodical- ACCCRN, under the auspices of ISET, ly at internationaland the RF ACCCRN team convenes regional ACCCRN city meetings, partner meetings. But between these events, partners express a missing sense of “network” and inclusiveness. ISET held a largegrant and thus had a significant Phase 2 role The evaluation found that the opportunity in the way Phase 2 was implemented. Results orientation The Rockefeller Foundation is results focused and strongly committed to delivering It supportsimpact. results architecture resultsas such tools, and ini- for frameworks, tiatives and internal a review of ACCCRN grant letters pre-approval bundles. However, reveals that this architecture there may not yet be complete. For ACCCRN, is certainly a gap between the results team orientation that the Foundation and the RF ACCCRN which ACCCRN and the Foundation deal with bring to the initiative, and the way in trueis this Whether grants. more requirewould Foundation the for widely reviewing other initiatives’ modus operandi, which was not within the scope of this evaluation. this more, explain ACCCRN grant letters which commit funds against deliver- To ables, the ‘”hard” part of the relationship between ACCCRN and its grantees, deal with the lower end of the results chain. The results framework deals with the middle ends, but thereupper and insufficient is 15). The two (Fig. the between connectivity consequence is that grantees do not own the upper level results and the RF ACCCRN team has to provide is partly the glue, which where the current management and co- ordination Simply put, grantees own activities and the RF ACCCRN team gap exists. owns outcomes, with some fuzziness in the middle for outputs. There is no common ownership of results. ACCCRN has acknowledged this missing link in the results chain, and tried to address it in two ways: i) with the work stream framework and ii) with a grant letter addendum. and necessity to align partnersand necessity grant were funded under this well realized. not Likewise, to partnerstechnical assistance second-tier partners and improved may have been if the regional partners,had better role had and more clarity coordination. Arup and ISET, There is insufficient flow of multi-lateral information among set events and knowledge to create strong cross-links partners among the hub. Part beyond is a lack of of this sharing and partmechanisms for knowledge and ISET behavior. is ACCCRN-wide regional and some partners,have brought TARU together, cities within countries e.g. and Arup,Verulam talk regularly networking under their own initiative. Facilitating among partners was part 2 remit, of ISET’s Phase to have but this does not appear occurred networking outside events. or to the extent that it stimulated consistently there or incentive for this more is little encouragement organic form of net- However, be arguedworking, and it may that some of the grey areas and overlaps at the margins Partnersit. against militate grants of morebe to sought not have generally networked. bilateral grant-based cultureThe RF ACCCRN team has allowed a dominate, and to has not offset with sufficient this attention to achieving a more connected, interdepen- dent, cooperative style of working. the grantor-grantee relationship will maintain a hub-and-spoke Contractually, structure, but over the remainderof the initiative, it should evolve towards a more web-like structure in which the RF ACCCRN team takes a less prominent role. This is necessary and it will enable inner-tier partners to improve provide to sustainability, supportbetter partners.city to may not network acrossCities structure,whole the but promoting inter-city relationships within countries should be an aim. 6.2

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 66 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 67 IMPACT Results Framework OUTCOMES OUTPUTS ACTIVITIES Grant Letters ACCCRN results architecture results ACCCRN INPUTS Distinguish between deliverables (what the grant produces) and reporting obliga- tions. Distinguish between deliverables (what the grant produces) and milestones (pro- gressive steps towards the deliverable). A third means to improve alignment to results is the proposed Strategy and Alignment Group, which is dis- which Strategy and Alignment Group, is the proposed alignment to results means to improve A third section cussed in the proceeding The work streamThe work the tool to cluster as a management was developed framework

FIGURE 15: 15: FIGURE • • 33 The grant letter addendum explains the Rockefeller Foundation strategy and the The grant letter addendum explains ACCCRN strategy and theory This is useful, but it has only a high-level of change. context for grants. Grantees are still left uncertain how their grant fits into the larger the RF ACCCRN team, at the hub of initiative. And with that continuing uncertainty, able to see the whole. the ACCCRN wheel, is the only player from 5 shows the milestones and deliverables As an illustration of this, Table a sample which this grant is designed to be delivering. Phase 2 grant, next to the outputs to The grant language is somewhat blurred as the grant deliverables are the progress reports, while the milestones (which would normally be considered steps towards the deliverables) areproject the activities,and are time bound (which one explicitly not would normally expect to be a milestone property). The milestones are almost entirely activities: identify stakeholders, organize activity workshops, conduct assessment, implement studies, etc. This attention to the in grants is closer to implementation management – which focuses on ensuring properresults-basedto than activities, of completion and inputs of use management (RBM), which is more concerned with the higher-level objectives (Binnendijk, 2000). a more facilitate a connected resultsTo orientation throughout the initiative the formatFoundation might usefully consider a number of changes to the grant letter in This might include the following. addition to the addendum letter. 33 objectives into not grants) and activities (although team and grantees’ RF ACCCRN coherent work streams work version of the purposes. The 2009 for management stream did not feature framework until revision the outcomes 2010. in

develop proposalsdevelop provideand coordination projectcity to assistance proposals and stakeholders national governmentconsult with state and - actors as well as donors on op portunities to leverage ACCCRN experience create an e-group to share ideas and knowledge among ACCCRN-partners; and organize one training event. at least Adjust the language of granting, from language of granting, Adjust the present-tense- (e.g. initiate engage activities city partnersment with city partners(e.g. states completed past-tense ) to ); engaged upwards achievement of level the Adjust from micro-level meso- to activities level outputs (e.g. from: “organize consequences and a workshop on climate risks, stakeholders” to “city stakeholders’ awareness contexts for city resilience in urban in urban contexts of climate risks, consequences and resilience and understanding taking responsibilityincreased”). This implies grantees results for at a higher illustrate further, in one To attributed back to their agency. level, which can be payment tranche, theregrant, against a $275,420 are four milestones: • • • • This payment could be made against: x number of city proposalsThis payment could be made against: (of submitted which at least y% are funded); ACCCRN ideas and process adopted in at least governmentdonor or other z projects; an e-groupleast operational with at is yy new governmentxx active members sharing knowledge; officials trained in UCCR approaches. Introduce a very simple results framework with indicators within each grant to supportletter, the output focus. expecting and requiring grantees to undertake a certain of level of monitoring their own Output delivery. • • • • These points are made in recognition of the fact that foundations mainly receive proposals rather than issuing contracts for services, impacts which ACCCRN claims upon its ability to both ensure alignment and drive performance. Nonetheless, requests for proposals communicate the need for – and require can still – a stronger resultsrecommendationsabove the Also, grant. the to connects that orientation are sub-contract. It is noted that several of these made for a grant letter context, not a recommendations concern of granting; results the language language uses words in a very specific way – the Foundation would need an M&E glossary support to these change. The evaluation recognizes results that the framework was only developed by the RF rolled2009 and in team ACCCRN partnersto out furtherbeen having mid-2010, in 3, to developed by the M&E grantee. Thus the alignment of grants, prior to Phase this does not detract results, as per results framework, is not expected. However, from observing results-oriented that portfolio management is difficult without a unified the alignment of results framework. Nonetheless, recent grants to the results framework should be increasingly apparent, and it is not. Very few partners, even those closely involved with ACCCRN since the beginning, are aware of the results framework, let alone using it. One partner, Arup, has attempted to align its Phase 3 proposal with the results framework.

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 68 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 69 1 ownership, commitment and ownership, engagement more innovative, (new, to deal with appropriate) uncertainty activities based on owned and technically sound (climate-informed) strategies resilience on practice reflecting from and demonstrate learning RESULTS FRAMEWORK RESULTS OUTPUTS FOR OUTCOME FOR OUTPUTS 1.1 City partners institutionalize 1.2 City partners build skills 1.3 City partners implement City 1.4 partners identify lessons each SLD in each city of pilot projects engagement and level an assessment of priority opportunities Thailand “network partner” city activities to date and steps to planned next continue to engage these cities • synthesis of findings from of findings from • synthesis • identification and selection of national- • synthesis assessment of the • synthesis reports, covering Dec 1, 2009 – covering reports, due shortly after Dec 31, 2009, December 31, 2009 an updated work plan, initial and priorities to be activities, 2010, due March taken through January 31, 2010 the period covering reports, January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010, due June 30, 2010 and including: , covering July 1, 2010 , covering reports to October 31, 2010, due within 2 months after October 31, 2010 REPORTS/DELIVERABLES 1. Interim narrative and financial 1. Interim narrative 2. Inception memo that outlines and financial 3. Interim narrative 4. Final narrative and financial and financial 4. Final narrative The evaluation did hear counter-argumentshear did evaluation The a moreto results-based management and needs to “allow the good approach, organically, in that ACCCRN is i) working things that are and ii) that urban climate change is a wicked happening to happen,” Biannual monitoring by the M&E grantee has increased M&E grantee has monitoring by the Biannual awarenessresults of the which partnersframework, team areand the RF ACCCRN therefinding useful. But, areoutlined as since, implementation change grant to grantees for incentives few on deliverables not Outcomes. above, grants focus GRANT LETTER (2009 CLI 328) CLI (2009 LETTER GRANT MILESTONES Illustrative grant deliverables Illustrative

Identitystakeholders and form and partners a first meeting with national-level Organize and objectives stakeholders project to understand expected and responsibilities clarify roles approaches, stakeholders and provide national-level from activities and and advice for project recommendations adjustments Initiate engagement with city partners Refine the strategy for “network partners” work engagement, national engagement, and initiate plans consequences a workshop on climate risks, Organize for city stakeholders in urban contexts and resilience learning dialogue (SLD) 1 to develop Initiate shared climate change risks current a consensus regarding and issues faced by the city and identify preliminary an entry and areas point for vulnerable groups vulnerability assessments climate change and vulnerability city-level Conduct assessments planning workshop with in a resilience Participate other Asian City Climate Change Resilience Network partners (ACCCRN) learning dialogue (SLD) 2 to Initiate shared results communicate with the city working groups climate change assessments, of the initial city-level identify and implement specific sector studies of ideas and climate impact and generate pilot project guidelines across Implement sector studies to map linkages of specific sectors and an in-depth analysis different climate impacts stakeholders meeting #2 with national-level Organize on findings input and recommendations to provide pilot climate and vulnerability assessments, of SLDs, and selection, and design, development ideas, project agencies and actors identify and engage key TABLE 5: TABLE for example: for example:

The M&E system the solution depends on how the problem depends on how the solution and vice-versa is framed differentstakeholders have for understanding the world-views and frames problem the problemtime, as do the resources to constraints that change over is subject needed to solve it the problem is never solved definitively. • • • • But this does not mean a collaborative strategy (Binnendijk, 2000) to tackling climate to 2000) (Binnendijk, collaborative strategy a this does not mean But of process essentially is, cannot identify a number change, which ACCCRN and steps an experimental approach Likewise for to deliver such a strategy. behavioral changes learning,– ACCCRN is about within an and developing capacity which all fit sharing experimenting and organic approach UCCR approach. to developing a Closely relatedClosely results-orientationa to grantee, M&E The system. the M&E is main rolesappointed in December 2009, had two and implement biannual – to design impacts, and to conduct mid-termmonitoring of outputs, outcomes and and final refinementevaluations. Included in this was the of the results framework originally a theory developing including ACCRN team, by the developed and mapping of change outcomes on to the work stream framework, to ensure ACCCRN had a comprehen- sive set of results tools. the evaluation found relatively little partnerHowever, tools, including buy-in to these the biannual reports. results One comment, “What is the framework? Rockefeller was illustrative of a number of situa- came up with it in a dark room with Verulam,” developed tools in which ACCCRN strategy, tions, including the draft communication productsand werepartner,which a with bilaterally receivedwell less subsequently by the wider partnership, who felt excluded. The fact that grantees do not necessarily see the results framework as relevant to their “day job” of getting on with grant imple- between the deliverables orientation of grant mentation is indicative of the disconnect letters and the results framework. The ACCCRN monitoring process not appear to be supporting does performance im- provements. It is effective in getting partners to report on activities – but it does not appear effective in aligning activities and management towards ACCCRN- achieving determined objectives and outcomes. In many cases, there is broad alignment, but this alignment with the resultsframework is secondary to alignment with city and national imperatives. While the RF ACCCRN team has used monitoring reports to respond to weaknesses in performance, it has followed a bilateral approach – inter- vening with individual grantees, rather than sharing feedback in a more dynamic way, such as using it as the focus for issue-based conference calls or on-line discussions. informedwas evaluation the Thailand, In team ACCCRN RF the within one no that has discussed these reports, their findings or implications with TEI, and TEI certainly has not raised these with city coordinators, or with city partners. around In travelling problem and thus resistsa strategic approach. Many features change of urban climate areindeed wicked, 6.3

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 70 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 71 Efficiency The Foundation perceives, in part, that ACCCRN is inefficient its use of resources or at least it is relatively financial and human intensive on resources because of its opera- tional approach. not made a detailed comparison across The evaluation has Founda- Initiative Systems Health the with comparison two-way simple a but initiatives, tion shows human resource use per dollar granted to be approximately equivalent, with a ratio of $17.5 million in grants per staff full time equivalent (FTE) in the Health staffper grants in million $14.2 Initiative and Systems 6 (Tables ACCCRN in FTE and 7). This is approximately an 18 percent efficiency difference. without However, examining the Health Systems Initiative and other Foundation initiatives more closely, it is not possible to ascribe this to economies of scale, differences in implementation the four ACCCRN countries, the evaluation did not find any partnersthe evaluation did not countries, the four ACCCRN that had the read reports,monitoring received or ACCCRN with the RF or had any discussion feedback respectteam with reports. to these Partners if are Verulam to follow up with meant monitoring findings, but this has rarelythey want to discuss occurred. One country coordinator recalled received possibly having monitoring reports, but if that was the from distilled key lessons the latest busy to readcase, had been too them. However, monitoring report were shared with partners workshop. at the 2011 Bali and is seen The process and Verulam, default owned by the RF ACCCRN team is by by partners as extractive and serving of only the central hub. Better communication with partners could see this being a point of contact monitoring findings and a means team recognizes The RF ACCCRN that more could be done to strengthen mutuality. to ensuremonitoring findings are the heard by partners but efforts limited have been team to present monitoring The desire was for the Verulam by resource availability. findings to different but their grant partnersresources did not allow this. physically, The results framework is also currently a management tool, largely internal to the RF GroupACCCRN team. The Strategy and Alignment provides (SAG) a good opportu- nity to promote the results architecture and the use of monitoring information more widely across the initiative. and supportACCCRN M&E also needs to link into cities’ own M&E. City govern- ments have M&E approaches to assess activities funded from local and higher levels governmentof organizationssector private and NGOs Likewise budgets. their have own monitoring systems. As part of developing a learning culture for building resil- ience, country coordinators should ensure that city partners ACCCRN-fund- include where city advisoryed activities in their M&E systems or, committees and working groups are that they develop monitoring systems. being institutionalized, Current implementation processes, monitoring focuses primarily on ACCCRN with the M&E grantee and some partners (e.g. Arup) undertaking assessment of quality some Outcome 1 products. ACCCRN The focus has also been on the 10 cities. As progresses, there will be an increasing need to broaden coverage to other cities and, as the next monitoring round proposes to do, start to consider quantitative improve- ments in impact measures. 6.4 5.7 4.5 2.65 TOTAL 17.5 15.6 14.3 GRANT $M / FTE / $M GRANT 1.2 0.7 2.35 RESEARCH ASSISTANTS RESEARCH 38 70 100 1.5 BUDGET ($ MILLION) ($ BUDGET 1.85 2.35 FULL TIME STAFF EQUIVALENTS (FTES) EQUIVALENTS STAFF TIME FULL ASSOCIATE DIRECTORS ASSOCIATE 5.7 4.5 2.65 1.0 TOTAL FTES TOTAL 1.45 0.45 In regard to both opportunity the RF ACCCRN team has and transaction costs, approach operational an quite developed programthe to degreea example, for with, of city grant projects.of hands-on involvement in selection With a center-facing structure, some grantees have felt closely managed and as a corollary, uncertain in balancing innovation and initiative with seeking ACCCRN approval. approachhands-on A begs and consuming, time is grants individual of level the at of ACCCRN staffpositioning the skills and whether question the is optimally used in some of these activities, compared with having them undertaken by a partner through The RF ACCCRN team a grant and using ACCCRN time for more upstream activity. orchestration was an area of Phase 3 grant selection where a partner and an expert panel could have freed staff up ACCCRN the process time. As this did not occur, human resource,on the availability of ACCCRN was dependent and was delayed by a number of months. In relation issued 36 grants to 18 grantees, with one to transaction cost, ACCCRN grantee receiving eight separate grants, and the largest ACCCRN grant being $5.3 million. As Figure 5 shows, ACCCRN has a large number of small, overlapping grants, modality or other factors, although it is understood that the Health Systems Initiative that the Health it is understood other factors, although modality or less staff work that is global agenda-setting includes some and is able to rely intensive performingon a few high grantees. Efficiency as is becoming increasingly usage among in bilateral donors, common or, Other considerations are is not just about input costs. the transforma- value for money, the opportunitytion of inputs into outcomes, costs of different levels of input, and the costs. level of transaction MANAGING DIRECTORS MANAGING Stefan Nachuk email, March 2011. Stefan Nachuk email, March : Stefan Nachuk email, March 2011. : Stefan Nachuk email, March Resource use comparison: health systems and climate change and health systems use comparison: Resource Resource use efficiency: health systems and climate change health use efficiency: Resource

INITIATIVE INITIATIVE ACCCRN Climate Climate ACCCRN Health systems Health systems TABLE 7: TABLE TABLE 6: TABLE DATA SOURCE: DATA DATA SOURCE DATA

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 72 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 73 in May 34 - - - - 5.7 5.5 5.6 6.3 6.0 49% RATING LARGE PRIVATE PRIVATE LARGE FUNDER, MEDIAN MEDIAN FUNDER, 6.1 6.1 4% 5.9 5.9 6.3 6.6 6.0 65% 30% INITIATIVE INITIATIVE RATING (N=23) RATING CLIMATE CHANGE CHANGE CLIMATE 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.4 6.4 6.0 41% 23% 48% FOUNDATION FOUNDATION ROCKEFELLER ROCKEFELLER RATING (N=326) This included ACCCRN and grantees of the other components of the climate change initiative, such as African such as African initiative, and grantees of the other components of the climate change This included ACCCRN cannot distinguish between these components. and climate change – the survey agriculture 34 many of which aremany of which shortduration. Some efficiencies are with now being achieved, country coordinators to city partners on-granting the Foundation but, in general, largein scale of economies better achieve could it and how grants consider might receivewith grantees who multiple grants. The use of many short partners. grants confuses the When the initiative was young, approach and partners was evolving developing a relationship with the Foundation. For these reasons, shorter were grants – tightly defined activities in grant issued approachletters make an adaptive more difficult leading to a series to cope with, thus of short grants. During the “forming-norming” of building relationships stages with grantees, non-renewal of short few levers in situa- grants is one of the Foundation’s tions of poor performance. The Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP) conducted a perception survey of Rock- 2011), including climate change initiative grantees, efeller grantees (CEP, and June 2010. CEP polled 524 grantees and receivedand June 2010. CEP polled 524 grantees 326 responses (62 percent), 23 from the climate change initiative. The CEP survey that climate change found at or above the 75th percentilegrantees’ ratings place the Foundation of funders’ average ratings in CEP’s “large, private funder” dataset for a number of parameters. of 10 parameters and significant- top 25 percent The Climate Change Initiative is in the grantees, with a 90 percent confidence level. ly better rated than all other Rockefeller PARAMETER

Perception rating of Rockefeller Foundation performance rating of Rockefeller by grantees Perception

: CEP, 2010. : CEP, : The rating is on a seven point Likert scale The CEP survey data show that, although climate change initiative grants are larger than average, they they than average, larger grants are data show that, although climate change initiative point Likert scale The CEP survey : The rating is on a seven Understanding of grantees’ goals and strategy Impact of funding on grantee ability to continue work Grantee satisfaction summary relationships Funder-grantee of grantees that had a change in primaryProportion contact Proportion of grantees that had a site visit Proportion Clarity of the funder’s communication of its goals and Clarity of the funder’s strategy a thought is partnerExtent to which Rockefeller Building capacity Bring other investors into your program to create leverage leverage to create program into your Bring other investors work of existing TABLE 8: TABLE SOURCE NOTE are also proportionately more administrative heavy (Table 9). heavy (Table administrative more also proportionately are Hrs/$k 4.1 6.3 21.1 FUNDER LARGE PRIVATE PRIVATE LARGE 253 62 40 12 Hrs/$k 4.3 7.2 15.4 INITIATIVE (N=23) INITIATIVE CLIMATE CHANGE CHANGE CLIMATE 430 100 60 28 Hrs/$k 3.7 5.7 13.4 (N=326) FOUNDATION FOUNDATION ROCKEFELLER ROCKEFELLER 227 62 40 17 In general, for a city-focused initiative, spending is top-heavy on partners from outside the region, with over 56 percent of grant value to date awarded to four grantees: Arup, It is recognized that for ISET particu and Verulam. ICLEI, ISET - funds are channeled to countrylarly, and city partners. These four are all rela- tively expensive organizations, and where they are serving a management and on- granting role, and where this is outside their core expertise, it is worth reviewing whether this is the most efficient approach. • As can be seen in Table 8, the climate change initiative scoresinitiative change climate the 8, Foun- the than Table better in seen be can As grantee relationships.whole on a dation as be partly may This the for by accounted greater through amount of contact having be facilitated by visits, which may site team based in the region.most of the RF ACCCRN The Foundation is seen as a thought partner though This was also seen by the evaluation, in climate change. has yet to be fully appreciatedthe concept of UCCR and adopted by a wide set of stakeholders. Two results CEP do not cohere the evaluation findings, and may with for by data coming frompossibly be accounted across the climate change initiative, These are:not just ACCCRN. i) a high score for clarity of communications on goals areaevaluation found communications an and strategy – the for improvement and that the results and ii) a low rating for bringing framework was not widely used; the programother funding into find this was occurring, – the evaluation did but funding is going to ACCCRN partnersit may be that the (e.g. city governments) rather than the ACCCRN direct grantees. Efficiencyonly not Foundation and the RF ACCCRN team, it needs to be relates to the consideredacross WithACCCRN. of whole the partners countries four and cities 10 in coordinate,to there the Nonetheless, costs. transaction significant be inevitably will evaluation found that country coordinators appear to have established effective project management systems and procedures for working with and supporting the city co- ordinators engaged, and thence city partners. they have areas There are, however, wheremorebe might management cascaded effective. two following the example, For areas are identified and are 3): both evident in the grants table (Table Administration burden of Rockefeller Foundation Grants of Rockefeller Administration burden

Median grant size ($k) Median administrative hours spent by grantees Median administrative lifetime (hrs) grant over on funder requirements Median administrative hours spent by grantees Median administrative and selection (hrs) on proposal Median administrative hours spent by grantees Median administrative and evaluation reporting, on monitoring, (annualized hrs) processes TABLE 9: TABLE

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 74 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 75 Coordination management and The grants table shows a profusionThe grants 2010 CLI 323, grants, for example, of Phase 3 to ISET in relation325 and 326 projects to implementation in Vietnam. These efficientbe to seem not would letters grant parallel from angle. cost transaction a argue the cases in which the Foundation might This would be one of for economies play in relationof scale to come into costs for on-granting. to management • At the country city levels, the country and coordinators funds in have spent limited Phase 2 to organize a city-level platform, hold participatory and to conduct dialogues building. The studies have been used as a basis for capacity studies, which have and internationalnational available at best persons engaged the has levels, which effective them made and value scientific their enhanced intervention for tools in studies the conduct to adequate but lavish not is funding The debates. scientific with research credibility and provideactivities around the city advisory committees with proper logistic support. A certain amount of coordination and reconciliation of the methodological and data-related differences, as emerging from in the studies increased have would productsthe of quality the from the Gorakhpur, of case the studies. Coordination and management was the area most frequently identified by respondents as one for improvement. This resonates with discussions at the 2010 workshop in of governanceBellagio, which concluded that the issue and coordination of ACCCRN was challenging “due to numerous involved, factors including the number of actors and the change in requirementsthe limited scope for “managing” them, for each (Arup,phase” respondentsEvaluation 2010e). reported regardingclarity of lack a direction in the initiative, grantees not understanding the big picture, decision-making occurring with partners one-to-one as a feature rather than jointly in a network context of partnership and limited flow of information working, to partners between larger meetings. These add up to a coordination deficit. It is important here to distinguish between coordination Partners and management. are already not seeking close central management – an activity focus – with several contending there control is too much central of detailed matters. Rather they are seeking higher-level portfolio planning management with the appropriate strategy, and review tools, including the coordination of partners through inclusive communi- cations and decision-making. Arup has provided good support area to this through its program management support there is some reservation grant. However, as to whether Arup can and should facilitate a change management process for the new Strategy and Alignment Group (SAG) since it would be simultaneously a core actor in the group and a change facilita- Arup’s supporttor. provided has useful portfolio management tools, such as the work stream to make sense of ACCCRN, and facilitation of framework, conceptual models biannual strategy review ACCCRN management has appreciated meetings. this input, and current management is much more aware of portfolio management issues than was evident in the early part of the initiative. 6.5 “to strengthen among key ACCCRN partners the level of alignment in relation to overall program goals, progress towards of results, achievement key emerging lessons, priorities, opportunities and challenges; and to provide to ACCCRN, informing, collective strategic guidance and advising guiding decisions on program priorities.” • • The evaluation found that the Foundation under-appreciated found that The evaluation of the complexity portfolioACCCRN’s needed dedicated coordination task, which management – either internally external or with support. the necessary It is not clear that skills existed in- ternally Arup at the early stages, and although and ISET submitted a joint proposal to establish a project management office (though not a formal grant proposal) to the RF 2, it was not adopted. WithACCCRN team in Phase was the benefit of hindsight, this probablywrongthe enabled have would it as initiative, the of period that at decision and coordination to concentrate on higher level strategy the RF ACCCRN team issues. it is recognized the subtleties of managing grantee relations that in a philan- However, thropicdiffer initiative from straightforwardproject management. upstreamshift A furtherteam ACCCRN RF the moves from projects.city However the monitoring team’s reports, contact with regional partners of grant reports and analysis better provideshould projectsof whether intelligence good remainWorking track. on through grantees is at the core of developing an improved more and coordinated directlyteam ACCCRN RF the approachCurrently, the initiative. of half second the for streams,work high-level of number a implements successful the by best illustrated resource brokering of oversight on city implementa- work, and they have a close level tion projects.first-tier grantees This is indicative of a lack of confidence in (regional partners and country coordinators) or that the engagement with these grantees is not leading to the desiredperformancelevel of fromof confi- their grants. The lack dence stems partly from some large Phase 2 grants in which coordination of lower level partnersnot work very did well, such as the relationship in ISET’s with TARU countryIndia coordination role. a trade-offnot is 3 Phase team, ACCCRN RF the For city level, but about ensuring grantees deliver between working at a high level or at reliably on their commitments. The coordination and portfolio need that still exists is different management from the project,the of stages early relationshipswhen were understand- established, being a moreing of UCCR was being developed, and model by the RF ACCCRN central team or a Project to a set of Management Unit was needed. The situation has evolved competent partners The RF that needs coordination to deliver the initiative together. ACCCRN team recognizes the need to address this area and has proposed a Strategy and Alignment Group for the SAG is that: “with ACCCRN now (SAG). The rationale enteredhaving theredevelopment, of its the next phase is a growing for the need application of collective leadership over the direction of the work. With an increased number of partners involved in the network, a growing of activity at city, volume countryemergencethe and levels, global urban and of field in the players new of resiliencechange climate governments)networks, city new donors, (e.g. there are new challenges, pressures and opportunities to address” (Rockefeller Foundation, 2011b). Its objectives would be:

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 76 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 77 as a platform coordinating for partnership, information sharing and inter-dependence, driving a cultural shift in ACCCRN, to ensure partners coordinate more, leading efforts with the RF ACCCRN team to ensure Outputs and Outcomes are For each working group, achieved and aligned with others. the people develop- person, ing the SAG will need to establish membership – an RF ACCCRN team focal a lead partner and the wider membership of partners – as well as meeting frequency The RF ACCCRN team member does not necessarily need to be a lead and modality. for the working group, team may not necessarily have the skills to be and indeed the role.this play to placed best individual clear allocate to needs team ACCCRN RF The responsibilities for different working groups, as current overlapping roles have been difficultWorking groups need to meet simultaneously do not partners for to navigate. or necessarily with the same frequency – for example, the resource-brokering group or the Knowledge Management (KM) group may want to may meet less frequently, hold monthly online meetings. Now is certainly address the time to coordination and results because in alignment, significantly more initiative becomes Phase 3 the and the external complicated, envi- ronment has become more theme areas. active in ACCCRN for coordina This need - Partnerstion and results as a have not experienced ACCCRN alignment is not new. partnership the evaluation found may be interpreted or a network. Much of what as a lack of information such as: communication, manifest in complaints flow and two-way in Bangkok and receiveddecisions being made partners by as directives, and infor- such, Phase 3 represents Phase 3 concept submissions. As mation silences following a complex program portfolio that requires set of portfolio a commensurate manage- ment tools and processes that work in realcoordinating time, and monitoring inputs heardoutputs. The evaluation Foundation does not own projects; that “the money and influence are its tools.” With a theory of change that depends on projects creating the influencing, this will only basis for evidence-based policy experience and an empirical work if grant projects are well coordinated. ACCCRN The proposal is to address through this will meet biannually. the SAG, which already has biannual strategy reflection sessions with Arup, and approximately annual largergroupwider a flow with and meetings inclusivity piece” the “set partners.of Yet, of information among the set pieces is missing. Having all partners involved in closer will undoubtedly albeit mainly electronically, interaction between biannual meetings, to informationlead partners overload for some Thus, some formthemes. some on of groupworking or subcommittee structure still is ACCCRN although suggested, is evolving the SAG governance structure. The evaluation supports the aim to establish coordination clusters as working groups to coordinate work within coherent service areas. While the SAG proposal envisages these as only occurring “where essential”, recommendedis it co- is initiative the which by means default the become they that ordinated. agrees clusters have been identified, and the evaluation that the following Various 10) are(Table areas the main in which working groups are needed. The eventual its first meeting, but the RF ACCCRN team shape of the SAG will be negotiated at on this. All those involved must focus on devel- needs to continue to show leadership oping the SAG TABLE 10: Suggested SAG working groups

WORKING GROUP ORIENTATION

Portfolio management, including M&E Internal facing

KM and reflection Internal facing

TA and capacity building City facing

Communications and UCCR uptake External facing

Resource brokering Donor facing

Along with the SAG and working groups, there needs to be a change in behavior and orientation of all partners. At present, the only obligations are those in the grant letters, between the grantees and the Foundation. There is no mutual obligation between partners and, while this would be difficult to make contractually binding, it is required to make ACCCRN succeed. This requires facilitation and change management, as the organizations involved in ACCCRN are culturally diverse. They include scientific institutes, private sector consultancies, donors, NGOs and government agencies, and each has its own language and work view. The evaluation heard the interface between different types of partners described as the “oil-water boundary”, and bringing them together better may be more effective with outside facilitation.

6.6 Roles and relationships The evaluation found a variable picture in relation to how well different actors in ACCCRN understood their intended roles. In Indonesia, the lead team has clear roles and responsibilities, and has shown understanding of climate change issues at grass- roots level. The City Advisory Committee members have had a positive experience and gained knowledge through the clear guidelines from the city coordinator. At each level, stakeholders are aware of their roles and want the initiative to sustain. This has influenced city development planning through a bottom-up approach, and the stake- holders have contributed to fulfill their roles, by regularly attending shared learning dialogue sessions, other meetings and workshops.

In Thailand, all actors have limited awareness of their “intended” roles in ACCCRN. The ACCCRN brand in Thailand is not strong with national or local government, or with other players in the climate change field. In Vietnam, the Phase 3 roles are clearer, with the country coordination role going to ISET. In Phase 2, the national partners played complementary roles in relating to the cities, with NISTPASS providing an important “translation of national and local context role”, and with CtC respected by the cities for its knowledge and approach. But it was noticeable from evaluation in- terviews that there is no uniform agreement among national partners on ACCCRN priorities or how to approach their implementation.

The SAG needs to make the respective communications roles explicit between partners at national, subnational and city levels, and with stakeholders including donors, as this is currently unclear.

78 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 79 Knowledge management the design, reviewdesign, the processesand technological social both of and implementation to improve in the collective interest the application of knowledge, of stakeholders a process managing and leveraging stores of systematically and actively of – both tacit knowledge (held in an individual’s brain in the formknowledge of know-how and experience) and explicit knowledge (recorded independently of humans in books and computers) ensuring that the intellectual capabilities of an organization are shared, main- tained and institutionalized ensuring lessons from the past and from elsewhere are made available and that the boundaries on knowledge imposed by time and space are overcome. • • • • Knowledge management (KM) is a processis a (KM) Knowledge management effectiveoptimizing the for application of intellectual capital to achieve objectives. It involves: KM calls for more data and information than making available to others – it entails presentingpeople can make sense of it for their situations. KM it in such a way that Grants are form designed to particular of relationships types In a with grantees. program,bilateral donor partnersACCCRN’s grantee arecontractors or service providers, grant letters are and although ethos contractual documents, the overall is to develop a trust-based relationship in per- with grantees. This comes into play formance management, where management levers at the RF the contractual and aredisposal ACCCRN team’s quite short.Having a stronger offers tie with grantees sortsothers apply to potential the of performance pressure, mutuality. based on particularlyHowever, in early stages of grants, where this type of relationship has therenot been established, RF ACCCRN team to manage can be a tendency for the level. closely and at a detailed In an organic, in terms as ACCCRN, tension arises because, innovative initiative such of grants, the road was not clearly mapped from the start. are Even though activities they may prove not to be relevant once that point of imple- specified in the grant letter, mentation is reached. Experienced grantees are willing and able to use judgment on the room having a trust for maneuver in grants, and, importantly, relationship with the RF ACCCRN team permits a certain degreefaire to exist, which supports of laissez flexibility Where trustand innovation in grant delivery. has yet to be established, the grant letter can provide a level of granularity that enables close RF ACCCRN team supervision. ACCCRN uses grants of short duration that that do not extend to the initiative’s changes in directionend point, which enables dealing with phases. It also between provides a control because it offers lever an opportunity for non-renewal if there are serious problems with performance.runs this partner counter to building However, - a need for greatership and commitment, and points to coordination between the and the grants office.Foundation’s implementation team (ACCCRN) of grant Analysis team has recognizeddurations shows that the RF ACCCRN short this, and that grants were primarily a feature of the early part of the initiative. Grants 6.7 involves the management of information management of involves the calls for people to but also and documents, di- These two and learn their knowledge meet, pool and from mutually one another. need to be balanced. mensions ACCCRN recognizesi) sharing practical knowledge as two main advantages of KM: networking), and ii) as a 2 (also discussed under networks and an aim for Outcome partnersmeans for keeping informed and coordinated. practical knowledge, participants and flows” perspective on sharing a “stocks Taking have appreciated city and partnerexchange tacit knowledge, and meetings which help between events, many respondents Nang. However, mentioned the cities meeting in Da knowledge repositoryACCCRN lacks a central and (the stock of explicit knowledge) mechanisms to support between set events (flows). knowledge exchange identified a 2011) networking options (Raynor, ACCCRN’s commissioned analysis of “resource repository“passive knowledge management network” as a or a network” ACCCRN had tried earlier to establish a low case scenario for Outcome 2 networking. repositorythrough creating SharePointa servers.Foundation’s the on hosted site, It technological problemsis understood that this was beset with and its usefulness was sufficientlynot partners for self-evident effort the invest to trying with persisting in to use it, and it never took off. There thus remains a need for a stock of explicit, docu- mented information and knowledge. The Arup Phase 3 proposal, explained below, aims to address this. relationIn evalua- The light. somewhat is ACCCRN knowledge, explicit of stocks to tion received a significant collection of background develop- documentation on urban there of formalment and climate change, and a body grant documentation. However, documentaryless much is from output relationin initiative the has that work the to country been conducted at city, and regional documentation that exists, levels. Of the mainly due to effortsthe little that is in the public domain is of city and country coor- strategy. dinators, rather than a planned ACCCRN In relation to KM as a means of keeping partners informed and coordinated, ACCCRN does not document its decisions well. This is part of the consistent message about needing to keep partners jointly and collectively informed to strengthen partnership, but it is also about keeping a process narrative of the initiative. For example, the evalu- ation found it difficult to locate a record of precisely how the 10 cities were ultimately chosen. ACCCRN, and from evidence the evaluation found, the Foundation the little more widely also, favors an oral culture. This means that people need to be present in decisions areto know what meetings number of interviewsin a A theme made. was Wherealong the lines of “this may not be written down, but this is what happened…”. therearoundbe it tends to documentation, good is meetings. workshops and piece set Much of it is produced by Arup under its program management support grant. ArupThe proposal targets3 Phase for partners“keeping informed coordinatand - ed” through KM. It has three components: i) a document management system (see reviewingii) above), countryand city productslevel arethey as produced, iii) and fromconvening and facilitating a practitioner knowledge network of key individuals ACCCRN partners to catalyze a wider community of practice. The latter will be based

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 80 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 81 Risk Internal communications The ACCCRN Risk Register identifies and rates a comprehensive set of risks, and proposes mitigation measures. Although the last update was 13 November 2009, there is evidence of consistent strategic appreciation and tracking of risks and opportunities by the Bangkok office. Most of the risks in the register have not affected progress. 11, there in Table as shown are a small number of risks that have affectedHowever, the initiative or may yet be significant. The main risk factors are: under-developed communication between partners, lack of directgovernmentfederal the with engagement insufficientIndia, in time for dissemi- nation and replication, about the “network”, and insufficient lack of clarity engage- separately ment with national policy domains. These points have all been identified in the course of the evaluation, despite being stated as risks in 2009. The evaluation recommendations them further. aim to help mitigate The evaluation found a consistent set of concernsThe evaluation found about internal ACCCRN communi- in relationdiscussed above Some have been cations. to structurepartner and network- the RF ACCCRN team too much of the communication between ing, specifically that and partners against partnership is bilateral, which militates and produces surprises for partners, which may then meet with resistance. Other concerns are about responsiveness, including: i) awareness of others’ informa- over devolution of communication responsition needs and expectations and ii) clarity - bilities to partners. In terms of awareness, the evaluation found a number of instances in which partners had been left waiting to hear feedback, and several partners found that the Phase 3 project selection process exhibited an asymmetry in the relationship and catered only to the donor perspective. The process applied strong time pressure followed by an absence of by the donor, to the applicants, and then was drawn-out feedback on reasons for success or failure of funding applications. There are reasons for the timing issues, but there is a need to address the lack of empathy for partners’ information needs. thereensuring for As responsibilities,communication of devolution in clarity is the at arecity level, it is unclear whether messages coming from the RF ACCCRN team or country coordinators. does not seek to stamp all city processes While ACCCRN into one mold, it is important that cities receive consistent messages. The evaluation found cases where communications from the RF ACCCRN team and regional partners were at odds with communications from country coordinators. on a knowledge forum,on a knowledge and Arup site social networking a Ning-based is developing address would appear to for this. This this area, significant gap in the culturally but careful been working, and how ACCCRN has this is not co-development consultation, to ensure needed be will facilitation and areaspects the soft potential the with step in offers.that the technology will require The site to overcome good moderation the been identified to formingobstacles that have a formal ACCCRN Network. 6.9 6.8 - orientation of all partners is the only present, needed. At in the those obligations are between the grant letters, grantees and the Founda- is no mutual tion. There obligation among partners, and this behavior change – to become a partnership facilitation – will require and change management expertise. for the RF ACCCRN In order team to focus on a leader role, ship and coordination grantees must cooperate and support their partners to ACCCRN align to higher level objectives. to stocks of In relation knowledge, ACCCRN explicit is is somewhat light. There little documentary relatively the initiative output from of work conducted at city, country levels. and regional Of the documentation what little is in available, the public domain is mainly due to efforts of cities and rather country coordinator, than a planned ACCCRN strategy. MITIGATION MEASURE MITIGATION Effective coordination and communication options, e.g. e.g. communication options, and coordination Effective working groups. principals call, in governments by RF to national approaches direct Ensure all countries. to budget, that responds program Maintain a realistic to enable establish processes and timeframe; resources to self-sustain. ACCCRN and areas for network building on result options Develop approaches. budget; use demand-driven policy and engagement strategy a national with Develop country to the specific local partners is tailored that context. cies are being achieved being achieved cies are by country coordinators on-granting to city partners, but in general, the Founda- tion might usefully consider better how it could achieve economiesscale in large of grantees grants and from multiple grants. receiving has a hands-on ACCCRN of at the level approach particularly individual grants, selection. Phase 3 project This is time consuming and op- raises questions over and best use portunity cost of team skills sets. Respondents identified and manage- coordination in which ment as the area was most improvement finds needed. The evaluation that the Foundation under- the complexity appreciated of the portfolio management task. The need to address by is recognized this area team and the RF ACCCRN a Strategy and Alignment to is proposed (SAG) Group it. address a Along with the SAG, change in behavior and RISK The ACCCRN results results The ACCCRN out framework was rolled few in mid-2010. As yet, closely those even partners, since with ACCCRN involved of the aware the outset, are framework, let alone using it. Grant letters commit funds and against deliverables deal with the lower end of chain. The results the results framework deals with the but middle and upper ends, is insufficient con- there nectivity the two. between Simply put, grantees own the RF ACCCRN activities, There team owns outcomes. is no common ownership of results. Monitoring is seen by partners as owned by the team and RF ACCCRN and its feedback Verulam, is not used bilaterally with communica- Better partners. tion of monitoring findings could see this as a means to mutuality. strengthen number has a large ACCCRN grants, of small, overlapping of short of which are many duration. Some efficien- No agreed concept of what “the network” is. concept of what “the network” No agreed RF does not enough commit resources or energy to national policy and replication. engagement, which affects RF’s lack of direct engagement at a central engagement lack of direct RF’s in in India may result level government. resistance. may be too short to of ACCCRN Timeline dissemination and maximize impact, i.e. for replication. There needs to be open to feedback and be open to feedback and needs to There learning among partners. Extract from ACCCRN risk register risk ACCCRN Extract from

- archi present ACCCRN’s is a hub-and-spoke tecture model. the twin This has not that it is disadvantage the optimum configuration to stimulate networking and it places the main manage- on the RF ACCCRN ment role team. the way identified Partners interacts with ACCCRN partners as and grantees bilateral. predominantly meet at ACCCRN Partners but between these events, is insufficient there events communication and flow of strong information to create among partners. cross-links grantees have Likewise, core of interaction a low level between events. The concept of country is a positive coordinators bringing more introduction, country-specific proximal knowledge and support a provide They to cities. funds conduit for ACCCRN coordinate and to partners, country but not all activities, well placed to fulfill the are national policy engagement role. Summary ACCCRN AREA ACCCRN Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Programmatic Programmatic issues TABLE 11: TABLE

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 82 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 83 7 People A diverse range of effective approaches, range of effective Intermediate impact statement: A diverse urban climate change resilience and practices to build processes of poorthat incorporate the priorities isand vulnerable communities actions by more cities that generate additional demonstrated ACCCRN in and new geographies.institutions in current and capacity of a growingUltimate impact statement: The resilience and to current cities in relation country/Asian of developing number of poor this work the lives climate risks is enhanced and through future improved. and vulnerable (men and women) are The design of ACCCRN targets vulnerability rather than poverty. There is a well-es- The design of ACCCRN targets poverty. vulnerability rather than povertyvulnerability and tablished link between including countries developing in their cities. However the implementation modality does not specifically address dif- age, ethnicity or income level. for example, gender, ferential segments of society by, This has led to a finding that citizens are surprisingly absent from ACCCRN. A similar point was raised in the Second Monitoring Report 2011), which expressed (Verulam, concern regarding “the extent to which ACCCRN is working for poverty alleviation and effectively engaging with poor communities”. ACCCRN is just moving frominitiative to its Phase 2 to Phase 3. So it is early in the expect to see extensive impacts. at two levels: i) focus on cities – their resilThe ultimate impact of ACCCRN is itself - ience and (adaptive) capacity in relation to climate risks, and ii) focus on improvement of the lives of poor and vulnerable people. The intermediate impact concerns city-level processes the priorities of the poor and vulner- to build UCCR, while incorporating able, and going to scale. Here the evaluation focuses on the resilience of cities and the incorporation of the priorities of poor and vulnerable citizens. 7.1

Impact and sustainabilityImpact and

7. ACCRA is based on a local adaptive capacity ACCRA is based on a local adaptive capacity 35 Cities community.eldis.org/.59d66929 . ACCRA is funded by DFID through CDKN. is funded by DFID through . ACCRA community.eldis.org/.59d66929

In relation to cities, there are positive signals of impact. Methodologically, in Vietnam, In relation to cities, there are positive signals of impact. Methodologically, ACCCRN was one of the first initiatives to attempt implementing an approach of devel- 35 UN-HABITAT expressesUN-HABITAT very strongly is so important that it have this poverty to orien- it is interwoventation because with resilience: of resilience “The building be under- can shocks and stresses, only coping with added way of enabling not stood as a ad- but also dressing livelihoods. Thus, a key part challenges that constrain lives and the myriad of building resilience is facilitating poverty reduction and more improvements general to lives. Many interventionsthe quality of human being undertaken in urban areas around municipal, national and internationalthe world – by local, to stakeholders – contribute building this resilience through improving housing, infrastructure and services, par- povertydeveloping countries, many cities in for Indeed, poor. urban ticularly for the pro-pooralleviation and other are policies at the urban level likely to be the single most 2011). important strategy” (UN-HABITAT, component of an overall adaptation 2 aims to include vulnerable groupsThe design of Phase in resilience planning through multi-layered across engagement shared learning (SLDs), vul- dialogues 2010b). Nonetheless, and pilot projectsnerability assessments, sector studies (ISET, aroundbuilt primarily is it stakehold- processthe while multi-stakeholder, explicitly is ers from formal bodies – local governments, NGOs and the private sector – rather than community groups. The SLD process therefore experienced the “paradox of participation”, large in that all-inclusive participatory meetings create a forum where everyone’sheard,be may voice largelyis it because but comprehensive,socially it recreatesalso normal voice not do disenfranchised the which in dynamics social their views. This may be overcome stratified by holding linked inclusive and socially used an intermediarymeetings. For example, the SLD in Gorakhpur who was well- versed in engaging marginalized populations. ACCCRN’s approach Climate may be contrasted, for example, with that of the Africa Change Resilience Alliance (ACCRA). (LAC) framework that, in turn, The draws on the sustainable livelihoods framework. Alliance arguesclimate change adaptation requiresthat more than an integrated programmaticapproach. requiresalso It creating environmentenabling the that so programmaticcommunities can continue to adapt beyond intervention This timeline. although there means the approach is explicitly focused on community capacity, are parallel streams on pilot research of activity to create an evidence base, capacity government,local for building governments of influence policy and development and partners. The evaluation thus flags a concern that the second half of ACCCRN should ensurepeople are that poor and vulnerable fully included in implementation projects. be partThis means going beyond design-phase consultation because they need to of the implementation and M&E of projects if they are to have their priorities heard, their adaptive capacity increased and their lives improved. This statement recognizes that the extent of, and means by which, greater participation can be achieved will vary accordingdifferent of context the to country governancelocally-specific and systems. 7.2

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 84 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 85 Cities Climate

36 Impact measurement citiesclimateregistry.org 36 There is a need to collect impact data for the Foundation’s own performance assess- a convincing storyment for the final evaluation and to tell for In termsreplication. of informationusing gathered through in invest to donors other influencing for M&E resilience,climate change urban cause if impact indicators areit will help the tied to international agreed standards. approaches, As 2015 tying results to MDG areas and 2004), will Agenda Indicators (UN-HABITAT, UN indicators, such as UN-HABITAT have strong currency with other donors. An increasing number of climate resilience entities, including cities, and global initiatives aim to quantify progress towards low carbon and climate resilience, through efforts such as the carbonn Registry (cCCR). oping a bottom-up UCCR strategy with city stakeholders, in contrast to the Vietnam’s in contrast with city stakeholders, UCCR strategy oping a bottom-up and currentlytraditional process. accepted planning are UCCR issues to expected be mainstreamed revision in the of Vietnam’sin its final plan, which is urban master stages of preparation at the Ministry of Construction. In other countries, ACCCRN to this level of policy mainstreaming.has yet to succeed It looks highly likely that effective“a diverse range of approaches, processes, to build urban and practices climate change resilience”ACCCRN cities, and that there will be demonstrated in is these approacheslikely to be uptake of in more However, than the 10 ACCCRN cities. way to progressACCCRN has some before it becomes citywide in the 10 cities and, without that internal spread,resilient. the cities being be possible to discuss it will not Part of becoming resilient ACCCRN approaches and sustainable calls for integrating in existing governance (2011) observed systems. UN-HABITAT that “urban adapta- local governance.tion planning is intrinsically linked with - This includes decentraliza responsiveness flexibility, and accountability and transparency, tion and autonomy, participation and experience and support. and inclusion, Urban governance systems arethese characteristics exhibit that resiliencebuild better able to through having more effective management capacities in ‘climate-sensitive’ financial and technical flexibil- and Responsiveness management. disaster and water waste, as such sectors ity are also crucial, given the limited predictability of the consequences of climate of the poor and marginalizedchange. At the same time, the involvement groups in is key to improvingdecision making, monitoring and evaluation conditions the living of these groups.” Becoming resilient and thus achieving impact will entail increased attention to governance and involvement of the poor. ISET has recently produced draft guidance and a tool for assessing urban climate which draws on the ACCCRN Urban Resilience Framework. resilience (ISET,2010), agents, The tool includes a component for assessing the capacities of key vulnerable considering their responsiveness and re-organization, resourcefulness and capacity to learn. The ACCCRN Results Framework encompasses indicators coherent with the Founda- tion’s goal of the well-being of humanity: 7.3 Sustainability proportion climate change (disaggregated vulnerable to of city population by poverty)gender and poverty (disaggregatedcities ACCCRN in of citizens well-being and gender, by climate vulnerability) proportionpopula- in the ACCCRN and network cities’ men and women of poor tions. Government directives.Program The National Target to Respond to Climate Change (Government Resolution 60/2007/NQ-CP) sets out a comprehensive agenda with timeframes. It requires all levels of government to engage in establishing coordina- tion structures, engage in wide-spread awareness-raising, mobilize resources and implement measures and adaptation. The Ministry aimed at mitigation of Natural The NTP and Resources and the Environment is the lead coordinating agency. associated structures increasingto be gathering appear political importance in Vietnam, with two recent instances of government staff engaged in climate change issues being promoted.37 Prestige of being part of an international program. In 2008, ACCCRN chose Da Nang as a partner and, despite various uncertainties in the relationship, it accepted fourthAs the largestin Vietnam,city readily. smaller noted that some Nang Da cities were support attracting and interest from donor agencies. Opportunity for additional support and technical assistance in key activities as required by the NTP. ISET Project Management Report 31 January (CLI 323), 2011. ISET Project • • • • • • However, according the Second Monitoring Report,However, baseline “is not the ACCCRN M&E robust capture enough to decrease some of the changes, i.e. in … proportion of poor is to addresspopulation.” The intention report. this in the next biannual monitoring Nonetheless, there are challenges at this level, particularly methodological in relation message is that impact rather than attribution. The overall to ACCCRN contribution, that data are so - ac measurement the next year, needs to be given due attention over learning replication. and cumulated for accountability, 37 Sustainability is entirelybuying into the dependent on cities and city stakeholders UCCR concept, investing in its processes through and in the systems changes identified encouraging. its diagnostic. The evidence to date is Some of the selected cities in Vietnam, an emerging middle-income country, have relatively large operating budgets compared to the funds coming from ACCCRN. In a number of cases observed,and communes or associations contributed up to cities requiredfunds the half projectspilot implementing for casuarina and winch boat (e.g. could have been funded and executed planting in Da Nang). Both of these initiatives without any external assistance, but the partnershipACCCRN helped deepen with UCCR thinking. There are for Da Nang to absorb the relatively a number of motivators high staffing opportunity cost of facilitating the engagement with Rockefeller. 7.4

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 86 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 87 - - systems changes identified changes identified systems The its diagnostic. through to date is encour evidence aging. concerns about sus- Two that i) the tainability are too are engagement projects small to make considerable changes to poor and vulner indicating lives, able people’s need that Phase 3 projects enough to lever to be large is little change; and ii) there strategy of an exit evidence and its ACCCRN by RF from partners once the funding is all utilized. the 10 cities in order for them the 10 cities in order Becoming to be resilient. and thus achieving resilient impact will entail increased and attention to governance of the poor. involvement needs Impact measurement due attention to be given so that year, the next over accumulated for data are learning and accountability, replication. Sustainability is entirely dependent on cities and city stakeholders buying into the UCCR concept, investing and in the in its processes tation; they need to be part tation; they of the implementation and to are if they M&E of projects heard, their priorities have capacity their adaptive and their lives increased improved. It appears highly likely that range of effective diverse “a and processes, approaches, practices to build urban climate change resilience” will be demonstrated in and that this cities, ACCCRN will scale-out to other cities. needs to be further There of UCCR within expansion Other facets of sustainability in Vietnam of sustainability Other facets the cities’ re the extent to which include - stronglysilience strategies supportlevel, which at city the NTP implementation activities from funding for UCCR mobilize additional helped cities different sources climate change offices and the establishment of the city (state budget and donors), is model for coordinatingexpected to be a good actions by different departments. city impact of the project the evaluation found that any In both India and Indonesia, on vulnerable communities and adaptive capacities of the poor and the living conditions is not visible, except in the pilot projectin the ACCCRN cities areas. For example, in Indonesia, people are sensitized to the problems, understand the urgency of adaptive resilienceand measures their on challenge the up take to capacity the have not do but there are many moreand vulner- poor or wardown, at the community However, level. outside of the initiative’s pilot areasable men and women who are not yet aware of climate change. Two concernssustainability are about projects that i) the engagement are too small and vulnerable people’s lives, and ii) thereto make considerable changes to poor is RF fromlittle evidence yet of an exit strategy by and its partners ACCCRN once the be expected when the city’s substantial changes can funding is all utilized. However, and the largerUCCR action plan/strategy is implemented, ACCCRN implementation projects start to level additional funding. Summary aims to achieve ACCCRN i) impact at two levels: cities – their resilience capacity in and (adaptive) and to climate risks, relation the ii) people – improving of poor and vulnerable lives people surprisingly Citizens are at ACCCRN absent from this stage. The evaluation thus flags a concern that the second half of ACCCRN that poor and should ensure fully vulnerable people are included in implementation more This requires projects. than a design-phase consul- 88 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 89 8

Lessons for Rockefeller Foundation Lessons for Rockefeller Senior Management Results orientation The Foundation’s results architecture and tools do not yet fully achieve a system of results-based letters commit funds against deliverables – which management. Grant are at the lower end of the mostly specified as activities results chain. The results framework deals with the middle and upper ends of the results chain, particularly outcomes. Even with grant letter addenda, there is a disconnect between the two, with grantees owning activities, and the Foundation owning outcomes and impact. A portfolio of grants based on activity-level deliverables presents a coordination challenge. It fosters a bilateral relationship with grantees over their deliverables, portfolio-widethan a rather multi-grantee relationship based around outcomes and impact. Performancemanagement is difficult as grant in this scenario, not least tranches are to high-level objectives. not tied This section draws together the lessons emergingThis section draws together the lessons from the findings in the previous chapters. change and urbanization was novel and An initiative at the intersection of climate taking a resilience at the right time. However, timely – the right topic in the right place approach has been challenging. Of all the available responses to climate change, re- polycentric governance,silience is the most complex as it involves is self-organizing, multi-sectoral and long-term. multi-scalar, at an internationalThe Foundation has convening power can level that, if well used, realdeliver Foun- key donors at the Rockefeller gains for initiatives. Bringing together proved instrumentaldation Conference in achieving commit- Center in Bellagio, Italy, ments of approximately $200 million by a group of donors to a UCCR basket fund. If can be confident that its venturethis fund is established, the Foundation capital invest- ment in ACCCRN has delivered a significant return. 8.1 Lessons 8. Lessons for RF ACCCRN team Lessons for RF ACCCRN At this stage, it was correctAt this stage, it was to visit all 10 cities, but it made a disproportionate demand on resources relative to the parts of the initiative covered. For the final more possible to sample the cities and allocate evaluation, it will be resources to and interviewingevaluating scaling-up a wider set of stakeholders. field visits with extensive stake- then The process involved initial document review, holder interviews, and then further It would have been more document review. effective followed an alternative to have three stage process: extensive document Web surveyreview leading to a set of initial paper-based findings, then a and phone interviews wide set of respondents, of a field work. and finally The final evaluation should make more use of self-evaluation expected that thereBy the time of the final evaluation, it is will be more progress will requireon achieving impact. Evaluating impact that impact data have been be able to invest heavily in data collection. collected as the evaluation team will not and ISET (if ISET pursues its resilienceThis will require the Monitoring Team documenting impacts. indicators work) to commence work on • • • • Insights for evaluation Insights Achieving UCCR Achieving Disaster risk reduction entry is a practical point for city engagement on climate change. However it does not progress beyond a focus on projects to solve “here and now” urban management problems. The shared learning dialogues provided a road map to get from scratch to city resilience strategies. A similar road map is needed to City selection processCity selection was a slow and iterative a number of studies that involved whose outputs did not significantly affect selection decisions. These studies had weak- set of criteria, while based on a The decisions, execution. design or nesses either in were ultimately pragmatic, and hastened by a desire from senior management to progress purposive selection process 2. A pragmatic, quick and dirty, to Phase would selection attempted City have achieved the same resultmore quickly and cheaply. to achieve a representative sample, which seems to run counter to the Foundation’s “development venture capital” ethos. Part of the delay in Phase 1 can be attributed to the twin aims of scoping/selecting cities and tryingengagement may lead to to engage with them for Phase 2. Early better partnering with cities in subsequent phases, but it also builds expectations, are engagement and Scoping deflate. then may selection cities’ the which tension in and better run separately. ACCCRN monitoring is seen by partners monitoring is seen ACCCRN is owned by the activity that as a stand-alone could monitoring findings communication of Better and Verulam. team RF ACCCRN help strengthen performance management and partnershipA results working. culture would be strengthened M&E processes by linking with of cities and city stakeholders. evaluation processReflecting on the date, the following lessons emerge to for the and may be ACCCRN final evaluation other Foundation evaluations. relevant for 8.2

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 90 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 91 ACCCRN architecture ACCCRN form,ACCCRN, established with a hub-and-spoke now has branched spokes. view can one which at point only the is team) ACCCRN RF (the center the However, structureThis whole. the configura- optimum the not is it disadvantage: twin a has tion to stimulate networking and it places the main coordination burden on the RF ACCCRN team. ACCCRN interaction with partners and grantees is predominantly bilateral. Culturally, ACCCRN has not evolved as a partnership with a sense of mutuality among partners (one of which is the Foundation). Partners generally have not sought to be more networked, and the RF ACCCRN team has not strongly encouraged formation of an man- inter-dependent cooperative with mutual obligations. It has thus felt a heavier agement burden it might have had with other configurations, with its available than human resources stretched. This, in turn, has affected where team the RF ACCCRN has applied its human resources. This means the proposed Strategy and Alignment Group should provide a means for the RF ACCCRN team to shift its attention up the results chain, in order to focus on providing the coherence and coordination needed across and impact. This will require ACCCRN for achieving outcomes first-tier grantees (regional partners and country coordinators) to ensure city-level commit- Scope The complexity of UCCR alreadypresents which has provena challenge, even greater when trying across to achieve it in 10 cities plan was to four countries. The original ACCCRN was right not to reducework with as few as two cities in implementation. too been have would evidence of weight the as post-engagement, cities of number the little, and the opportunity cities to distil general lessons too few (with the chance both cities after Phase 2 also would have meant might be seen as exceptions). Abandoning that progress those cities dropped in been sustained. might not have to produce what would be the optimum number If two cities would have been too few, a credible evidence base of practical approaches to climate change resilience? There view of the evaluation that the similar resultsis no right answer to this, but it is the threeworking in only been achieved by have would threeto countries and two in cities each. One fewer country would have reduced costs and the management transaction burden, and slightly fewer cities (6–9) would have increased investment per city. get cities fromget cities higher degrees which involves DRR to UCCR, more of uncertainty, planning and response,multi-sectoral probably and time spans than DRR. longer The urban resilience how UCCR combines urban framework conceptualizes clearly people). In an area and social systems (poor and vulnerable systems, climate change it is veryas complex as this, such a clear conceptual model. useful to have successful processesThe SLDs have been throughrange of which to engage a city stakeholders across inter-sectoral working a range of institutions, and develop the evidence frompractices. Nonetheless, materials is that they were the SLD stronger they were science and physical planning than on climate systems, on city governancesocial aspects and the context. ments align with, and perform against, overarching ACCCRN objectives.

The role of country coordinators is critical to the success of ACCCRN. They support cities and link into national policy process. When selecting country coordinators, the Foundation needs to consider the capacity of organizations to provide technical as- sistance and practical facilitation for cities and to build understanding and respect in the policy domain.

Networking ACCCRN does not need to form a formal network, but networking – sharing infor- mation and services among individuals and groups with a common interest – is a high priority. In its networking efforts, ACCCRN should not duplicate established city, ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK national or international networks but should concentrate on linking ACCCRN cities to existing networks and supporting them in promoting UCCR in these fora.

ACCCRN has made little progress with either a network or networking to date. There is a clear opportunity for ACCCRN to find out more about how and why the Founda- tion’s Health Systems Initiative’s Joint Learning Network (JLN) works.

A focus on a “cities network” misunderstands how change works, because capacity is built in individuals, who then make changes in systems, and who learn and share. ACCCRN should thus switch its capacity building and networking focus from cities to individuals who are in, and concerned with, cities. They will need process skills to support their embedding UCCR in city systems.

Evidence-based replication The ACCCRN theory of change involves generation of experience and empirical evidence from 10 cities and using this as a basis for scaling-up. The evidence requires documentation of the cities’ experiences of trying to achieve UCCR. However, there is a paucity of material on ACCCRN. There are a number of lessons here.

• Most partners were not selected for their ability to produce written materials and reflections on experience – they were focused on “doing projects”. The exceptions to this are ISET and the ProVention Consortium, which were selected based on their publications and their potential ability to function as thought leaders in the field and distil lessons learned from field experience. • Partners were not made aware that ACCCRN would wish to publish the materials that they produced. • UCCR is a new and evolving field and thus needs “work in progress” outputs, an open source approach to documentation, and avoidance of falling into the trap of the best is the enemy of the good (enough). • The main writing partner has an academic orientation and is focused on quality rather than quantity.

92 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 93 9 Relevance of urban climate change resilience in developing countries? in developing of urban climate change resilience An assessment of the rationale, niche, role, comparative advantage and value added of and value advantage comparative An assessment of the rationale, niche, role, ACCCRN that fits with need? based on a sound rationale is ACCCRN what extent • To the field advantage and comparative a clear role have does ACCCRN what extent • To is it adding this value? and to what extent proposition, value • What is ACCCRN’s At a macro level, ACCCRN addresses a real at the conjunction of climate change need and urbanization in the developing world. The urban resilience framework developed by ACCCRN presents model for dealing with this need by consid- a clear conceptual ering city systems, vulnerable people and climate effects, and is based on a sound rationale. At city level, the need is more ACCCRN has been a pioneer in developing complicated. the field of UCCR and the concept of UCCR. The need for climate resilience was not a need cities uniformly expressed during the scoping of ACCCRN. ACCCRN has had to work with cities to build awareness of climate change and its implications, and to heightened awarenessthat the need meet then created.understanding has and This processiterative an was through throughso be to continue will and SLDs, the Phase 3. ACCCRN thus meets a need increasingly felt at city level. ACCCRN’s role is founded on two main strengths. and advantage in UCCR First, de- velopment of the shared learning dialogue, a facilitated approach to support cities in This chapter relatesdirectly in the evaluation’s terms to the evaluation questions of reference. provides It response under five standard evaluation headings: relevance, effectiveness, sustainability and impact. efficiency, 9.1

onses to the evaluation to the evaluation Responses questions

9. (outputs)? mid-point, but 37 38 Effectiveness and resources been increased, and to what extent has ACCCRN contributed to these contributed has ACCCRN and to what extent been increased, and resources changes? change and results framework? change and results • of high quality? • of sufficient quantity to bring about change? for this? the lessons derived are and what of ACCCRN, as a result occurred key stakeholders? key • To what extent are the products and services: the products are what extent • To • To what extent is ACCCRN based on clear and shared program logic, theory program of based on clear and shared is ACCCRN what extent • To and services the planned products provided has ACCCRN what extent • To • What unexpected direct and indirect positive and negative UCCR changes have UCCR changes have and negative positive and indirect direct • What unexpected An assessment of the products and services planned and provided, the changes or the changes planned and provided, and services products An assessment of the has had on the capacity of ACCCRN as well as the impact occurred, outcomes that have policies and resources. and networks, institutions individuals, results: high quality in achieving Effectiveness its planned outcomes? achieved has ACCCRN what extent • To policies institutions and networks, the capacities of individuals, have what extent • To stage: at the formative Effectiveness with vision for the program a shared ACCCRN been in developing has • How effective Principally, conceptual frameworks for UCCR and resilience strategies. conceptual frameworks for UCCR and resilience Principally, incorporating climate change resilience climate change incorporating and work. As a multi- the way they think into spiral (progressive learning action stakeholder, loops) approach, the shared learning cities learndialogue helps of climate change. dimensions understand the systems and projectspilot and studies practical Second, response and change risk on climate in 10 cities which provide a body of learning and evidence stands to inform UCCR experience is well documented, It will be critical that this body of much more widely. advantage in the and communicated if ACCCRN’s comparative evaluated, distilled field is to be properly realized. 38 In regard to results, this evaluation comes at ACCCRN’s chronological planned progress is lagging. This is largely due to a slow and somewhat repetitive phase of city selection. Although the results framework does not give planned achieve- arethey that assumed is it outcomes, for dates ment end-of-projectof statements all status. It is thus early in ACCCRN’s life to see many impacts. At this formative stage, in relation to effectiveness, it is not clear who “key stakehold- ers” are. Are they regional partners, country partners,cities, and/or wider donor and government outreach stakeholders? Developing a shared vision among such a diverse group is difficult since, as with the proverbialelephant, the initiative feels different depending on where vision for a city partner, one is. The concerned with developing is differenta resilient city, from a thought partner, concerned models with developing 9.2

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 94 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 95 39 for UCCR. Nonetheless, most of those involved Nonetheless, most for UCCR. would recognizewith ACCCRN that a vision approximatesattention, “catalyze to aim the on building climate change funding, and action resilience poor and vulnerable people by for creating robust for models and methodologies assessing and addressing risk through active of various cities”. engagement and analysis resilienceThe vision of what is may be less stage. clear to many at this upon a clear logic chain, ACCCRN is based cities-climate-change-resilience. www.rockefellerfoundation.org/what-we-do/current-work/developing-climate-change-resilience/asian- theory and results of change design, management and monitor- framework. These ing tools are not common currency only to the RF in the initiative. The use extends with a recentACCCRN team and the M&E grantee, regional grantee grant application aligning itself to the results framework. Most grants were issued before the results framework was formally adopted, and its use by grantees is further hindered by grant activities and some outputs, establishing a dis- letters contracting grantees to deliver connect with the results framework. Good progress on delivering most of the Outcome 1 Outputs. While has been made there has been lesson and knowledge sharing among various actors, progress in de- at this stage. ACCCRN has made progresslivering Outcome 2 Outputs is limited in expansion through will lead to new cities new donor commitments to UCCR, which addressing climate change resilience themes. They are yet at a stage where not it is possible to say whether they are ACCCRN has using ACCCRN-generated knowledge. priorities, although thereyet to gain traction on national funding are cases of good Programme Target policy alignment, for example the National on Climate Change Vietnam. The main products that ACCCRN has produced so far are from the cities’ Phase 2 shared learning dialogue processes, and documents for the donor meeting in Bellagio. the Urban Resilience Framework, areThe Bellagio documents, including clear, concise and appropriate ACCCRN should ensure for the audience. they receive wider circulation, for example through the new website. In making a quality review of a Arup2 documents, Phase of sample areasfound (2010f) realof strength: capacity the and vulnerability assessments in Indore and Surat were comprehensive, using a well- As- Vulnerability Hazard the and and Capacity methodology, well-applied and defined but also sessments in Indonesia were at identifying areas good of urban vulnerability, areas studies with generic recommendations of weakness, such as sector that did not link to ACCCRN. In general, they found that documents were not easily accessible, that information sources were there lacking, and that was limited critical analysis. utility of An absolute judgment on quality is less useful than an assessment of the the products been able to use the products for ACCCRN. Cities have to develop im- plementation plans and tools. They have yet to be used more widely as part of the 39 Efficiency for money? strategy? ACCCRN and guidance of ACCCRN? practices in the oversight governance An assessment of the use of resources to obtain results including the extent to which including the extent to obtain results use of resources An assessment of the and to practices, governance Foundation uses best management and the Rockefeller for money. good value practices providing those are what extent value and demonstrate results to obtain funds efficiently used program • Has ACCCRN the to deliver appropriate resources the human and financial are what extent • To Foundation demonstrated best management and has the Rockefeller what extent • To knowledge base on how to approachknowledge it is important UCCR. For this, and achieve that process strengths weaknesses are and means there acknowledged, which is need for reflections the documents. to accompany As indicated above, it is quite early in the programAs indicated above, it is quite early in results. to expect Thus, efficiency in the use of resources in progressing the initiative to its current status is consid- ered. Fund efficiencyearly stages of the initiative, particularly was not achieved in the fromstudies of use full make not did selection City 1. 0/Phase Phase roundsinitial the repeatedof grants, and some scoping had to be by other grantees. There is a sense a morethat this phase was over-thought, when process pragmatic selection would have resulted in a selection equivalent to that taken. Fund efficiency appears to have been better in Phase 2. Although from an efficiency the same resultsperspective, it is questionable whether might not have been achieved from eight or nine cities across three countries. Threewould still have countries supported for an Asian regional the basis program, but with a lower transaction cost. line figures show that ACCCRN use of Foundation human resourcesTop is approxi- mately in proportion Initiative. The slightly lower to that found in the Health System efficiency may be, in part,to economies of scale. Use of ACCCRN staff due is time influenced by the architecture of the initiative, which currently places an operational burden center of the hub. on it as the to be relativelyseemed While cities initiatives, the with the management of content other partners were much more receive critical. Cities relatively close attention and support from country coordinators (a role established relatively recently by the RF ACCCRN team), whereas most other partners interface directly with the team RF ACCCRN team. The main critique is one of bilateralism; the RF ACCCRN with partnersworking which entails network, an execution than as rather singularly partnerjoint decision-making and assessment. ACCCRN has held a series of useful meetings, the latest in Bali involving cities, country coordinators and regional partners. the coordination with and between partners However, been event has around– driven in interactivity multilateral less with – meetings of types these the periods between them. The proposed Strategy and Alignment Group aims to address these issues. 9.3

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 96 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 97 Impact Sustainability continue its work after project funding terminates? funding project continue its work after intended impact? this? from the lessons derived and what are of ACCCRN, as a result occurred The extent to which ACCCRN develops both financial and/or institutional support to both financial and/or develops ACCCRN to which The extent by ACCCRN. continue the work initiated institutional support to both financial and/or developed has ACCCRN what extent • To to be sustained? likely achieved has ACCCRN the results are what extent • To The changes in the state and condition of people and the environment in which they live live in which they The changes in the state and condition of people and the environment of the work of the Foundation, its grantees and partners. result or indirect as a direct alone by impact will not be achieved instances, It is generally understood in most that, of to this level others will contribute but that many the Foundation and its grantees, change. its planned outcomes and contributed to its achieved has ACCCRN what extent • To have UCCR changes and negative positive and indirect direct • What unexpected ACCCRN has improved the capacity of some actors in some of the 10 cities to plan climate change resilience It is too early to say whether their capacity to strategies. finance and implement them has been improved. The focus on city capacity may need In late 2010, ACCCRN convened a meeting at Bellagio of donors concerneddonors convened a meeting at Bellagio of In late 2010, ACCCRN urban with outcome of the meeting was an agreementclimate change. The to tryto develop a which would be administeredbasket fund for UCCR, by the ADB. At the time of report,writing this evaluation of approximately the fund had indicative commitments $200 million. There is significant work to complete to arrive at an operational climate will be a major achievement. Therefund, but if and when this occurs, this are also a funding countrynumber of new donor commitments to and city level work, which It has yet to make a mark through policy influence on ACCCRN has helped broker. budgets for UCCR. mobilizing countries’ own domestic development to runThe multi-donor UCCR fund is designed of ACCCRN, but the beyond the life real mid-point, it issue is whether the ideas and practices of UCCR will sustain. At the is unclear whether resilience will widely endure as a concept and an aim, or whether In the 10 ACCCRN cities, a structureit will become subsumed into adaptation. that supports multi-sectoral approach a consultative, to be institutionalized – for is likely example Climate Change Coordination Offices in the City Vietnam, and constituting Advisoryin Surat as a trust. Committee public domain knowledge about Accessible This depends on the production and dis- UCCR will also contribute to sustainability. materials, active knowledge networks, and in- semination of practical and conceptual These will be central to the second half of volvement at knowledge sharing events. ACCCRN, but at present only limited amounts of documents are in the public domain and the knowledge network is still in conception. 9.5 9.4 revision in light of more recent happens and about how change thinking by ACCCRN in cities. Cities areis sustained building the capacity and legal entities, administrative is both hardof a city entity to measure within the time and overly ambitious and resource A more envelope available to ACCCRN. realistic would be on individu- focus als and improving the capacity of a cadre champions. of UCCR

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 98 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 99 10

philanthropy The Foundation, as with many philanthropic organizations, is in transition from tra- and ideas – to a moreditional grant-giving – investing in people impact-tar- focused, geting approach. In parallel, it has moved from funding projects and programs to an affectinitiatives paradigm. These transitions the nature of the relationship Foun- the always acknowledged or reflecteddation has with its grantees. This is not in the man- agement approach. Grants architecture has been modified to better suit a results-oriented way of working, aspects of older granting for example with initiative results frameworks. However, behavior remain,with grantees often charged with fairly low-level activity-based de- liverables and initiative-wide synergies not always explicitly included and objectives in grant agreements processes. or management The challenge for the Foundation in a results-based is to avoid relationships management world becoming based entirely around performance-based contracts, as this loses the richness of the grantor-grantee association. The aim should be for partnership, with shared, at impact high-level goals and outcome level; the art is balancing results and partnership. The Foundation needs to reflect its changing culture on how and results-orientation affects the relationship groupsand grantees individual with throughtogether working grantees of initiatives. It is recommended that: ACCCRN is now halfway throughis ACCCRN with global situation its funding period. The regardFoundation to climate change and development has moved on since the initiative and ACCCRN was established. The first conceived of the climate change evolution and organization of the climate change world has been gathering pace and is catching up to ACCCRN with regard need to be to UCCR. Strategic choices thus made now with respect to where and how to adapt in what is now an expanding field. These recommendations are designed to help the Foundation, the RF ACCCRN team partnersits and ensure resultspossible best the delivers ACCCRN that which have a maximum impact. Grant management for initiative-based 10.1 Grant management for initiative-based Formative recommendations Formative 10. To address the management and coordinationTo issues in ACCCRN, two main changes are needed – a mechanism for grant portfolio and partner management coordina- towardstion, and an initiative-wide cultural change a more partnership-based way of is not simply a matter of in- This working, with less reliance on functioning bilaterally. troducing a new set of biannual partnera social network site. It implies meetings and and requires The RF ACCCRN team and ACCCRN grantees change management. must appreciate require. the changes that established ways of working The culture of the initiative needs to shift towards a greater level of partnership, information sharing and inter-dependence around the shared objectives. One of the strengths of an initiative grant funded by a philanthropic foundation is that, in contrast with government-funded and contract-managed projects, it should support promoteand individual in orientation activity of level high The working. of style this grants has perhaps not promoted this. Clarity is required around roles and the behaviors needed to fulfill these roles. The role “initiative team” is to provide of the RF ACCCRN team as an leadership, to be a custodian of coherence across the initiative, and to monitor progress and achieve- ment towards shared objectives. This role for RF should hold true across initiatives Partners understand how their work need to own the initiative objectives; generally. contributes, inter-dependently with other partners’ work, to these shared objectives; and interact and collaborate with other partners in delivering their grant outputs. A platform is required inter-grant synergies to develop and a common approach. The proposal and Alignment Group for an ACCCRN Strategy (SAG) is therefore avoid becoming a set-piece biannual event. A strong, but the SAG should coor- timely, dinated partnership will succeed or fail depending on what happens in the interstices. It is therefore recommended that: Recommendation 1 Recommendation - how a re review management should,RF senior exercise, as a Foundation-wide and roles, grantee of initial negotiation selection, affects grantee sults-orientation the monitoring and management of grantee performance individually and across and initiatives; 2 Recommendation the content of grant and the grants office shouldRF senior management review grantees’ ownership of initia- articulateand develop i) that they letters to ensure, initiative other with collaborate to obliged are grantees that ii) and objectives, tive be can resources how shouldconsider financial also They delivery. their grantees in and payment tranches rather than activity deliverables, better allocated to results linked to performance. Implementing ACCCRN as a partnership10.2 Implementing ACCCRN ✓ ✓

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 100 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 101 - The RF ACCCRN team, countryThe RF ACCCRN rather than grantees, and regional coordinators network, should their efforts concentrate on or ACCCRN-facing, a closed, creating and inter national, regional into existing linking champions and city organizations should revise the concept of a “cities network” to target the network” to target concept of a “cities the team should revise The RF ACCCRN a range of from of UCCR champions (individuals) cadre networking of a growing adjustments to the results Appropriate stakeholders 10 cities and beyond. in the team supported by the M&E the RF ACCRN framework will need to be made by grantee from focus networking its switch thus should ACCCRN and in, individuals to cities concerned and work with them to develop process with, cities, skills that will support embedding UCCR in city systems. Recommendation 5 and urban climate change. national networks on city development brokeringcontinue to use its team can RF ACCCRN The to do and convening powers brokeringthis use and this, networks other of membership cities’ ACCCRN the and to set UCCR agendas for them. Recommendation 4 Recommendation 3: Recommendation team CountryACCCRN and the RF Regional Grantees ACCCRN Coordinators, in- partnership, a platform for coordinating as the SAG should focus on developing shift in a cultural and drives that promotes inter-dependence formation sharing and will only work; ACCCRN the way they to change All partners should expect ACCCRN. of collegiality. degree succeed with a greater Networking and networks it currentlyACCCRN is not a network; operates more like a program. The theory of change of forming cities across a network of 10 proved four countries has not robust and has not resultedpractice. Thus, ACCCRN should in an active community of not target Instead, a number of of a 10-city “ACCCRN network”. the establishment complementary approaches to networking are recommended, to better realize the potential of partners to exchange information and share their learning to promote UCCR approaches. Supporting be better exchange of knowledge between cities within countries should the main objective for country coordinators. This is already occurring, but learning reinforcedbe to need cities between and within loops through3 Phase in significant a face-to-face component, with electronic In particu knowledge management alongside. - lar it is recommended that: ✓ ✓ ✓ However, there is a However, 40 The (2011) has just published its Urban De- 41 investment funded under a Rockefeller Foundation grant. www.rockefellerfoundation.org/ funded under a Rockefeller Reader, Cities The African horizontal city-to-city spread,horizontal city-to-city e.g. through city networks national vertical transfer of concepts and approaches to the national level, which are then spread through their uptake in national programs, levering policy and national development budgets vertical international of influencing and multi-lateral conventions, initiatives and and bilateral donors, and thereby achieving scale through leveraging their policies and investment. news/publications/african-cities-reader-ii-mobilities Both UNDP and Danida in Hanoi indicated they would encourage and welcome the input of the ACCCRN would encourage and welcome the input of the ACCCRN Both UNDP and Danida in Hanoi indicated they such engagement Through dialogues held by donors in the Vietnam CC arena. into regular city experiences of other donors working in the adaptation could contribute to shaping the thinking and coordination ACCCRN within Vietnam and beyond. arena, E.g. E.g. • • • need for an overview means to share of scaling and a scaling lessons among partners. It is recommended that: 40 41 Recommendation 6 - grantees and partners initiates the develop team with relevant The RF ACCCRN country and international at city, ment of a clear strategy for scaling and replication complementarity between tiers of activity. recognizing tiers, If it is to achieve its design objectives, ACCCRN should avoid mission creep. Nonethe- less, the Foundation already an established presence has in Africa through its health agricultureand Nairobithe and work office. There the in work Foundation also is urban sector. Scaling-Out program second half of the the The emphasis for and amplifica- on scaling-out must be for pro-poortion. An essential element adaptation interventionsimpact is to have any and carriedfor them to be planned out “across, 2009). Scaling scales” (Kuriakose et al. are: in a number of ways. The most likely ACCCRN may happen There is also a hybrid of the second and third points – scaling-out through influenc- Some national partners within country. ing donor spending at national level, i.e. are well placed to lead country-level work, but in other countries, ACCCRN needs scaling to involve specialist policy partners,has done in India. There as it is also space to add value in some structured national-level engagement with respect to emerging donor coordination value-addition would be in influencing potential – the potential fromthe donors with lessons and examples adopt the cities. These donors might approachesACCCRN programsown their in informor government successful of models and approaches through their formal dialogue platforms. velopment Strategy which includes as cross-cutting themes: “knowledge generation … environmental protection and adaptation and resilience to climate change … and the empowerment of vulnerable segments of the population, as well as the strength- Leveraging the Rockefeller Foundation’s Foundation’s the Rockefeller 10.3 Leveraging ✓

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 102 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 103 drawing on support from Verulam and ISET, should engage and ISET, Verulam drawing on support from

analyze a sample of city initiatives from a cost benefit perspective. benefit perspective. a cost from analyze a sample of city initiatives

However, monitoring of effectivenessHowever, and impact assessment should not fall to the be utilization-focused and of use to city stake- center of ACCCRN alone. It needs to so that cities ACCCRN and moreholders as well as the RF ACCCRN team, widely, own the process and the findings. It is recommended that: Country coordinators, Recommendation 8 Country supported cities, by technical assistance respective and coordinators Arup from Recommendation 9 Recommendation 7 Recommendation should the urban stream, in management, particularlyFoundation senior those ACCCRN to leverage the program of consider the opportunities in the remainder Africa. engagement in the Foundation’s lessons to benefit – the basis for adoption Evidence Interviewees from have said clearly that, before both donors and the private sector being convinced of the effectiveness of the ACCCRN approach to UCCR and adopting and up scaling it, they would require quantitative evidence, ideally including cost-ben- efit analyses. There are approaches to cost benefit analysis of adaptation measures Group, 2009), that have been used suc- (Economics of Climate Change Working wherelocations in even have They sparse. is data economic and climate cessfully, developed robust and benefits of a wide models and quantified the economic costs range of adaptation measures. used in some city Cost benefit analysis was resilience and other quantification and monetization tech- strategies (e.g. Semarang), and these is recommendIt assessment. on-going ACCCRN’s in trialed usefully be could niques - ed that: ening of the urban-ruralening of the fromshould not be distracted While ACCCRN linkages.” its thereAsian focus, to exploresenior management for potential is some replication in relationshipAfrica. The for UCCRP may provide built with the ADB influ- lessons for is thereforeencing the AfDB. It recommended that: - city devel with monitoring evaluating and the partner cities’ departments charged and support their own assessment of their UCCR initiatives. opment to promote This would include engaging with the cities’ approaches and methods (Cities Alliance, 2005), as well as with fora at which civil society and private sector entities are involved The ACCCRN city advisory committees and working groups in city M&E activity. would be an entry point. so that data Impact measurement needs to be given due attention over the next year, learning and replicationare purposes. It was intended accumulated for accountability, that ACCCRN impact assessment would utilize monitoring frameworks from cities’ ✓ ✓ ✓ should devise a means to address the impact assessment a means to address should devise

gap, which appears to lie beyond both Verulam’s routine monitoring and the grant routine both Verulam’s appears to lie beyond which gap, indicators. grant on resilience work in ISET’s needed on, inter of the initiative’s impact, data will be make a summative evaluation To alia, the proportion vulnerable to climate change; the well-being of city populations proportionthe and cities; ACCCRN within citizens of status total within people poor of city populations. Recommendation 10 Recommendation team The RF ACCCRN resilience to have appropriate these do not appear strategies, but frame- monitoring thereforeworks. It is recommended that: Recommendation 11 the and revise team should work together to review APCO and the RF ACCCRN upon a means by which and agree Strategy, Communication ACCCRN overarching - particularlycountry to grantees, coordi supportprovided communications can be nators. impact Achieving of definitions Most Rockefeller The dimension. systems social a encompass resilience impact ACCCRN’s ultimate Foundation mission relates to the well-being of humanity. citizens are entails improving vulnerable men and women. Yet the lives of poor and not at present strongly visible in the initiative. There has been consultation with, and some involvement of, poor communities in Phase 2, though they are less evident in city advisory committees and working groups. Many of the engagement and imple- not always poverty. though mentation projects are focused on reducing vulnerability, ACCCRN should ensure are that communities involved in implementation projects, and that projects are inclusive and promote the participation of ACCCRN’s target groups. for” is not deep enough. Just measuring the Consultation alone, or “planning number of people affected by interventions at project completion will not be sufficient recommended It is thus that: either. External communications – stimulating uptake External communications – stimulating Withcapitaliz- a body of field-level experience in UCCR, ACCCRN must now focus on ing on this knowledge to support out- and up-scaling. Phase 3 implementation projects on UCCR. The remaindershould add value to the empirical evidence of the initia- tive therefore needs to increaseits set of amplification activities, of which attention to external are communications will not and should not all be central. Communications centrally managed from Bangkok. ACCCRN needs to further mobilize the communi- cations power of the partners, This requires but in a coordinated and supported way. both a coordinating device and provision is thus of advice and capacity building. It recommended that: 10.4 Leaving a legacy ✓ ✓

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 104 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 105 - Phase 3 projects are sufficiently large in scale and financing to invite city-wide attention and achieve scale change Phase 3 implementation projects are well supportedproperly and conducted, reflected upon, suitably recorded and reported upon, with lessons shared. • • Recommendation 13 to fund fewer, to Phase 3 projects, its approach team should revise The RF ACCCRN reflection and learning. with sufficient capacity for implementation projects larger Part of this will be continued support from country and regional partners – the Phase 3 architecture supports only small amounts of technical assistance are this, although available to cities from the regional partners. ensure that implementation projects To do complete well and are up, sufficient well written time is needed. requestThe RF ACCCRN team has made a case for additional funding for ACCCRN, - ing a further million is allocated to the Phase 3 projects, $20 which $10 million. Already, appropriate.is requiresit says team ACCCRN RF The properlyto these funds its fund resource brokering, knowledge management, national policy engagement, and com- munications and dissemination works streams. The ultimate success of ACCCRN is heavily dependent on these outreach and amplification activities. Although the evalu- ation reviewed it did not closely inspect ACCCRN’s overall individual grant budgets, Recommendation 12 Recommendation grantees’ monitoringThe M&E team could undertake of the par an assessment Exiting ACCCRN or should, the Foun- is urbanization. How, Neither going away. Climate change is not dation exit from such a pressing area? from Of course, it should not exit work at the its priority themes. Rather, change and urbanization – two of conjunction of climate how to move on fromit needs to consider other work on urban climate ACCCRN to to reflectchange. This needs successes (its outcomes) and both ACCCRN’s assumed the Foundation’s comparative strengths: brokering partnerships and convening stake- policy discourse, and innovation. holders, agenda setting and influencing currentThe architecture sustainabil- that leads to exit to an antithetical of ACCCRN is The designed reliance team as the orchestra on the RF ACCCRN is a conductor ity. The three foci for a sustainable exit must be capacity, key factor limiting sustainability. access to knowledge, and the presence the venture of other donors capitalizing on in ACCCRN represents.capital that the Foundation’s investment from a body of practical experience will be field A key ACCCRN contribution to the tryingCritical to this will be ensuring: to achieve UCCR in 10 cities. Therefore, it is recommended that: ticipation of poor and vulnerable groups (both numbers engaged and quality numbers engaged (both of en- of poorticipation groups and vulnerable of incorporate the voices projects to which intervention extent gagement) and the aims to benefit. that ACCCRN groups those ✓ ✓ Recommendation 14 Recommendation fully are Phase 3 lessons to ensure by one year ACCCRN The Foundation extends documented and shared upon, reflected This will require team to produce the RF ACCCRN proposal a fully costed for the associated with scaling-up, for scrutinyyear’s extension and additional activities by advance of the next BoardFoundation senior management, well in meeting. As outlined above, if networking support is refocused on individual champions, then center its investment to UCCR on continued post-ACCCRN, the Foundation may supportcadrethis to convening its drawing on community of practice, together with or agenda. change climate urban the on spend donor influence to continue to power an open sourceACCCRN should aim to leave behind of approaches, suite tools and experiences, and a cadreresource of degreepeople with a high and of climate literacy be a knowledge hub and an experta systems orientation. One scenario might cadre, plus limited on-going support to targeted partnersand events on the promotion of UCCR. budget, and is thus not in a position to judge whether $10 million is a realistic $10 million is to judge whether is thus not in a position budget, and amount to cover more outreach and better quality intensive amplification. and the evaluation is in supportHowever in principal, of a budget increase. ACCCRN requires both more time and an increase in funding to deliver its objectives. With contribution that, if well Foundation will have made a knowledge this extension, the importantmanaged, will be an public good. It is recommended that: ✓ 11.

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 106 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 107 ADPC Final ACCCRN Report. Thailand Country Report.[Report Asia Foundation: Rockefeller to

(LAC). Draft. Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance, http://community.eldis. (LAC). Draft. Africa org/.59d669a7/LACFconsult.pdf Transformingof Economic Growth into Engines and Africa’s Cities and Towns ResourcesOperational . Social Development Department,Policies and De - African velopment Bank, Tunis. Practice. FT Press, New Jersey No. 4, pp. 216-224 PreparedClimate Change Resilience Network], by Sam Kernaghan. Cities Climate Change Resilience Network], PreparedCities Climate Change Resilience Network], by Paul Kent. Sam Kernaghan. Project Criteria, Process & Progress. PreparedCities Climate Change Resilience Network], by Elizabeth Parker. Network]. 207105-0/EP. dation: Asia Cities Climate Change Resilience Strategy Meeting – Bellagio, Nov 2010. 308). [Report to Rockefeller Foundation]. Policy Perspective: Contemporary Government of Challenges. Commonwealth Australia, Canberra. Unpacking of resilience for tackling climate change and disasters. Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 1, IDS, Brighton. The Accra Local Adaptive Capacity Framework Document: The Accra Local Adaptive ACCRA (n.d.) Consultation Bank Group’s Bank (2011), The African Development Strategy. Development Urban Argyris,Organizational C. and Schon, D.A. (1995), Learning Theory,II: and Method, Arnstein, 35, A Ladder of Citizen Participation. S.R. (1969), , Vol. J. Am. Inst. Planners Arup (2008a). Bumblebee Report, [Report Foundation: Asia Cities to Rockefeller Arup(2008b), ACCCRN Strategic Planning Workshop: September 2009, PreparedArup by (2009), ACCCRN Strategic Planning Workshop: ArupInterventionACCCRN Resilience, Change Climate Urban (2010a), Building Arup (2010b), Assurance Review – Vietnam. [Report Foundation: Asia to Rockefeller Arup (2010c), Observations from review of City Outputs. [Report Foun- to Rockefeller Arup (2010d), ACCCRN: Phase 3 Grant Proposal (Rev A). ReportArup (2010e), Mini Workshop 3: Governance & Coordination. ACCCRN Arup (2010f),Final Narrative and Financial Report. ACCCRN Phase 2 Grant (CLI PreparednessDisaster Asian Centre 2009), (October Australian Public Service Wicked Commission (2007), Tackling Problems. A Public renaissance? resilience (2010), The T. Ibrahim, M. and Tanner, A.V., Bahadur, References 12. Climate Change: Understanding and Addressing the Development Challenges . the Development and Addressing Understanding Climate Change: Earthscan, London. BackgroundExperience of Review Agencies: A Report. Organisation for Economic Paris. Cooperation and Development, Report Climate Change. Center for Effective – Cambridge. Philanthropy, Strategies. into City Development July 2010. McKinsey Quarterly, . velopment – A Framework for Decision-Making Abacus, London. Brighton. Rome and ITAD, Rural Development Strategy.FAO, programmes change adaptation in disaster risk reduction policies. ActionAid, and ; Brighton. IDS, services requirements for estimating the investment for urban infrastructure services, Government of India, New Delhi. Unpublished. for ACCCRN meeting Bangkok, Thailand], Boulder. 5. ISET, Version Engagement for Resilience Action. Climate Resilience in Concept and Practice Colorado Paper Series. Boulder, Working on Sustainable and Climate Resilient Proceedings of the International Workshop 8-9 September 2010, New Urban Development. Organized by IRADe and ISET, Colorado Delhi. Boulder, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., San Francisco. Policies in Asia. United Nations Development Program, Research Paper 2009/16 Bicknell, J., Dodman, D., and Satterthwaite,J., Dodman, D., and Bicknell, Cities to Adapting D. (eds). (2010), in the Development Co-Operation Results Based Management Binnendijk, A. (2000), Grantee Perception ReportCEP (2011), The Rockefeller Foundation: Initiative Results. Integrating Monitoring & Evaluation Guidance Framework: Cities Alliance (2005), in China and India. S. (2010) Comparing Urbanization Dobbs, R. and Sankhe, Group- (2009), Shaping Climate Resilient De Economics of Climate Change Working Gladwell, M. (2000), The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Bank World Hancock, J. and Poate, D. (2002), Scaling-up: Issues and Options for the Harnessing A. (2011), Harris, synergies: mainstreaming climate Bahadur, K. and High Powered Expert Committee (2010) Report on Indian urban infrastructure and in Cities. [Background to Climate Change Note ISET (2009), Assessing Vulnerability Developing Urban Climate Resilience Indicators for ISET (2010a), Guidance Tool ISET (2010b), The Shared Learning Dialogue: Building Stakeholder Capacity and Sustainable & Climate Resilient Urban Development. ISET (2010c), The Time is Now. Programs:Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998), Evaluating Training 2nd Edition. The Four Levels PatternKundu, A. (2009): Urbanization and Migration: An Analysis of Trend, and

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 108 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 109 Assessing vulnerability and adaptive and adaptive Assessing vulnerability Convergence and Reduction Risk Disaster of Only Death Is Certain,you still get out of bed in the morning: Or Ob- Yet .A Review for DFID. Climate Change Adaptation Adaptation in Development ProcessesDisaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change . Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 2. IDS, Brighton. Opportunitiesand Challenges Networking . ACCCRN internal report. Rockefeller Foundation, New York. OECD DAC Network on Governance. (2010), servations information on the use of climate in adaptation and resilience practice. Paper 2. ISET Working Climate Resilience in Concept and Practice: 2011. TCC Group, New York [URL accessed 20th April 2011] 22(2): 397-413, Interna- Durban, South Africa. Environment Vol and Urbanisation, tional Institute for Environment Development. and at the local government level in Durban, South Africa. EnvironmentUrban- and 20(2): 521-537. International Institute for Environment and Develop- isation. Vol ment. Rockefeller Foundation, New York. dation White Paper. York. capacity to climate risks: methods for investigation at local and national levels: at local and national for investigation climate risks: methods capacity to Bank: planning process national adaptation local voices in the Amplifying . World D.C. Washington Mercy Jakarta Corps Indonesia, Selatan, Java. Speed Dating: Report Colloquium - From Theory from the Resilience-Vulnerability to Practice, From Disconnect to Synergy in Supportof Sustainable Development. 2008. Stockholm EnvironmentStockholm, 10-11 April, Institute, Stockholm. Kuriakose, A.T., Bizikova, L., Bachofen, A. (2009), L., Bachofen, Bizikova, A.T., Kuriakose, (2010), Assessing Progress on Integrating and Villanueva, van Aalst, M. P.S. Mitchell, T., RegardingNachuk, S. (2010), Synthesis Document: Consolidated Responses ACCCRN towards good practice. Working Development: of Capacity OECD (2006), The Challenge Boulder. . ISET, Opitz-Stapleton, S. (2009), Climate Scenarios for Gorakhpur Opitz-Stapleton, S; Guibert, S. G.; MacClune, K.; MacClune, K.; Sabbag, L. and Tyler, Note. DRAFT March J. (2011), ACCCRN Network Development Concept 20, Raynor, Resilience Alliance – Key Concepts.www.resalliance.org/index.php/key_concepts. Roberts, D. (2010), Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience in Roberts, climate change acting locally – institutionalizing D. (2008). Thinking globally, - Rockefeller Foundation (2009), Building Climate Change Resilience. Rockefeller Foun Rockefeller Foundation (2010), 2009 Annual Report.Rockefeller Foundation, New Mercy Report, (2009).Indonesia City Selection Corps Indonesia May – August, 2009. (2008), Hybrids, Bifocals, Tipping Points and K.; and Thomalla, F. Larsen, F.; Miller, and van Aalst, M. (2008), Mitchell. T. Urban Gover- Urban ACCCRN InterventionACCCRN Project Criteria, Process & Progress. note, 17th MarchACCCRN post-Bali 2011. Discussion. ience Partnership Foundation, New Rockefeller (UCCRP). Draft concept paper. Bank, Manila Asian Development York; York. Rockefeller Foundation, New Paper. The case of Thailand. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (2009) 412042. 30 Mar 2011. March 2011. to M&E Team, and Constraints in Low- and Mid- Climate Change in Urban Areas: The Possibilities Series Climate Change dle-Income Nations. Human Settlements Discussion Paper and Cities 1. IIED, London really that difficult? Praxis Paper 23. INTRAC, Oxford. Virginia, A., and Kalkstein, L.S. (2007), Screening Asian Megacities to Estimate Relative Exposure to Climate Change. Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder. London. nance for Adaptation: Assessing Climate Change Resilience in Ten Asian Cities.IDS nance for Adaptation: Assessing Climate Change Resilience in Ten Paper 315, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton Working Resilience: Framework and Examples from the Asian Cities Climate Change Resil- Paper Network. Climate Resilience in Concept and Practice Series: Working ience 3 [Draft]. ISET are we reinventing the wheel? Analysing climate-related Reduction Disaster Risk J. (Ed).http://www.eldis.org/go/topics/resource- in Papua New Guinea.Mercer, Rockefeller Foundation and Arup Foundation and Rockefeller Resilience. Climate Change Building Urban (2010), Regional Partners ACCCRN Foundation (2011a), Rockefeller Debrief. Meeting and Learning (2011b), ACCCRN Strategy Rockefeller Foundation Group. Draft for Resil- Change Climate Urban an and ADB (2011), Building Rockefeller Foundation Strategy for a New CenturyRodin, J. (2007), The Rockefeller Foundation: . Strategy change: (2009), Community-based adaptation to climate J.K. &Permpibul, W. Routrav, http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/41/412042/pdf/ees9_6_412042.pdf Accessed . Memo Update Rumbaitisdel Rio, C. (2011), ACCCRN Donor Engagement Workstream ), Adapting to (2007 Satterthwaite,Huq, S., Reid, H., Pelling, M. and Lankao, P.R. D., Is it (2010), Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building: and Smith, R. N. Simister, Sjögren, R. (2010), Donor Mapping Report. Consultant’s report to ACCCRN. Mills, D., Ebi, K., C., Hodgson, T., B., Wagner, Smith, J.B., Jones, R., Deck, L., Lazar, Stern,(2006).SternN, Change. H.M. Treasury,Climate of Economics the on Review (JanuaryB. Guenther, and E. Polack, M.; Mitchell, 2009), T.; Tanner, Tyler, S.; Reed, S.; Macclune, K. and Chopde, S. (undated), Planning for Urban Climate K. and Chopde, Macclune, S.; Reed, S.; Tyler, arenaPolicy (2010), UNFCCC reductionrisk disaster adaptation: change climate or

ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 110 ASIAN CITIES CLIMATE CHANGE RESILIENCE NETWORK 111 guides/climate-change/key-issues/strenghtening-climate-resilience Accessed 21 March 2011 Nairobi. Development Goals. UN-HABITAT, and the Millennium Human Settlements 2011 Abridged Edition. United Nations Human Settlements Program. Earthscan, London. Ltd, Oxford. Agents of Change, Environment – Inter- Urbanization, vol. 14, no 1, April 2002 and natioal Institute of Environment and Development. matechange.worldbank.org/climatechange/content/adaptation-guidance-notes- key-words-and-definitions (URL accessed 20th April 2011) ington D.C. Urban Indicators Guidelines. Monitoring the Habitat Agenda the Habitat Monitoring Guidelines. Indicators Urban (2004), UN-HABITAT Policy Directions. Global Report (2011), Cities and Climate Change: UN-HABITAT on Report (2011), ACCCRN Second Monitoring Verulam Associates Jan 2011, Verulam From of Growth Engines to Vliet, Willem World: Cities in A Globalizing van (2002), and Definitions. http://cli- Bank (nd), Adaptation Guidance Notes - Key Words World - Bank, Wash Bank (2010), Cities and Climate Change: An Urgent Agenda, World World