valuing the resilience dividend - gib-foundation...disaster preparedness, but also exist during...
TRANSCRIPT
GlobalInfrastructureBaselElisabethenstrasse22CH-4051BaselSwitzerland
T+41612051080F+41612711010info@gib-foundation.orgwww.gib-foundation.org
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
31March2017
ThisstudywascommissionedbytheRockefellerFoundationandconductedbytheGlobalInfrastructureBaselFoundation.
Authors:Dr.BasilOberholzerAntoniusKnepMarcoVögeliAdditionalcontributors:InstituteforHousingandUrbanDevelopment(IHS),UniversityofRotterdamDanielWienerHans-PeterEglerDr.SebastianvonDahlenGrantNumber2016RLC307
Page2of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
ExecutiveSummary
Resilienceistheabilityofindividuals,communitiesand,ingeneral,systemstowithstanddisruptions.Forcen-turiessocietieshavefocusedonachievinghighlevelsofresilienceinordertobouncebackandbuildbackbet-ter effectively fromman-made and natural disasters. Given the current environmental challenges, growingpopulationsandincreasingglobalization,resiliencehasneverbeenhigherontheglobalagenda.However,resil-ience ismuchmore thanmeredisasterpreparedness. It isalsoaboutaddingvalue tosociety irrespectiveofdisasters.Thesevalue-addingbenefitsthatarisefromdisasterpreparednessbutalsoexistintimesofnodisas-terscanbereferredtoastheResilienceDividend.InfrastructureresilienceiskeytobothmainaspectsoftheResilienceDividend:disruptionpreparednessandvalue-addingbenefitsirrespectiveofdisasters.
Thepresentstudyexaminesfourconcretecasestudiesindifferentcitiesthroughouttheworld(Manila,Math-baria,Quito,Port-au-Prince).TheresultsindicatethattheResilienceDividenddoesexistandthatinvestmentsin resiliencedopayoff.Themethodology in this study isa combinationofexistingapproaches–mainly theSuReSmartScanandsector-specificindicators–toformonenew,innovativeapproach.Byanalyzingcasestud-iesandcombiningthetwoapproaches,thisstudymarksthefirststepstowardsindicatingtheResilienceDivi-dendinthecaseofadisasterandwithout.
Atpresent,keydecisionmakersintheinfrastructuresectorarelackingfourmainelements:
• Appropriate capacity building to raise awareness about the benefits of resilience and why it shouldthereforebefostered,measuredandenhancedaspartoftheprojectdevelopmentprocess.
• Technicalassistanceintheformofstate-of-the-artexpertknowledgeonthegroundandthroughouttheentirevaluechainandlifecycleofaninfrastructureproject.
• AnappropriatetooltogaininsightsintotheResilienceDividendandidentifywhattheyshouldlookat,whattheyshouldbenchmarktheirprojectsagainst,andwhich indicators theyshouldusetosnapshotresiliencelevelassessmentsbothperiodicallyandafterdisasters.
• Datatoprovethatbetteradherencetoresilienceandsustainabilityfeatureswillyieldbetterrisk-returnparameterssuchasbettereconomicandfinancialperformance.
Overtime, thecreationofan infrastructureproject registrycontainingresilience,sustainability, financialandeconomicdatawillprovidedeeperinsightsintothecharacteristicsofinfrastructureresilienceandhelptoun-lockthemoneyneededtoclosetheinfrastructureinvestmentgapandfosteroverallresilience.
Page3of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Content
Abbreviations.................................................................................................................................................5
1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................7
2 Background........................................................................................................................................10
2.1 TheImportanceofSustainableandResilientInfrastructure......................................................................10
2.2 ExistingResilienceDividendFrameworks...................................................................................................11
2.3 ExistingInfrastructureResilienceStandards...............................................................................................13
3 Methodology......................................................................................................................................16
3.1 TheTheoryBehindtheStudy.....................................................................................................................16
3.1.1 Non-disasterscenario.....................................................................................................................16
3.1.2 Disasterscenario.............................................................................................................................19
3.2 SuRe®Standard...........................................................................................................................................20
3.2.1 SuReSmartScan..............................................................................................................................23
3.2.2 WhatisnotthetargetoftheSuRe®StandardandtheSuReSmartScan?......................................25
3.3 Indicators....................................................................................................................................................26
3.3.1 Backgroundonthesourcesoftheindicatorsandotherfactors.....................................................26
3.3.2 HowtheindicatorshelptoconfirmtheresilienceleveloftheSuReSmartScan............................27
3.3.3 ThecombinationoftheSuReSmartScanandtheindicators..........................................................28
3.4 AdditionalContributingToolsandSources................................................................................................29
3.4.1 SRBA–SustainabilityandResilienceBenefitAssessment..............................................................29
3.4.2 InternationalDisasterDatabase......................................................................................................29
3.5 LimitationsofthisStudy.............................................................................................................................30
4 CaseStudies.......................................................................................................................................32
4.1 Manila.........................................................................................................................................................32
4.1.1 Background.....................................................................................................................................32
4.1.2 Resiliencelevelassessment............................................................................................................34
4.1.3 Post-disasterassessment................................................................................................................37
4.1.4 ResilienceDividend.........................................................................................................................39
4.1.5 InterpretationoftheResilienceDividend.......................................................................................41
4.2 Mathbaria...................................................................................................................................................41
4.2.1 Background.....................................................................................................................................41
4.2.2 Resiliencelevelassessment............................................................................................................43
4.2.3 Post-disasterstressassessment......................................................................................................44
4.2.4 ResilienceDividend.........................................................................................................................47
4.2.5 InterpretationoftheResilienceDividend.......................................................................................48
4.3 Quito...........................................................................................................................................................49
4.3.1 Background.....................................................................................................................................49
Page4of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
4.3.2 Resiliencelevelassessment............................................................................................................50
4.3.3 Post-disasterassessment................................................................................................................52
4.3.4 ResilienceDividend.........................................................................................................................53
4.3.5 InterpretationoftheResilienceDividend.......................................................................................54
4.4 Port-au-Prince.............................................................................................................................................54
4.4.1 Background.....................................................................................................................................54
4.4.2 Resiliencelevelassessment............................................................................................................56
4.4.3 Post-disasterassessment................................................................................................................58
4.4.4 ResilienceDividend.........................................................................................................................58
4.4.5 InterpretationoftheResilienceDividend.......................................................................................59
5 OverallInterpretationoftheResilienceDividendStudy.....................................................................61
5.1 ComparingtheProjectFindings..................................................................................................................61
5.2 OverallInterpretation–CommunalitiesandOverlaps...............................................................................61
5.3 LessonsLearned..........................................................................................................................................63
5.4 WhatIsMissing?.........................................................................................................................................64
6 Outlook..............................................................................................................................................65
6.1 TheoryofChange........................................................................................................................................65
6.2 Tool.............................................................................................................................................................66
6.3 CapacityBuilding........................................................................................................................................68
6.4 TechnicalAssistance...................................................................................................................................69
6.5 Registry.......................................................................................................................................................69
7 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................71
References....................................................................................................................................................72
Appendix......................................................................................................................................................77
Page5of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Abbreviations
3GF GlobalGreenGrowthForumACCCRN AsianCitiesClimateChangeResilienceNetworkADB AsianDevelopmentBankBHC BenpresHoldingsCorporationC40 CitiesClimateLeadershipGroupCBD ConventiononBiologicalDiversityCCFLA TheCitiesClimateFinanceLeadershipAllianceCIA CentralIntelligenceAgencyCRED CentreforResearchontheEpidemiologyofDisastersDENR DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesDFI DevelopmentFinanceInstitutionEIB EuropeanInvestmentBankESG Environment,Social,andGovernanceESIA EnvironmentalandSocialImpactAssessmentESMS EnvironmentalandSocialManagementSystemFATF FinancialActionTaskForceFIDIC InternationalFederationofConsultingEngineersFPIDC FirstPhilippineInfrastructureDevelopmentCorporationGDP GrossDomesticProductGHG GreenhouseGasGIB GlobalInfrastructureBaselFoundationGIZ DeutscheGesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeitGRI GlobalReportingInitiativeICLEI LocalGovernmentsforSustainabilityIDB Inter-AmericanDevelopmentBankIFC InternationalFinanceCorporationJICA JapanInternationalAgencyCooperationAgencyHIS InstituteforHousingandUrbanDevelopmentStudiesRotterdamILO InternationalLabourOrganizationIUCN InternationalUnionforConservationofNatureISEAL InternationalSocialandEnvironmentalAccreditationandLabellingAllianceMDB MultilateralDevelopmentBankMNE MultinationalCorporationMNTC ManilaNorthTollwaysCorporationM&E MonitoringandEvaluationNLEX NorthLuzonExpresswayODI OverseasDevelopmentInstituteOECD OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopmentOH&S OccupationalHealthandSafetyPNCC PhilippineNationalConstructionCorporationPPP Public-PrivatePartnershipR20 RegionsofClimateActionRPA RegionalPlanAssociationSDG SustainableDevelopmentGoalSRBA SustainabilityandResilienceBenefitsAssessmentTA TechnicalAssistanceUN UnitedNationsUNFCCC UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChangeUNISDR UnitedNationsInternationalStrategyforDisasterReductionUSD UnitedStatesDollarWB WorldBank
Page6of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
WWF WorldWideFundforNature
Page7of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
1 Introduction
“Asyoubecomemoreadeptatmanagingdisruptionandskilledat resiliencebuilding,youareable tocreateandtakeadvantageofnewopportunitiesingoodtimesandbad.Thatistheresiliencedividend.”
(Rodin,2015,p.4)
Resilienceisanissuethatiscurrentlyrisingrapidlyontheagendaofinternationalorganizations,cityplannersandvariousdecisionmakers.Itisclearthatthistopiccannotbeneglectedintimesofincreasingenvironmentalchallenges, growing populations and increasing globalization.While sustainability (often also referred to as“ESG”, i.e.Environment,SocialandGovernance)topicshavebeenthecentral issueofdebate inthisareafordecades, resilience has emerged as a new term that is necessary to address the present and future issueswhicharegaining in importance.Eventhoughsustainabilityandresilienceshareseveraloverlappingthemes,thelattercanbeclearlydistinguishedfromtheformerduetoitsextensiveemphasisondisruptionsofvariouskinds. In this regard, resiliencegivesrisetobenefits in theformofreduced lossesafteradisaster.However,resilienceismorethandisasterpreparedness.Itisalsoaboutaddingvaluetosocietyirrespectiveofdisasterstakingplace.For instance,havinga safeandstable sanitationsystem inplace isnotonlynecessary toavoidepidemicsaftera flood,butalsoofgreatuseatanygiven time.Thesevalue-addingbenefits thatarise fromdisasterpreparedness,butalsoexistduringtimeswithnodisasters,canbereferredtocollectivelyastheResil-ienceDividend,whichformsthecentralfocusofthisstudy.
Current trends in economics, demographics and globalization are leading to increased migration to citiesthroughouttheworld.Theresilienceofanurbancommunityistoalargedegreedeterminedbythequalityandreliabilityof its infrastructure.This iswhythisstudyanalysestheResilienceDividendof individual infrastruc-tureprojectswithincities. Itunderstands infrastructureasbeingmorethan itsmerephysicalcharacteristics,and explores the environmental, social and institutional conditions underwhich an infrastructure project isdesigned,constructedandoperated.Forinstance:whatinterlinkageexistsbetweensocialcohesionandinfra-structure?
Atpresent, aneffective tool tomeasure theResilienceDividend ismissing. Theapproach introduced in thisstudy– thecombinationofa snapshotassessmentservingasbenchmark,andthesubsequentapplicationofinfrastructure-specific indicators–attempts to fill thisgap.TheSuReSmartScan isan instrument thatallowsthe sustainabilityand resilience levelsof infrastructureprojects tobeassessedata singlepoint in time (theaforementioned ‘snapshot’)as shown inFigure1below.Thehigher theattestedresilience level, thegreaterthenumberofbenefitsthatshouldarise,andthereforethehighertheResilienceDividend.Thishypothesisistestedbyusingtheindicatorsthatmeasurethebenefitsresultingfromresilienceeffortsandinvestmentovertime,andthencomparingthemwiththeinitialsnapshotfindings.
Page8of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Figure1 ResiliencemeasurementusingtheSuReSmartScanandindicators
Source:GIBFoundationOnce the relationshipbetween the resilience levels, as assessedby the SuReSmartScan, and thebenefits isconfirmed,theSuReSmartScancanbeappliedtofuture infrastructureprojects.Theresiliencelevelwillthenindicate theResilienceDividend that canbeexpected.This initial study,basedon four case studiesof infra-structureprojectsindifferentcities,revealsclearevidencethattheResilienceDividendexists.However,dataavailability is insufficient.This iswhythisstudyshouldnotbeseenas final,butratherasastartingpoint forfurther and deeper resilience research. In the future, resilience awareness raising via capacity building, andresilienceimplementationviatechnicalassistanceasearlyaspossibleintheinfrastructurelifecycleshouldrootresilience thinkingdeeply in themindsof every stakeholder in the infrastructure industry.Moreover, anewresiliencemeasurementtool,whichcombinesthefeaturesinFigure1,shouldbedeveloped.Itwillgiveindica-tionsonwhattolookforandwhattodoinordertoreachhigherinfrastructureresiliencelevels.Thistoolwillemploy thedataobtained andprovide thedeepest possible insights into the issueof resilience andhow tomaximize the resilienceofprojects. Besides creatingmore resilientprojects, these activitieswill allow resili-ence-specificprojectdatatoaccumulate,whichwillthenbeenteredintoaprojectregistry–afuturedatabaseforprovingtheexistenceoftheResilienceDividend,andthegatewaytoobtainingfundstofinancetheenor-mousfutureinfrastructureneeds.
Theremainderofthisstudyisstructuredinthefollowingway:Chapter2providesbackgroundinformationonresilience,ResilienceDividendaswell as theparticular importanceof infrastructure for resilience.Chapter3develops the methodology of the study and provides the theoretical background. It presents the SuReSmartScanasacentraltoolfortheproposedattempttomeasureresilience.Theindicatorsaswellasadditionalcontributingtoolsandsourcesarealsointroduced.InChapter4,thecombinationofasnapshotresilienceas-sessmentandsubsequentverificationusingindicatorsisappliedtofourinfrastructureprojectsinManila(Phil-ippines),Mathbaria (Bangladesh),Quito (Ecuador), andPort-au-Prince (Haiti) respectively.Eachcase study isindividuallyinterpreted.InChapter5,basedontheindividualcasestudyinterpretations,anoverallinterpreta-tionevaluatestheextenttowhichthesuggestedapproachisareliableassessmentmethodologyforresilience
ResilienceLevel
ResilienceDividend
AllPublicandPrivateInfrastructureProjectsatanypoint
in7me
SuRe
Low
Med
ium
High
Excep2
onal
Increasing
IndicatorstoverifyResilienceLevelandResilienceDividendover5me
Hypothesis:HigherResilienceLevel=HigherResilienceDividendSnapshot
Page9of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
and sustainability.Moreover, commonalities across the fourprojects and key lessons learnedarediscussed.This lays thebasis forpossible future steps,whichareoutlined inChapter6.Here, strategiesand tools thatshouldbedevelopedinordertofinallymaketheresilienceofinfrastructurenotjustanicefeature,butratherthe“newnormal”areemphasized.Chapter7concludesthestudy.
Page10of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
2 Background
Inthischapterweprovidebackgroundinformationandaliteraturereviewfocusingonthreemaintopics:first,wediscusstheimportanceofsustainableandresilientinfrastructurewithinacertainenvironment.Second,wepresentexistingresiliencedividendframeworks,andinthethirdpartwefocusonexistinginfrastructureresili-encestandards.Thischapterprovidesthereaderwithabroadoverviewofsustainableandresilientinfrastruc-tureframeworksandoutlineswhytheyareimportant.
2.1 TheImportanceofSustainableandResilientInfrastructure
Infrastructureplaysacritical role in thedevelopmentofmodernequitablesocieties,providingbasicservicessuchasenergy,transportation,waterandsanitation,aswellasinformationandcommunications.Accordingtothe UN (2017), quality infrastructure relates positively to the achievement of social, economic and politicalgoals.Atthesametime,inadequateandundevelopedinfrastructureleadstoalackofaccesstomarkets,jobsandinformation,andcanlimitaccesstohealthcareandeducation(ibid.).
Dependingonthechoiceofinfrastructureandhowitisplanned,constructed,operatedandmaintained,infra-structurecancomeat immenseenvironmentalandsocialcost.Forexample,fossil fuelbasedenergygenera-tionandtransportationresultinemissionsthatcontributetolocalairpollutionandglobalwarming,andthere-byimpacthumanhealthandwell-being.Atthesametime,infrastructureisvulnerabletoshocksandstresses.Forinstance,extremeweatherevents,partiallyduetoclimatechange,riskweakeninginfrastructureandeventhreateningitsveryfunctioningandserviceprovision.Asaresult,theunintendedconsequencesofinfrastruc-tureontheenvironmentandhumanhealth,aswellastheresilienceof infrastructuretonaturalhazardsandman-madechangesneedtobefactoredinattheoutsetofanyinfrastructuredevelopment.
TheWorldRiskReport(2016)statesthatwhenanaturalorman-madedisasterstrikes,“infrastructurecanbeadecidingfactorinwhetherornotthesituationbecomesadisaster”.Forexample,roadsprovideacrucialcom-ponentforemergencyservices,reliefservicesforaffectedcommunities,andevacuationroutesintheeventofadisaster(Pavementinteractive,2012).Rodrigue(2016)arguesthataneffectivewaytoassesshowcriticalaninfrastructureistoanalyzetheimpactsontheflowsandactivitiesoftheinfrastructureintheabsenceofit.
AccordingtotheUSNationalResearchCouncil (2009),economistsgenerallyagreethat(1) infrastructureandcriticalinfrastructure(i.e.infrastructurethatiskeyforthefunctioningofasocietyatlarge)affectthebehaviorofpeopleandbusinesseswhichinfluenceeconomicgrowth,landuse,andqualityoflife;and(2)withoutquali-tyinfrastructure,productivitywillnotreachhighlevels.Therefore,criticalinfrastructuresystemscanaffectthefollowingaspectsofsociety(ibid.):
• Thecompetitivenessofservicesandgoodsintheglobalmarket;• Thehealth,safety,andwell-beingofcitizens;• Theavailabilityandreliabilityofpowerandthemaintenanceoflife-supportsystems;• Thetraveltimerequiredforpeopletogofromhometoworkorotherdestinationsandfortheeffi-
cienttransportofgoodsandservices;• Thereliabilityandspeedoftelecommunications;• Thespeedandeffectivenessofcommunicationsaboutactionstobetakenduringnaturalandhuman-
madedisasters(e.g.regardingevacuationandsafeharbors);• Thetime,cost,andextentofrecoveryforcommunitiesfollowingsuchdisasters.
Page11of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
SimilartoJudithRodin’s(2015)ideaofreadiness,responsivenessandrevitalization,infrastructureisimportantforcommunitiesintermsoftheiremergencypreparedness,economicrecoveryandinterdependencies(NACO,2014).First,aspreviouslymentioned,infrastructureinterdependenciescanaffectotherinfrastructuresystems–inthewayabridgefunctionsaspartofawholeroadnetwork–aswellascommunities,livelihoods,jobsandthenationaleconomy (Gallego-Lopez&Essex,2016).Second,adisruption to the infrastructure lifeline influ-encesacommunity’sabilitytorecover,tobouncebackandtobuildbackbetterafterandfromadisaster.Forexample,inaregionthatisdependentontourism,resilientroads,airports,railwaysandportsarekeyforthecommunitytoreturntonormalafteradisaster.Andthird,emergencypreparednesscan limit the impactsofdisasters.Aprominentexampleofunpreparedemergencyplanningcanbefoundinthecaseoftheterrorat-tackinNorwayin2011,wherea“lonewolf”terroristwasabletokill77andinjure319peopleduringseveralhoursattwolocations.Chapter5inTheResilienceDividendbyJudithRodin(2015)illustrateshowthelackofhumanemergencypreparednessplayedan important role in the fataloutcomeof thisattack.Rodin’sResili-enceDividendframeworkisintroducedinSection2.2below.
BoxI
Whyresilientinfrastructureisimportant“Sufficient andwell-built infrastructure, such as high-quality power and transportation networks, canlimittheimpactsthatnaturalhazardscancausebothintermsof lossof lifeandeconomicdamage.Atthesametime,thebreakdownofnodalpointsininfrastructure,suchasairportsorpowerplants,canal-socauseimpactsthatreachfarbeyondtheactualextentofthehazard.(…)Wecurrentlyfocustoomuchonshort-termreliefafterdisasters,andpaytoolittleattentiontoensuringthatresilientinfrastructureisinplacebeforehazardsoccur” (Dr.MatthiasGarschagen, ScientificDirectorof theWorldRiskReport,2016).
2.2 ExistingResilienceDividendFrameworks
Theassessmentofresiliencewithineconomic,socialandenvironmentalsystemshasgainedimportanceinre-centyearsandindifferentacademicfields.Assessingandevaluatingresilienceisessentialforidentifyingpossi-ble risks, opportunities and alternatives to conventional management strategies (Liu, 2014; Quinlan et al.,2016;Sellberg,Wilkinson&Peterson,2015).Moreover, theassessmentandevaluationof resiliencecontrib-utestoabetterunderstandingoftheneedsandgoalsofcomplexsystems,suchasurbanareas,andcanshedlightonthecostsandbenefitsofinterventionsdirectedatincreasingthelevelofresilience(Cutter,2016).Theassessmentandevaluationof resilience iscarriedoutusingtwoapproaches.First, top-downapproachesaresuitableforassessingspatialvariability,allocatingresources,andmonitoringprogressatstate,nationalorin-ternational levels. Second, in contrast, bottom-up approaches have the potential to provide greater buy-infromcommunities,butatthesametimedonotallowcomparisonsbetweendifferentlocationsduetothevari-abilityofdataanddifferingmeaningsofresilience.
Whilemost resilience frameworksnaturally cover similar aspects, a varietyof different frameworks are cur-rently inuse,eachofthemwith itsownparticularperspectiveonthe issueofresilience.Thefollowingpara-graphsprovideanoutlineofthemostprominentapproaches.
JudithRodinprovidesaquitecomprehensiveframeworkofresilienceandtheResilienceDividendarisingfromit.Thedefinitionofresilienceisexpressedinonesentence:“Resilienceisthecapacityofanyentity–anindi-vidual,acommunity,anorganization,oranaturalsystem–topreparefordisruptions,torecoverfromshocksandstresses,andtoadaptandgrowfromadisruptiveexperience(Rodin,2015,p.3).”HowevertheResilience
Page12of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Dividenddoesnotonlycomeintoexistencewhenadisastertakesplace.Morethanthis“itisaboutachievingsignificanttransformationthatyieldsbenefitsevenwhendisruptionsarenotoccurring”(ibid.,p.4).Tonameaconcretemeasure,onecouldmentiontreeplanting,whichprovidesprotectionagainsterosionintheeventofacatastrophe,butalsoincreasesbiodiversityandairqualityirrespectiveofdisasterstakingplace.Rodindistin-guishesfivecharacteristicsofresilience:beingaware,diverse,integrated,self-regulating,andadaptive(ibid.,p.14).Thesecharacteristicssummarizethekindofhumanorganizationandbehaviorthatisnecessarytobetterwithstandcatastrophes.Itthereforebecomesclearthattheresilienceofasocietyisconsideredfromasystem-icperspectiveasitdependsonvariouscomplexinterrelationsbetweenhumans.Resiliencedoesnotmeasurethedegreeofpermanentstabilityofasystem,butratherthesystem’sabilitytoabsorb“changeanddisruptionwithoutthesystemcollapsingorbeingtotallythrownoutofwhack(…)andachievingsomenewstateofstabil-ity”(ibid.p.47).
Theprocessofresiliencebuildinginasystemtakestheformofanadaptivecycleconsistingoffourparts:rapidgrowth,followedbyconservation,thenadisastertriggersareleasephase,whichgivesrisetoastageofreor-ganization (Rodin,2015,pp.51–54).Thisbuild-back-betterprocessshouldguarantee that thesystemalwayskeepsonfunctioningandthatreorganizationreachesahigherlevelofresilienceineveryloop.Correspondingto the adaptive cycle are therefore three “phases of practice”: readiness, responsiveness and revitalization(ibid.pp.55–63).
Finally,whilemany disruptions are of the same kind as those centuries ago, newer factors that exacerbatehithertodisasters have come intoplay: urbanization, climate change, and globalization (Rodin, 2015, p. 70).Thisiswhythepresentstudyfocusesoninfrastructureincities–theplacewheredisruptionshavethegreatestimpacts.
TheOECD(2014)providesanotherapproachbydefiningasociety’s–monetary,physicalbutalsoimmaterial–wealthasdifferent typesof capital stocks. The referencepoint is theOECD’s (2014) conceptof society’s sixcapitalstocks: financial,human,natural,physical,politicalandsocialcapital respectively.TheResilienceDivi-dendconsistsofbenefits,andthusofincreasesinthesesixcapitals.OnecanthereforesaythattheResilienceDividendisthetotalofthechangesinthesesixformsofcapital.Theoveralldividendisthusdividedintoafi-nancial,human,natural,physical,politicalandsocialdividendrespectively.
AnotherframeworkthatfocusesmoreonthedifferentcomponentsandthecompositionoftheResilienceDiv-idend is theTripleResilienceDividendapproachof Tanneret al. (2015).According to them, thereare threekindsofdividends(ibid.p.14):
1) Thefirstdividend:avoidedlosseswhenadisasteroccurs.Thelossesincludebothshort-andlong-termimpactsandcomprisefatalitiesaswellasdamagetoinfrastructure.ReducingoravoidingtheselossescreatesthepartoftheResilienceDividendthatisbestknownandconventionallyreferredto.
2) Theseconddividend:betterdisasterriskmanagement,whichreducestheamountoffuturelosses.Economicriskdecreasesandinvestmentprospectsimprove.Riskreductionthereforepromotesinno-vation,investmentandeconomicdevelopment,independentofwhetherdisastersoccur.
3) Thethirddividend:co-benefits.Investmentinresilienceyieldsadditionalbenefitsevenwhennodis-ruptiontakesplace.Thisisanalogoustothebenefitsinanon-disastersituationmentionedbyRodin(2015)above.
Finally,thereistheLloyd’sCityRiskIndex(Lloyd’s,2015),whichprovidesanotherapproachnotcoveredbytheaforementionedthreeframeworks. Ithasarathernarrowfocusonresiliencebycalculatingtheshareofeco-nomicactivitythatisjeopardizedbypotentialdisasters.Inparticular,theso-called“GDP@Risk”isanestimateofgrossdomesticproduct(GDP)lossesthatwilloccurinthedefinedtimewindowfrom2015until2025,given
Page13of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
thereisahighlikelihoodthatanumberofdisruptionswilltakeplaceduringthisperiod.Therefore,itachievesaclear-cutresultindollarterms.Eventhoughthisframeworkignoresmanyimportantqualitativeaspects,itcon-tributesimportantinsightsintoresilienceatthecitylevel.
Thepresentstudyusesasynthesisoftheseframeworks.Inanutshell,itreliesonRodin’s(2015)fundamentaldistinctionbetweenresilience indisasterandnon-disastersituations.Theadditionalcomponent intheTripleResilienceDividendapproachconcernedwith future risk reduction (the ‘seconddividend’) isnot individuallyemphasizedhere,as itwouldrequireextensiveadditionalresearch.However,giventhatthestudytakes intoaccount investment conditions when investigating the Resilience Dividend in times of non-disruption, it in-cludes the ‘seconddividend’at least tosomeextent.Moreover, thestudyrefers to theOECDconceptof sixdividends.Itiscomprehensive,butneverthelessallowsforastrictclassification.Inthespecificcaseofthenon-disaster resilience dividend, the Sustainability and Resilience Benefit Assessment (SRBA) approach enablessome further specifications that are introduced below (see section 3.4). By using a combination of existingmodels,thisstudyisabletoanalyzetheprojectcasesefficientlywithoutneglectingimportantaspects.IthastobenotedthattheLloyd’sCityRiskIndexcannotbeappliedtoindividualinfrastructureprojects.Butitcanhelpembedtheprojectsinitsmesolevelconditions,andisthereforeusedasanintroductiontothethecasestudiesbelow.
2.3 ExistingInfrastructureResilienceStandards
On the project level, many assessment tools regarding sustainability aspects already exist (Grafakos et al.,2016).Manyofthesesustainabilityassessmenttools,however,donotproperlyaddressdisasterriskreductionandclimatechangevulnerabilityaspects.Eventhoughclimatechangerisks ingeneral,andriskreductionas-pectsinparticular,aregainingimportanceintheliterature,moreresearchisneededregardingtheassessmentofdisasterriskreductionandresilienceaspects(CharoenkitandKumar2014).
However,manyoftheexisting(sustainability)assessmenttoolsforprojectshaveonlylittleconcernfordisasterresilienceduetothecomparativelylowriskofnaturaldisastersindevelopedcountries,whichisaresultofthehighqualityofurban infrastructureandurban services there (Charoenkit andKumar2014). This results in aneed,especiallyinlowincomeordevelopingcountries,tointegrateresilienceaspectsintotheexistingsustain-ability assessment tools to allow for a comprehensiveassessmentofnewly implemented infrastructurepro-jects.
Whenitcomestoevaluatingtheimpactsofaproject,ithastoberecognizedthatthereisnosinglemethodtouse.Infact,complementingmethodsprovideanevenbetterpictureofpossibleimpacts.Toevaluateimpactsanddefineindicatorsforprojectevaluation,includingprojectsthataimtoenhanceresilience,itisimportanttounderstandthetypeandthescopeofthe intervention,thus identifyingthe impactofwhat,onwhatandforwhom.Thecostandbenefitsoftheimplementationofaprojectareimpossibletomeasureusingoneparticularmethod(LeeuwandVaessen2009).
Moreover,thequestionofthe“withouttheproject”scenariohastobeconsidered.Thus,theevaluationshouldtakethebaselineintoaccount,ifappropriate,andmeasuretheeffectivenessofthechosenpathwayinrelationtothe‘donothing’scenario(Pringle2011).Itisalsodifficulttomeasurethedirectoutcomesofanadaptationaction,sinceitcanalsocontributetootheraspects.Thus,knowingwhycertainbenefitsoccurredismoreim-portantthanthebenefitsperse(Pringle2011).Thiscancontributetounderstandingthepositiveeffectsofaprojectinthecomplexsysteminwhichitisembedded.Itbecomesevidentthatadaptationactionsshouldsetbaselinetargetsandindicators,monitorcontinuouslyduringtheimplementationprocessandassessobstaclesandimprovethem(Sanahuja2011).
Page14of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Inparticular,mostoftheinfrastructureresiliencestandardshaveanarrowfocusonthetypeanddesignoftheinfrastructureinsteadofusingaholisticapproach,ortheyevenpaylittleattentiontothoseissues(Rydge,Ja-cobsandGranoff,2015;Gallego-Lopez&Essex2016).Hence,Gallego-Lopez&Essex(2016)arguethatbuildingor changing infrastructure requires an overall approach regarding resilience (to both climate and disastershocks)andsustainability(includingclimatechangemitigation,thescaleofresourceuseandtheconditionofecosystemservices).Adifferentriskapproachisneededbeforeaspecificdesigncanbechosen(ibid.).Tobet-ter illustrate the issue,Benson,TwiggandRossetto (2007) inGallego-Lopez&Essex (2016)outline twocasestudiesinwhichthedevelopersdidnotconsidertheoverallapproach:
• “FollowingwidespreaddevastationcausedbyHurricaneHugoin1989,anewaid-fundedhospitalwasbuiltatthefootofavolcanointheCaribbeanislandofMontserrat.Thishospitalwassubsequentlyde-stroyedbypyroclasticflowsafterthevolcanobeganeruptiveactivityagaininmid-1995”(p.3).
• “Followingthedevastating2004IndianOceantsunami,somehousinginAceh,Indonesia,wasrecon-structedinflood-proneareas,leavingfamiliesvulnerabletofuturehazardevents”(p.3).
Inotherwords,resilienceininfrastructureshouldbeacombinationoftheabove-mentionedholisticapproachtooverallcommunity/local-level resilience (e.g. long-termsustainability, livelihoods)andadetaileddesignoftheinfrastructure,ratherthanjustadetaileddesign(e.g.physicalrisks)(ibid.).Furthermore,Gallego-Lopez&Essex(2016)explainthatresilienceininfrastructurecanbeachievedbyengineeringstandards(designandlay-out),butincreasinglyrequiresaresilience-ledapproach.
Inaddition,Rydge,JacobsandGranoff(2015)showhowvarioussectorsandtheirinitiativeslacksufficientap-proachesregardingresilientandsustainable infrastructure.Forexample,theG20Global Infrastructure Initia-tivefocusesonimprovinginfrastructure,butdoesnotmentionclimaterisks(ibid.).Furthermore,manycoun-trieshaveseparateministriesforinfrastructurepolicyandplanning,andministriesforclimateanddisasterriskpolicies (ibid.). There is a clear lack of sustainability. On the other hand, multi-lateral development banks(MDBs)anddevelopmentfinanceinstitutions(DFIs)havestartedincludingclimaterisksintotheirinfrastructureinvestments.However,theireffortsarealsolimited.Theauthors(2015)arguethatDFIsandgovernmentshavetoworkmorecloselywiththeprivatesectortoprovideclimatepolicyclarity.Moreover,partnershipswiththeinsuranceindustrycouldalsobebeneficial,especiallyforgovernments.Thisisbecausetheinsurancesectorisalreadyaleaderintermsofresearchtoassessandmanageclimaterisks(ibid.).
Threerecommendationsareoutlined in theworkofRydge, JacobsandGranoff (2015).First, thecurrentap-proachesofgovernments,DFIsandtheprivatesectortoinfrastructureplanningandprojectassessmenthavetobere-assessed.Second,climate-smartinfrastructuredecisionshavetobeintegratedatthreelevels: inthedesignandalignmentofoverallstrategyandpolicy;inthecompositionandbalanceofinfrastructureplansandportfoliosconsideredasawhole;andinrelationtoindividualprojects.Andthird,G20andothergovernmentsandDFIs shouldadopt,andencourage theprivatesector toadopt, twokeyprinciples: to include (1) risksofclimatechangeoverthewholelifecycle,and(2)thegoalofkeepingaverageglobalwarmingtounder2°C.
Additionally,Lamhaugeetal.(2012)arguethatabetterinteractionbetweenresilience/adaptationassessmentson the localorproject level, andassessmentsof thevulnerabilityon the country level,wouldbehelpful. Inturn,aframeworkcouldbecreatedthatincorporatestheassessmentoftheachievementsresultingfromad-dressing specific needsof thepeopleup to the “desiredend results (countries’ becoming less vulnerable toclimate change)” (Lamhauge et al. 2012, p. 44). A combined assessment of actions aimed at resilience en-hancementwouldprovideinformationonthecoherenceofactionsondifferentlevels,thevaryingdistributionofvulnerabilitiesaswellastheoverallperformanceofactions.Thismulti-levelresilienceassessmentapproachcouldenhancetheknowledgeofresilienceatdifferentscalesincludingurban,community,andprojectlevels.
Page15of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Inconclusion,theSuRe®Standardincludesthepreviouslymentionedrecommendationsinitsapproach.MoreonthedetailsoftheSuRe®Standardwillbepresentedinthenextchapter.
BoxII
Theimportanceoflong-terminfrastructureplanningWhenitcomestoclimatechange,decisionsmadeinthepresenthaveanimpactonfuturerisks.Thelackofplanningforclimateriskshasalreadyunderminedsomepublic-privatepartnerships(PPPs).In2008,forexample,theWorldBank(WB)affiliatedInternationalFinanceCorporation(IFC)reviewedandhelpedfi-nance theUSD2.3billionexpansionof thePanamaCanal.Even thoughclimateexperts from IFC raisedquestionsabouttheimpactoftheregion’schangingclimateontheproject,theprojectsponsorsdidnotaccountforclimaterisks.Asaresult,thecanalclosedinDecember2010duetoflooding,whenPanamareceivedmore rain than at any time in its recorded history, causing significant disruptions and losses(WorldBank,2016).
Page16of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
3 Methodology
Thischapter introducesthemethodologythatwillbeappliedtothefourprojectcasestudies.First,thebasictheoryofhowresiliencerelates to inputs,benefits,disruptions, lossesandrisk isdeveloped.Throughthis, itbecomesapparentwhichmeasurementtoolsareneededtosuccessfullytestfortheexistenceoftheResilienceDividend.Thetoolsarepresentedinthesubsequentsections:thecentraloneistheSuReSmartScan.Totestandconfirmitsaccuracy,asecondinstrumentisused–alargesetofindicators.TheSustainabilityandResili-enceBenefitsAnalysis (SRBA) representsa specific and sophisticatedapproach to theuseof indicators. ThisstudywillapplytheSRBAapproachtomeasuretheResilienceDividendcomponentintimesofnon-disruption.Afurthervalue-addingtoolistheInternationalDisasterDatabase.Attheendofthischapterthelimitstothisstudy’smethodologywillbediscussed.
3.1 TheTheoryBehindtheStudy
Thisstudyhypothesizesthatefforts tobuildresilienceyieldvarioustypesofbenefits.Besidesbenefits intheformofsaved lives, therearealsofinancial,human,natural,physical,political,social,andeconomicbenefitsthatcanresult frombothdisasterandnon-disastersituations.Toquantifythem,wedevelopasimplemodelusingtheSuReSmartScan,measurementindicatorsaswellassomeadditionalsupportingtools.
Asalreadymentioned,theobjectiveofanyinputsregardingresilienceandsustainabilityistoobtainreturnsinthe formof benefits.Here “inputs” areperceived in abroad senseandmay comprise costs associatedwitheducation, planning, construction, labor, materials, and opportunity costs arising from the allocation of re-sources.Aninputrepresentsanoutflow,whilebenefitsareinflows–bothcanbe,butarenotnecessarily,ofamonetarynature.Policymakers,investorsandprojectdevelopersareinterestedinhowresilienceexpenditurescomparetotheexpectedbenefits.However,aneffectiveandsimplemeasurementtooldoesnotcurrentlyex-ist.
Inourmodel,acertainamountofinput(I)givesrisetoacertainresiliencelevel(RL).Theresiliencelevelcorre-spondstocertainbenefits(B).Asalreadyoutlined,weperceivebenefitsasflows.Hence,theresilience level,itselfakindofastock,yieldsasteadystreamofbenefits.Wecandescribetheserelationshipsusingthefollow-ingschematicfunctions:
RL = f(I) (1)B = f(RL) (2)
3.1.1 Non-disasterscenario
Letusfirstconsiderthesimplecaseofasituationwithoutadisaster.Function(1)isshowninpanela)ofFigure2.Itisreasonabletoassumethat,insituationswithalowlevelofresilience,smallinputswillhavealargeef-fect.Thehighertheresiliencelevel,thehighertheexpenseofadditionalimprovements.Toillustratethiswithanexample,inacommunitywithawatershortage,constructingapondisarelativelysimplemeasurethatwillhave quite a big impact on the community’s resilience. Once this and other projects are realized, furthermeasures,suchastheinstallationofsmartwatermeters,aremorespecificbutyieldcomparativelylessaddi-tionalutility.Function(2)isshowninpanelb):ahigherlevelofresilienceyieldsgreaterbenefits.Forsimplicity,letusassume linearitybetweenthebenefitsandtheresilience level.Notethat thesecurveassumptionsaremadesimplytodevelopthemodel.
Page17of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Figure2 Relationshipbetweenresilienceinputs,resiliencelevelandbenefits
Panela)
Panelb)
Source:GIBFoundationGiventhattheyshareacommonaxis(RL),thechartscanbepresentedtogether.QuadrantIofFigure3isthesameaspanela)inFigure2.Itshowsthatahighamountofresilienceinputsleadstoahighlevelofresilience(seepointH1).BytranslatingthisintoQuadrantIIofFigure3,weobtainthecorrespondingbenefits(pointH3).QuadrantIIIdoesnothaveanymeaninginitself–itsimplytranslatestheflowofbenefitsintoQuadrantIVbymeansof the45° line.Asaconsequence,Quadrant IV reveals the relationshipbetween inputsandbenefits,whichisthecentralaimofthisstudy.Applyingthissameprocesstolowinputsimpliesalowlevelofresilienceandfewerbenefits(seeL1,L2,L3,respectively).
Onemight ask why we do not just consider the relationship between investment and benefits directly, asshowninQuadrantIV.Theanswerissimple:wedonotknowthisrelationshipautomatically.Itisonlybygoinganti-clockwisethroughthefourquadrantsthatweareabletocarryoutthecost-benefitanalysisor, inmoregeneralterms,theinput-outputanalysis.Howdoesthiswork?Thesolutionliesinthecombinationandapplica-tionofthemethodsmentionedabove.ThecentraltoolistheSuReSmartScan.
Policymakers,projectdevelopersand investorswant toknowtheoptimalamountof inputs toachieveade-sired level of resilience. Input expenditures are observable and quantifiable. However,we do not know thelevelofresiliencethatcanbeachievedwitheachinput.Therefore,theSuReSmartScan,derivedindicators,andtheSRBAareappliedtothereal-datacheckofanon-disasterscenario.1First,theSuReSmartScandeterminestheresilienceleveloftheprojectbyassessingtheprojectdesigncharacteristics,therebyconnectinginputstotheresultingresilience.Function(1),exhibitedinthefirstchartor inQuadrantIrespectively,canthusbeas-sessed.Second,thekindandmagnitudeofthebenefitsresultingfromtheresiliencelevelaredeterminedbyusingselectedindicatorsandtheSRBA.Thelattermeasures,andthusquantifies,thebenefitsarisingfromin-putsbycomparingitwithacasewheretherearenoresilienceinputs(projectscenariovs.baselinescenario).ByusingtheSuReSmartScan,andbyapplyingindicatorsaswellastheSRBA,weareabletoconnectinputsandbenefitsandcanthusdeterminethefinalrelationshipshowninQuadrantIVofFigure3.
1Thesetoolsareintroducedinmoredetailinthefollowingsections.
Resiliencelevel(RL)
Input(I)
Benefits(B)
Resiliencelevel(RL)
Page18of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Figure3 Detectingtherelationshipbetweenresilienceinputsandbenefitsinthenon-disastercase
Source:GIBFoundationNotethattheSuReSmartScannotonlyallowsthelevelofresiliencetobeassessed.Italsoindicatesthekindofinputsthatshouldbeprovided.Onetypeofinputmayresultinalargerresilienceimprovementthananother.TheSuReSmartScanevaluatesindividualresiliencemeasures,therebyenablingtheircomparison.Indoingso,theSuReSmartScanrevealstherelationshipbetweenresilienceandinputs,andallowsthisrelationshiptobeoptimized.
Why is it notpossible simply to skip the SuRe SmartScanandmeasure the relationshipbetween inputs andbenefitsdirectlyusingtheSRBA?Thisisbecause,inthelatterscenario,itwouldnotbepossibletolocatetheoriginofthebenefits.Inourmodel,theSRBAquantifiesthefinaloutcomeoftheresilienceinputs;itisnotableto judgeandvalue resiliencemeasuresandactions.As anexample, an investor spendsa certainamountofmoneyandtherebyachievesareduction inGHGemissionsof5,000tons,stronglyreducingtheproject’sde-pendenceonfossilfuels.TheSRBAisnowabletoaccountforthedifferenceinemissions.ButitcannotrelatethedifferencetotheactionbehinditifaSuReSmartScanassessmenthasnotbeencarriedout.2
Moreover,thetypesandamountsofbenefitsareoftenunknownwhenaninfrastructureproject isbeingde-veloped.Noteveryinvestmentincreasesresiliencebythesameamount(orevenatall).Itisthusimportanttoassessthelevelofresilienceanditsrelationtoresilienceinputs.Oncetheresiliencelevelisgiven,policymak-ers,projectdevelopersandinvestorswillhaveaclearindicationofthebenefitsassociatedwiththisrespectiveresilience level.Thereal-worlddatacheck intheformoftheprojectcaseanalysis inthenextchaptershowshowthisworksanddemonstratesthatthetoolscanbeappliedtoanyproject.Simplycomparingrandombene-fitswithresilienceexpendituredoesnotprovideapolicymaker,projectdeveloperorinvestorwithatoolindi-
2Tobeclear, theSRBAcoulddosobutonly inanextensiveanddata-richapplicationprior toproject realization. In thisstudy,theSRBAisemployedaftertheprojecthasbeenimplemented.
45°
Inputs(I)Benefits(B)
Resiliencelevel(RL)
Benefits(B)
H1
L3
H2
III
III IV
L2 L1
H3
increasing
increasin
g
increasing
increasin
g
Page19of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
catingwhichmeasurestotake.TheSuReSmartScanallowstheresiliencelevelofanyinfrastructureprojecttobedetermined.
3.1.2 Disasterscenario
Thisleadsustothenextcase:theanalysisofadisastersituation.Thehighresilienceofaprojectimpliesthatitshouldalsohavehigherbenefits.However,thebenefitsinadisastersituationtaketheformofareductioninloss.Lossesofvariouskindsafteradisasterare,informalterms,negativebenefits.Thismeansthatthebene-fitsarehighestwhenlossesareminimized.
Giventhatdisastersareunforeseeable,itisverydifficulttopredicttheirassociatedlosses.Thisuncertaintycanbeaccountedforbyintroducingariskvariable.TheanalogousbutextendedrelationshipsareshowninFigure4.Thesamehighamountofinputinresilienceyieldsacorrespondingresiliencelevel(pointH1).Thehighertheresiliencelevel,thelowerthedisasterrisk(pointH2).Thehigherthedisasterrisk,thehigherthelossesincurredoveracertaintimeperiod.Thismaybeeitherduetotheseverityofpotentialdisastersortothehighnumberofdisasterevents(orbothofthesefactors).Alowerriskthereforereduceslossesafterdisasters(pointH3).Thisresults in the inverse relationship between resilience inputs and disaster losses in Quadrant IV (point H4).Again, lower inputs implya lower levelof resilience,higherdisaster riskandhigher lossesoveragiven timeperiod(pointsL1,L2,L3andL4respectively).Figure4 Detectingtherelationshipbetweenresilienceinputsandlossesinthedisastercase
Source:GIBFoundationThemeasurementprocedureissimilarinparttothenon-disastercase.Theprojectdeveloperknowsthepro-jectcosts,andtheSuReSmartScanmeasurestheresilience level.Toassessdisasterrisk,weusetheInterna-tionalDisasterDatabaseasasupportingtool(tobeintroducedbelow).Unlikebefore,theSRBAcannotbeap-plied to this scenario. Even though losses have an analogousmeaning to benefits (“negative benefits”), the
Inputs(I)Risk(R)
Resiliencelevel(RL)
Losses(L)
H1
L3
H2
III
III IV
L2 L1
H3
L4
H4
increasin
g
increasing
increasin
g
increasing
Page20of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
SRBA isunabletomeasurethembecauseabaselinescenario3doesnotexist.Forthisreason,wechoosese-lected indicators like the number of affected people – including fatalities, financial loss/impacts, changes ineconomicgrowthprospectsandotherpotentialsocialandenvironmentaleffects.Inthiswayitbecomespossi-bletorelatethebenefits,thatis,reducedlosses,toresilienceinputs.
Inconclusion,theSuReSmartScanisatoolthatcanbeappliedbyanyoneinvolvedwithaninfrastructurepro-ject.Itshowstheresiliencelevelthatcanbeachievedandgivesanindicationoftheexpectedbenefits.Indoingso,itallowsacost-benefitanalysistobecarriedoutinasimpleandeffectiveway.Whilefinancialandeconom-ic benefits can bemeasured inmonetary terms,many environmental, social and governance (ESG) benefitscannotbemonetized.Nevertheless,applyingtheSuReSmartScanallowstheseESGbenefitstobeestimated.
Thisstudyassessestherelationshipsplottedinthecharts.Inordertofindtheexactrelationshipbetweentheresiliencelevelandthebenefits,itisimportanttotesttheabove-mentionedtheorywithrealdata.Giventhatthisstudyisnotlimitedtofinancialandeconomicbenefits,butalsoincludesthosewhicharemuchmorediffi-culttoquantifyandcannotbeexpressedinmonetaryterms(ESGfactors),itdoesnotapplyeconometrictestsorotherstatisticalapproaches.Inaddition,theamountofdataavailableislimitedformostprojects.
3.2 SuRe®Standard
TheSuRe®Standard isanon legally-binding,voluntary independent thirdparty-certified standarddevelopedthroughamulti-stakeholder approach incorporating inputs fromawide rangeof experts from industrializedandemergingcountries.ItaimstobecompliantwiththeInternationalSocialandEnvironmentalAccreditationandLabellingAlliance(ISEAL)4andintegratesprojectlevelrequirementsderivedfromthemostrelevantinter-nationalframeworks.
TheSuRe®Standardisaratingstandardthat:
• Providesastandardisedapproach to implementingsustainabilityandresiliencecriteria (suchas, forinstance,GHGemissions reductionand resourceefficiency) intoall thedifferentphasesofan infra-structureproject’slifecycle,fromplanninganddesigntoconstruction,operationandthedecommis-sioningphase;
• Offersacommondefinitionof resilienceandsustainability for thepublicsector, the financesectorandprojectdevelopers;
• Providesaplatformfortheobjectivecomparisonofprojects,therebyimprovingprojectselection;
• Guidesprojectdeveloperstocreateprojectsthataremoreattractivetofinanciers.
The SuRe® Standard for Sustainable andResilient Infrastructurehasbeendevelopedbasedon the inputsofexpertsfromthepublicsector,financinginstitutions,projectdevelopers,civilsocietyandacademia–spanningsixcontinents.Itismadeupofatotalof65criteriagroupedinto14themeswhichcoverenvironmental,socialand governance factors, and another two coveringmateriality assessment and reporting requirements. TheStandardisbeingdevelopedinaccordancewithISEALmethodologies,anditcreatesacommonlanguageandunderstandingof sustainable and resilient infrastructureprojectsbetween thepublic sector, financial sectorandprojectdevelopers.Table1givesanoverviewoftheSuRe®criteria.
3Inthiscase,thebaselinescenariowouldbetheinfrastructureprojectwithoutanyresilienceinvestmentafterthedisaster.However,thiscannotbeobserved.4ForfurtherinformationonISEAL,seehttp://www.isealalliance.org
Page21of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Table1 OverviewofSuRe®dimensionsandthemes
3dimensions 14themes 63criteria +2
ENVIRONMENT
Climate
19
MaterialityAssessmen
t
Repo
rting
BiodiversityandEcosystemsEnvironmentalProtectionNaturalResourcesLandUseandLandscape
SOCIAL
HumanRights
25LabourRightsandWorkingConditionsCustomerFocusandInclusivenessCommunityImpactsSocioeconomicDevelopment
GOVERNANCE
ManagementandOversight
19SustainabilityandResilienceManagementStakeholderEngagementTransparencyandAccountability
Source:GIBFoundationTheSuRe®Standardcanbeapplied throughout thedifferent stagesofaproject’s lifecycle,enablingprojectimprovementstobemadefromtheearlyplanningandconceptdesignstagesthroughtotheconstruction,op-erationanddecommissioningstages.
WhiletheSuRe®Standardensuresthattheinfrastructureassessedwillmeetminimumrequirementswithre-gardtoEnvironmental,SocialandGovernance(ESG)criteria, italsoaimstohighlightthetruebenefitsoftheinfrastructure,andtopromoteinfrastructureprojectsthatprovidesolutionstosustainabledevelopmentchal-lenges(specificallytargetedtothecontextoftheprojectlocation).ProjectscertifiedwiththeSuRe®Standardwill, inaddition,contribute toachieving theobjectivesof the internationalpolicyagendabyaddressingcoreenvironmental,socialandgovernanceaspects.Forexample,theSuRe®criteriatakeintoconsiderationkeyin-ternationalframeworksandconventionssuchastheEquatorPrinciples,theInternationalFinanceCorporation(IFC)PerformanceStandards,theSendaiFrameworkforDisasterandRiskReduction,theConventiononBiolog-icalDiversity(CBD)andtheInternationalLabourOrganisation(ILO)DeclarationonFundamentalPrinciplesandRights atWork. Furthermore, SuRe® is alignedwith the 2030Agenda for SustainableDevelopment, contrib-utinginparticulartoGoal9“Buildresilientinfrastructure,promotesustainableindustrializationandfosterin-novation”,Goal11“Makecitiesinclusive,safe,resilientandsustainable”,andtosomeextentGoal6“Ensureaccesstowaterandsanitationforall”andGoal7“Ensureaccesstoaffordable,reliable,sustainableandmod-ernenergyforall”(UnitedNations,2015,pp.20–24).Table2containsa listoftheexistingframeworks,con-ventionsandstandardsthataretakenintoaccountintheSuRe®Standard.ByapplyingtheSuRe®Standard,aprojectdeveloper,investororpolicymakercanbesurethatallthesetoolsareautomaticallyincorporatedtoo.
Page22of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Table2 InternationalagreementsincorporatedintotheSuRe®Standard
ENVIRONMENT
MontrealProtocolonsubstancesthatdepletetheozonelayerConventiononBiologicalDiversitySendaiFrameworkforDisasterandRiskReductionIUCNRedlistandKeyBiodiversityAreasStandardRotterdamConventionUNFCCCStockholmConventiononPersistentOrganicPollutants
SOCIAL
UNUniversalDeclarationonHumanRightsUNGuidingPrinciplesonBusinessandHumanRightsILOFundamentalPrinciplesandRightsatWorkOECDBRIDGEIndicators(forgenderequality)
GOVERNANCE+overarchingframeworks
SustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs)IFCPerformanceStandardsTheEquatorPrinciplesGRISustainabilityReportingStandardsFIDICFATFNationalMoneyLaunderingandTerroristFinancingRiskAssessmentTransparencyInternationalBusinessPrinciplesTheOECDGuidelinesforMultinationalEnterprisesTheMNE(multinationals)Declaration(ILO)
Source:GIBFoundationFollowingthe launchofSuRe®atCOP21 inDecember2015,thestandardentered itspilotphase.Duringthisphase,SuRe®isbeingappliedtorealprojects,withaviewtoimprovingprojectdesignandsimultaneouslyre-fining thestandard.This refinementwillhelp toalign thestandardmorecloselywith localcontexts, therebyprovidingmaximumbenefitsandutilitytoinfrastructureprojectsandtheindustriesthatrelyuponthem.
Currently,GIBispilotingSuRe®onanumberofinfrastructureprojectsinCentralEurope,EasternEurope,Chi-na,IndiaandtheAsia-Pacificregion.Ineachregion,GIBhaslookedathowtheSuRe®criteriacanbeusedtoenhanceprojectdesignand/oroperationandtodemonstratetheseenhancementstostakeholdersandpoten-tialfinanciers.Forexample, inIndia,GIBhasassessedarailcompanytounderstandandimprovetheirreadi-nessforanticipatedclimatechangeimpactssuchasfloodingandheatwaves,whichcancauseseveredamagetorailinfrastructure.GIBhasalsoworkedwitharangeofutilityandwasteservicesonissuessuchasplanningpost-decommissioningandimprovingconditionsforworkers.InEasternEuropeandAsia,GIBhasworkedwithprojectstobetterunderstandandimproveresourceefficiencyintheconstructionphase,forexamplebyidenti-fyingrecycledandrecyclableconstructionmaterialstodecreasetheproject’seffectivematerialconsumptionnowandinthefuture.GIBhasalsoworkedtoenhancetransparencyandstakeholderinvolvement,withaviewtodecreasingtheriskofcorruptionandtoensureinfrastructureadequacyintheeyesofstakeholders.
Page23of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
BoxIII
Ensuringthecredibilityofthetool:governanceoftheSuRe®StandardToguaranteetransparentanddueprocesssafeguardsaswellasprofessionalindependencefromotherGIBactivities, theSuRe®Standarddevelopment is governedby twomainbodies: theSuRe®StandardCommitteeandtheSuRe®StakeholderCouncil.TheSuRe®StandardCommitteedecidesonSuRe®’s strategy,overall approachandcontent,basedontheirdiverseexperienceandinsights.Committeemembersactivelyprovideinputonthestandard’scon-tent, criteriaandprogram, ifnecessaryby leading thematicworkinggroupsand sub-committees. TheCommitteebringstogetherexpertknowledgefrommanydifferentfields.Forinstance,therearemem-bersfromtheEuropeanInvestmentBank(EIB),WWFSwitzerlandandTransparencyInternational.The Stakeholder Council is a formalmulti-stakeholder forum. It provides feedback and recommenda-tionsonSuRe®toensuretherelevanceofthestandardtotherelevantgroupsofstakeholdersandre-gionsoftheworld.Councilmembersinclude,amongothers,representativesoftheOECD,UN,develop-mentagenciesandlocalgovernmentsfromaroundtheworld,andNGOs.Fulllistsofthecurrentmem-bersofboththeSuRe®StandardCommitteeandtheStakeholderCouncilcanbefoundintheAppendix.Theframeworks,conventionsandstandardsinTable2aretheresultofyearsofmulti-stakeholdernego-tiations.Theyareoftenwellunderstoodatthenationallevel,butnottranslatedwellattheprojectlevel,as theyare ratherdifficult forprojectdesignersandplanners toapply.Therefore, inpartnershipwiththe SuRe® Standard Committee and the Stakeholder Council, the elements of each framework werebroughtdowntotheprojectlevelbyputtingthemintoaformatthatiseasilyunderstoodbyprojectde-velopers.
3.2.1 SuReSmartScan
TheSuReSmartScanisaninfrastructureduediligencetoolthatprovidesaquickassessmentofaninfrastruc-tureprojectagainstresilienceandsustainabilitycriteriacoveringEnvironmental,SocialandGovernanceissues.Like“CreditSuRe”and“SuReUnderwriting”5(seeChapter6),theSuReSmartScanhasbeendevelopedbasedontheSuRe®StandardforSustainableandResilientInfrastructure.However,itprovidesamoresimplifiedap-proach than a full certification under SuRe®, and can be used by stakeholders to carry out a first self-assessmentofaproject.ThreespecificaspectsdescribethecharacteristicsoftheSuReSmartScanandillustrateitscredibility:
• It is based on the SuRe® Standard,which itself is based on international frameworks, and amulti-stakeholder‘filter’whichenabledtheselectionofthemostrelevantcriteria;
5Since70to90percentofall infrastructureprojectsaredebt-financed,atoolservingtheneedsofcreditratingagencies(CRA)isneeded.GIB’s“CreditSuRe”blueprintmightserveasabasisforfuturetools,especiallysinceithasbeendevelopedwithacommercialCRApartner.Additionally,theGIBenvisioned“SuReUnderwriting”toolwouldmakesense.Howtoas-sessresilienceandsustainabilityrelatedinfrastructurerisks?Howtomitigatethem?Whatresilienceandsustainabilityre-latedrisksshouldbefinallytakenonboardbyaninsurancecompany?Thesequestionsexpresstheconcernsofanincreas-ingnumberof insurancecompanies–especiallysince theyoftenplayadouble roleas insurersofand investors in infra-structureprojects.
Page24of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
• ItisbasedontheGIBGrading(SuRe®Standardpredecessor)experiences,developedtogetherwithutilitycompanies,andusedonover150infrastructureprojectsaroundtheworld;
• ItcomprisesaselectionofSuRe®Standardcriteria,whicharepracticalforaself-assessmentir-respectiveofthepreviousexperienceoftheassessmenttaker.
TheSuReSmartScanconsistsof75questions,dividedinto14themes,andgivesanaggregatedindexvaluepertheme.Furthermore,itdefinestwobenchmarksthatallowforanassessmentoftheresilienceandsustainabil-ityperformancelevelofaninfrastructureproject:thelowerbenchmarkisthe‘reasonablebenchmark’,belowwhichsustainabilityandresiliencearelargelyabsent;theupperlayeristhe‘commendablebenchmark’,abovewhichtheprojectcanbeconsideredexcellent.Betweenthebenchmarks,sustainabilityandresiliencearelarge-lyaccountedfor,butmaybefurtherimproved.
Theprojectmanageranswers75questionsbychoosingacertainlevelforeach(seeFigure5below).Dependingonthedegreeofengagement,theanswermaybelevelzero,one,twoorthreerespectively.Levelzeroappliesiftheprojectmanagerhasneverbeen,orhasalmostneverbeen,concernedwiththecorrespondingcriterion.Thehighest level isachieved if thehighestnormsandstandardsof thespecific fieldareapplied. Ifaspecificcriterionisnotmentionedatall inthedatasource,thereasonmaybeeitherbecauseithassimplynotbeenaccountedfororisnotapplicable(N/A)duetotheproject’sspecificcharacter.Inthisassessment,weonlyindi-catedalevel0orN/Aifthedataprovidedaclearanswertothisquestion.Furthermore,topicslikewater,air,stakeholderengagementetc.mightbefoundinvariousthemesintheE,S,orG(Environment,SocialorGov-ernance)analysisbecauseoftheirmulti-facetedimplications(e.g.stakeholderengagementmightbeanalyzedfromaGandanSperspective).Figure5 SuReSmartScanexamplequestion
Source:GIBFoundationFurthermore,theSuReSmartScanofferscitiesandprojectownersapracticalwaytorapidlytapintointerna-tional best practice and to efficiently flag risks and opportunities for improvement in their projects. For in-stance,theSuReSmartScanaddressesthequestionofwhetherornotanevacuationplanexists.Dependingonthetypeofdisasterstheprojectareaisproneto,suchaplannaturallyconsidersdifferentelements.Inanareapronetocyclones,forexample,theprovisionofasufficientnumberofreliablesheltersmaybeanelementoftheplanandhencedecisivetoraiseresilience.Thispreparesprojects forthescrutinyofpotential financiers,whoincreasinglyfocusonESGcriteriawhenassessingprojects.
Page25of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
BoxIV
Delhi-Mumbaiindustrialcorridorproject:SuReSmartScanassessmentTheSuReSmartScanhasbeensuccessfullyapplied toan infrastructuredevelopmentwithin theDelhi-MumbaiIndustrialCorridorProject,India.TheIndustrialCorridorisoneoftheworld’slargestinfrastruc-tureprojectsandaimstoaccelerateindustrialactivityacrosssevenIndianstates.Inassessingoneofthedevelopmentsalongthecorridor,theSuReSmartScanwasusedtoidentifydesignimprovementsaswellastodemonstrateareas inwhichthedevelopmentwasalreadyperformingverywell, inaformatthatmatchestheprioritiesofmultilateral investors.This informationwasthenusedto informthemanage-mentleveloftheoverallproject,withtheaimofgeneratingresilienceandsustainabilityimprovementsinfuturedevelopmentsalongthecorridor(pleasealsorefertotheoutlookinChapter6).
3.2.2 WhatisnotthetargetoftheSuRe®StandardandtheSuReSmartScan?
It isessential to remember thatboth theSuRe®Standardand theSuReSmartScan focuson themicro level,thatis,onindividualprojectsinsteadofcitiesorregions.Whilemanysustainabilityandresiliencecriteriaapplytoalllevels,therearesomedifferencesintheassessmentdependingonwhichlevelisaddressed.Aresilienceanalysisonthemesoorcitylevelfocusesontheriskforthecitypopulationandthecityinfrastructureliketraf-ficsystemsortheelectricalpowersupply.Relevantquestionsinclude:Doesthetrafficsystemstillworkwhenan earthquake hits the city, and can it be used to evacuate people? Is there enough electricity tomaintainhealthcare? Is thecity infrastructureefficient inordertominimizeGHGemissions?Hence,onthecity level,networkeffectsanddynamicinteractionsinacomplexsystemareemphasized.
Suchissuesarenotcompletelyignoredonthemicroleveloftheinfrastructureproject,andtheyarealsoad-dressedintheSuRe®SmartScan.Butinthelatter,thefocusismoreontheprojectdetails.Wewanttoknowwhetheraninfrastructureprojectisabletokeepupitsservicesevenwhentherestofcitylifebreaksdowninthefaceofanextremedisaster.Moreover,theSuReSmartScananalysesthedirectconsequencesofasingleprojectontheenvironment,societyandgovernance.
Both, themesoandmicroapproachesare importantandcomplementary inmanyaspects.Theirapplicationcaneachmakeacontributiontoimprovedresilienceandsustainability.However,themicrolevelapproachhasan important advantage:while a city level concept is only feasible for the local government administration,individualprojectscanbasicallybeplannedandrealizedbyanystakeholder.Hence,theSuReSmartScan isatoolforabroadspectrumofpotentialuserswhoareinterestedinmakingacontributiontoresilienceandsus-tainability.Thismakesthetoolhighlypracticeoriented.
The Mathbaria case study outlined below may seem to contradict this argument because it is part of the“CoastalTownsInfrastructureImprovementProject”.However,thefocusoftheprojectiscompatiblewiththeSuReSmartScanbecauseitconsistsofsomesubprojectswithinthecity.Asaresult,theeventualemphasisisonconcreteinfrastructureprojects.
Naturally, themicro level approach requires someconcessions. Severalmacroandmeso levelquestionsareonlypartiallyaddressed.For instance,the issueofmigration is treatedwithrespecttoan infrastructurepro-ject:doestheproject requirearesettlementplanornot?Moreover, resiliencemeasures liketheplantingofmangrovesinBangladeshmayhaveacrucialimpactonpeople’spropensitytomigrate(seetheMathbariacasestudy inthisrespect).However, themacroperspectiveonthemigration issuecannotbecovered:whathap-pensiftherearelargepopulationmovementsfollowingadisaster?Asanexample,adroughtmaygiverisetowholecommunities fleeing thecountrysidetogotocities.Since infrastructureprojectsareusually fixed ina
Page26of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
certainplace,migrationcanonlybegraspedfromtheproject’sspecificperspective–buildingsdonotflee.Asimilartopicisincomedistribution.TheSuReSmartScancontainsaquestionwhichfocusesonthewagesandworkingconditionsintheprojectbeingassessed.This,ofcourse,hasonlyalimitedimpactontherestoftheeconomy. But the SuRe SmartScan, in its current version, does not target the question of how the newlyachievedsustainabilityandresiliencelevelsaffectincomedistributioninthesocietyasawhole.
3.3 Indicators
Inthisstudy,indicatorsareusedtohelpconfirmtheexistenceofaResilienceDividendfromaninfrastructureproject(microlevel)oracityasawhole(macro/mesolevel)incaseofdisastersandirrespectiveofdisasters.Moreover,theseindicatorsalsohelptovalidatetheSuReSmartScanassessedresiliencelevelofaspecific in-frastructureproject.
Thenextfewparagraphsexplainhowandfromwheretheseindicatorsarederived,howindicatorshelptocon-firmtheresilienceleveloftheSuReSmartScan,howthisstudycombinestheSuReSmartScanandtheindica-torstomeasuretheResilienceDividend,howtheresilienceindicatorscanbeverified,andhowthisapproachcanbeadoptedandadjustedforfutureuseandtomeasuretheResilienceDividendontheinfrastructurepro-jectlevelorevenonthecitylevel.
3.3.1 Backgroundonthesourcesoftheindicatorsandotherfactors
Theindicatorsweremainlyderivedfromthefollowingsources:
• UnitedNationsInternationalStrategyforDisasterReduction(UNISDR;2008)• AsianCitiesClimateChangeResilienceNetwork(ACCCRN;Tyleretal.,2014)• OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD;2014)• DeutscheGesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit(GIZ;2014)• Arup,RPAandSiemens(2013)• Chakrabarti(2013)• Oxfam(2015)• InstituteforHousingandUrbanDevelopmentStudiesRotterdam(IHS)
andother research carried out by theGIB study team.Most of the aforementioned sources refer tomacro/mesolevelindicators.Forthisstudy,however,theindicatorshavebeenadjustedinordertoapplythemtoaninfrastructureprojectcontextonthemicrolevel.Itisalsoimportanttonotethattheindicatorsvaryaccordingtothetype(sector)ofinfrastructureproject.Forexample,aroadinManiladoesnothavethesameindicatorsas an airport inQuito, nor does a road inNigeria necessarily have the same indicators as a road inManila.Moreover,thereisalsoadifferencebetweenindicatorsafteradisasterandindicatorswithoutadisaster.
Thepost-disaster indicators of this studyhavebeen adopted from theOECD (2014) guidelines on resiliencesystemanalysis(seeSection2.2).Theindicatorsaredividedintothefollowingsixcategoriesoutlinedinbold.Asanillustration,somepost-disasterindicatorexamplesareprovidedforanexpresswayinManila.
4) FinancialDividend–Wastheinfrastructureprojectcoveredbyanaturalhazardinsurance?àAmountofmoneysaved
5) HumanDividend–Howwellwasthemanagement/staffpreparedforemergenciesanddisasters?àNumberoffatalitiesandinjuriesavoided
Page27of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
6) NaturalDividend–Howwastheuseofwetlandsplannedinordertoreducefloodingrisks?àSizeofnaturalareanotnegativelyaffected
7) PhysicalDividend–Howlongwastheroadclosedduetoatyphoon?àUninterruptedaccesstocriticalinfrastructure
8) PoliticalDividend–Wastheretransparencyandaccountabilityintheaftermathofthedisaster?àWerethedecisionsfairandtransparent?
9) SocialDividend–Howwastheaccesstobasicneeds,e.g.food,water,finances,healthcareetc.?àUninterruptedaccesstogoodsandservices
Thesecondsetofindicatorsreferstoascenariowithoutadisaster,whichdifferentiatesbetweenfourcatego-ries: environmental, social, governance, and economic indicators. These four categorieswere adjusted fromIHS’SustainabilityandResilienceBenefitAssessment(SRBA)frameworkandsubsequentlyintroduced.Thein-dicatorsprovideinformationonthereductionofairpollution,thereductionoftrafficcongestion,thecoopera-tionbetweenmultiplestakeholders,orthereductionofmaintenancecosts.
It shouldbenotedthatsome indicatorsmightbeassignedtomorethanoneof thesesix (disastercase)andfour(non-disastercase)categories.Forexample,accesstohealthservicesmightbequalifiedasbothahumandividendandasocialdividend.Inbothcases,werefertothecorrespondingdefinitionsoftheOECD(2014)andtheSRBA.
Asregardsanyotherresilienceapproachandanalysis,thequalityoftheindicatorsisonlyasgoodas:
• thediversifiedknowledgeandexpertiseofthederivedsources;• thequalityandavailabilityofrelevantdata;and• thequalityoftheunderlyingcontextualorriskanalysis(OECD,2014)
3.3.2 HowtheindicatorshelptoconfirmtheresilienceleveloftheSuReSmartScan
Inthisstudy,theindicatorsarenotonlyusedtoassesstheResilienceDividend,theyarealsousedtohelpcon-firm the assessed resilience level of the respective SuRe SmartScans.A specific indicator indicates a specificoutcome after a disaster, which can then be compared with the indicated resilience level of the SuReSmartScan.Indoingso,thisstudycomparestheSuReSmartScanfindingsthatrepresenttheresiliencelevelofaninfrastructureprojectatacertainpointintime(a“snapshot”)withtheoutcomeofhowthisinfrastructureperformedduringadisaster. Itactsasafirststep inthenecessaryongoingvalidationofsnapshotfindings inorder to eventually arrive at correlations between assessed resilience levels prior to a disaster and post-disasteroutcomes.
Forexample,aroadisfloodedduringatyphoonandisclosedfortwodays:“closedroadsduetoflooding”isaroadinfrastructurespecific indicator.Duringtheinitialsnapshotassessmentofresiliencelevels,datademon-strates that the re-routing of stormwater during constructionmade the roadmore vulnerable to floods –whichiseventuallywhathappenedinthisexample.ThepresentstudywouldthencomparethesefindingswiththeSuReSmartScan.Oneofthe75SuReSmartScanquestionsfocusesonstormwater,andwouldindicatethattheinfrastructureprojectdidnotassessstormwaterintheirenvironmentandimpactassessment.Asaresult,if themanagementofthe infrastructurecompanyhad includedstormwater intheirassessment, theywouldhavecalculatedtheriskofstormwaterfloodingintheirproject.Hence,thefloodingoftheroadanditsclosurefortwodayscouldhavebeenprevented.
ThisishowthisstudytriestoconfirmtheindicatedresilienceleveloftheSuReSmartScanwiththepreviouslyexplainedindicators.PleaserefertotheTheorybehindthestudyinSection3.4forfurtherinformation.
Page28of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
3.3.3 OurapproachtotheResilienceDividendstudy:thecombinationoftheSuReSmartScanandtheindicators
Whyisitimportanttodoaresilienceanalysis,includingapost-disasteranalysis?AccordingtotheOECD(2014),aresiliencesystemsanalysiswillprovidekeystakeholderswith:
1) Asharedviewoftherisklandscapethatpeopleface;
2) Anunderstandingofthebroadersystemthatpeopleneedfortheiroverallwell-being;
3) Ananalysisofhowthe risk landscapeaffects thekeycomponentsof thewell-beingsystem–whichcomponentsareresilient,whicharenot,andwhy;
4) A shared understanding of power dynamics, and how the use ormisuse of power helps or hinderspeople’saccesstotheassetstheyneedtocopewithshocks;and
5) Basedonalloftheabove,asharedvisionofwhatneedstobedonetoboostresilienceinthesystem,andhowtointegratetheseaspectsintopolicies,strategiesanddevelopmenteffortsateverylayerofsociety.
The combination of the SuRe SmartScan and the indicators (with andwithout a disaster) forms the centralframeworkofthisstudy.Asmentionedabove,theSuReSmartScanisimportanttohaveasnapshotofthesitu-ationinthecasestudiesatagivenpointoftime.Inturn,indicatorswillthenassessresilienceandESGtopicsespeciallyafterdisastershavetakenplace.
Thecombinationofthesetwoapproachesiscrucialbecauseoneapproachalonewillnotrevealthewholepic-ture.ThestudyusestheSuReSmartScantoassessaninfrastructureprojectforitsresilienceandsustainabilitylevelaswellasindicatorstobeusedaftertheassessmentthattrytoconfirmtheresiliencelevelaspreviouslyexplained.By analyzing case studies and combining the twoapproaches, this studymarks the first steps to-wardsindicatingtheResilienceDividendinthecaseofadisasterandwithout.
BoxV
SnapshotandassessmentovertimeAnOverseasDevelopment Institute (ODI)mandated reportwrittenby Schipper& Langston (2015) ex-ploredresiliencemeasurementframeworkswithaspecificfocusonindicators.Thestudyanalysed17in-dicatorresilienceframeworksandprovidedwaystoincreaseunderstandingofthem.Theauthors(2015)identifiedthefollowingkeyissuesforresilienceandindicatorsmovingforward:
1) Eachframeworkisstronglyinfluencedbyitsconceptualentrypoint,makingacomparisononlypar-
tiallypossibleandjustifyingthedevelopmentoffurtherframeworks;2) Thereisacleargapbetweenthetheoryonresilienceandthewayinwhichtheindicatorsfocuson
well-beingandgeneraldevelopmentfactors;and3) Indicatorsmaynotalwaysprovideacompletepictureofresilience(ibid.).
GIB’sapproachinthisstudycontributestodiscussionsonhowtosolvetheaboveissues.Itstartsbyfo-cusingontheentrypointofamulti-stakeholderapproachincombinationwiththeleadingresilienceandsustainability standards (see section3.2). In tackling the last two issues raisedbySchipper&Langston(2015),theapproachprovidesacompletepictureoftheresiliencelevelassessmentanditscombinationwiththesector-specificinfrastructureindicators.
Page29of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
BoxVcontinued
Additionally to theODI paper, recent discussions at an ISEALworkshop in London onMonitoring andEvaluation(M&E)systemsrevealedthatthecombinationofcomplianceindicatorsandM&Eindicatorsiswidelyregardedasthebestwaytomeasureimpacts.Complianceindicatorsareusedtoassesswhetherspecificcriteriahavebeenappliedwithregardtoanoverallstandardatacertainpoint intime.Ontheotherhand,M&Eindicatorsareusedtomeasureachangeovertime.Additionally,theymeasuretheef-fectofcomplianceonaspecificcriterion.This ideaof ISEALon indicatorscorrespondsexactlywiththeResilienceDividendapproachofthisstudy:UsingtheSuReSmartScanasasnapshotassessmentofresili-encelevels(a“complianceindicator”)andsector/project-specificindicatorstosubsequentlyvalidatethefindingsovertime(“M&Eindicators”).
3.4 AdditionalContributingToolsandSources
3.4.1 SRBA–SustainabilityandResilienceBenefitAssessment
The Sustainability andResilienceBenefitsAssessment (SRBA) is amethodology thatmeasures the impactofsustainabilityandresilienceininfrastructureprojectsandservesasthemainsourcefortheabove-mentionedindicators in timeswithout disasters (please refer to section 3.2.2). Itmeasures sustainability and resiliencebenefitsbycomparingtheprojecttothestatusquoortosomehypotheticoptimum(baselinescenario).Themeasurementcriteriacoversustainabilitycategories(environmental,social,governance,andeconomic)aswellasotheraspects(riskreduction,climatechange,efficiencyofresources,learning,institutionalenhancement).Theselectionofcriteriadependsonlocalconditionsaswellasontheirapplicabilityintherespectivecase.Theresultingbenefitsmaybescrutinizedondifferentlevels(individual,localcommunity,city,global).Thebenefitscanbeweightedifdesired/needed.TheInstituteforHousingandUrbanDevelopmentStudies(IHS)6developedthistoolinamandatefromtheWorldBankGroup.
3.4.2 InternationalDisasterDatabase
ThepresentstudyusesdisasterdataforthespecificregionsfromtheCentreforResearchontheEpidemiologyofDisasters(CRED).Thisdatabase“isaglobaldatabaseonnaturalandtechnologicaldisasters,containinges-sentialcoredataontheoccurrenceandeffectsofmorethan21,000disastersintheworld,from1900topre-sent”(CRED,2017).ThedisasterdatabaseisupdatedandmaintainedbyCREDattheSchoolofPublicHealthoftheUniversitécatholiquedeLouvain,Brussels,Belgium.AccordingtoCRED(2017),themaingoals“aretoassisthumanitarianactionatbothnationaland international levels; torationalizedecisionmakingfordisasterpre-paredness;andtoprovideanobjectivebasis forvulnerabilityassessmentandprioritysetting”.Thedatabasecomprisesalldisasterssince1900,whichfulfilatleastoneofthefollowingcriteria:
• 10ormorepeopledead;• 100ormorepeopleaffected;• Thedeclarationofastateofemergency;• Acallforinternationalassistance(ibid.).
6Forfurtherdetails,seehttps://www.ihs.nl/about_ihs/introduction/
Page30of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Thedatabaseacquirestheinformationfromvarioussources,includingUNagencies,non-governmentalorgani-zations,insurancecompanies,researchinstitutesandpressagencies.AccordingtoCRED(2017)“priorityisgiv-entodata fromUNagencies,governments,andthe InternationalFederationofRedCrossandRedCrescentSocieties.Thisprioritizationisnotonlyareflectionofthequalityorvalueofthedata, italsoreflectsthefactthatmostreportingsourcesdonotcoveralldisastersorhavepoliticallimitationsthatcouldaffectthefigures”.CREDupdates, reviews and consolidatesdaily so that there areno inconsistenciesor redundant/incompleteinformation.
3.5 LimitationsofthisStudy
Thetheoretical fieldof thisstudy isclearly identified intheprevioussection. It indicateswhichsustainabilityandresilienceeffortsshouldbemade inordertoreachthetargetedoutcome inthemosteffectiveandeffi-cientway.However, thereare limitations thathave tobeaddressed.Theydonotmake theachievementofresultsimpossible,butindicatetheneedforfutureresearch.
The first issue topointout is theexisting limitations toquantification.Quantifying theResilienceDividend isbasicallypossible.Butthisdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheresultofthisstudyisasinglenumericalvalue.Asoutlinedatthebeginning,andaswillbeseenintheindividualprojectcases,thisstudyidentifiestwoResilienceDividendcomponentsdependingonwhetherornotadisruptionoccurs.Inthecaseofadisaster,sixtypesofcapital (financial,human,natural,physical,political,andsocialdividend)areconsideredandhencetherearesixdividendsthatcombinetoformthetotalResilienceDividendinthedisastercase.Inthenon-disastercase,theSRBAdistinguishestheelementsoftheResilienceDividendcomponentfurther(environmental,social,eco-nomicandinstitutionalbenefits).
Independentofthisstudy’sspecificframework,andirrespectiveofwhichconceptoftheResilienceDividendischosen,itisobviousthatresilienceisamultidimensionalterm.Whileitsfinancialdividendmaybeestimatedinmonetaryterms,thehumandividendisconcernedwiththenumberofsavedlives,andtheenvironmentaldivi-dendis,amongotherthings,abouttheamountofgreenhousegas(GHG)emissions.Thesethreeissuesarejustexamples, and each subcomponent has many more topics and hence many more terms of measurement.AchievingasinglenumberasthefinalresultwouldrequireamergerofDollarunitswithunitsofhumanlives,carbonemissionsetc.Toachievethis,verysubjectivecalculationswouldberequired(for instanceestimatingthevalueofahumanlifewhatperseisanethicalquestion)andconsiderableassumptionswouldhavetobemade.As a consequence, the reliabilityof the final resultwouldbedoubtful.Whether the result has aunitterm,andwhichoneitmaybe,thereforebecomesratherarbitrary.
Thissubstantialshortcomingofempiricalmethodsisthereasonwhymanyestimatesofresiliencefocusononespecificaspect.Measuring the financial returnof resilienceeffortsusuallymeans thatonly the financialdivi-dendand,atthemost,theeconomicdividendareaccountedfor.Environmental,social,physical,governanceandpoliticalaspectsareignored.Thisdoesnotmeanthatmeasuringthefinancialdividendofresilienceisuse-less.Butitrevealsatrade-off:eitheraspecificcomponentoftheResilienceDividendisestimatedinaquantita-tiveway,whilemostotheraspectsareignored,ortheResilienceDividendisinvestigatedinallitsdimensions.Thelatterapproachprovidesamorecompletepicture,buthampersquantificationintheformofasingleval-ue. The SuRe® Standard and the SuRe SmartScan are oriented towards themore comprehensive approach.Thereareseveralreasonsforthis.First,aprojectdeveloperneedsanoverallperspectiveoftheeffectsofhisresilienceandsustainabilityeffortsratherthanjustafractionofit.Second,thisapproachdoesnotimpedeanyquantificationatall.Accordingtothedataavailable,itispossibletoquantifythenumberofhumanlivessavedaswellastheamountofGHGemissionsoreventheimpactsonbiodiversity.However,theseestimatesarenotmerged,andthefinalresultremainsmultidimensional.
Page31of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Thesecond limitationofthisstudy isthedataavailable.Asmentioned,allaspectsoftheResilienceDividendmay,inprinciple,bequantifiedindetaildependingonthedataavailable.Unfortunately,thedatarequiredhasonlypartiallybeencollected.Thereisusuallyworkableinformationontheinfrastructureprojects’environmen-tal,socialandgovernanceengagement,whilefinancialflowsareoftenmissing.Itismuchmoredifficulttofindouthowaprojectwillperformafteradisaster.Dataonthenumberoffatalitiesandaffectedpeopleisavaila-ble,butonlyonanaggregatedlevelinmostcases.Inthefuture,weneedmorequantifiabledataonhowapro-jectwillperformduringadisruption,howmanylivescouldbesavedthankstoitsongoingservicesforthepop-ulation,andwhatfinancialandeconomicgainscanarisefromthis.Moreover,additionaldetailsonthebenefitsin non-disruption times would be helpful. Once this data is collected, the core competence of the SuReSmartScanwillbetorelatetheresiliencebenefitstotheresilienceinputsandtomakesenseoftherelationshipinbetween.TheresultsofthisstudywillclearlyindicatetheexistenceoftheResilienceDividendbymeansofthe SuRe SmartScan. However, future research is needed in order tomake further steps towards a clearlymeasurableResilienceDividend.
Page32of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
4 CaseStudies
ThischapterassessesspecificinfrastructureprojectsinthecitiesofManila(Philippines),Quito(Ecuador),Port-au-Prince(Haiti)andthecoastaltownofMathbaria(Bangladesh).Theinfrastructureprojectsaretwoexpress-ways inManila,an internationalairport inQuito,an international seaport inPort-au-Prince,anda resilienceimprovementcity-projectinMathbaria.ThegoalistopresenttherespectiveResilienceDividendforeachspe-cificinfrastructureproject.WhileitispossibletocomparetwoprojectsofthesamesectorinManila,thereareonlydataofoneproject ineachof theothercasestudies.Therefore,comparison ismadewiththesituationbeforeprojectrealizationorwiththeoldprojectofthesamecharacterthathasbeenreplacedbythenewone.Usually,dataforsuchcomparisonsexistbuttheyareinsufficienttoconductafullsecondSuReSmartScanas-sessment.Forthisreason,specificproceduresareexplainedintherespectivecasestudies.
Theinfrastructurecasesareassessedinthefollowingorder:1)Manila,2)Mathbaria,3)Port-au-Prince,and4)Quito.Eachcaseconsistsofthefollowing:
1) An introduction that provides background information on themacro/meso level, the infrastructureprojectitself(microlevel),andthedatausedfortheassessment;
2) TheapplicationoftheSuReSmartScanontherespectiveinfrastructureprojectinordertodeterminetheresiliencelevelassessment;
3) Selectionofspecificdisastereventsandasubsequentpost-disasterassessmentoftheinfrastructureproject,withthehelpoftheindicatorsandtheinternationaldisasterdatabase;
4) AprojectionoftheResilienceDividendintheeventofadisaster(avoidedlosses)andwithoutadisas-ter(additionalbenefits)withthehelpofindicators;
5) The interpretationof theResilienceDividend, summingupall the findingsof theabove-mentionedsteps.
TheoverallResilienceDividendinterpretationacrossallfourcases,thelessonslearned,andthelimitationsofthisstudyaresubsequentlypresentedinChapter5.
4.1 Manila
4.1.1 Background
MacroandMesoLevel
ThePhilippineshaveastrongagriculturalsector,thankstothetropicalclimate,heavyrainfallandthenaturallyfertilevolcanicsoil.Theagriculturalsectoremploysoverathirdofthepopulation,andthemanufacturingsec-torisconcentratedinthemetropolitanareaofManila(TheColumbiaElectronicEncyclopedia,2017).
AccordingtotheINFORM7countryriskprofile(2017),thePhilippineshavethe4thhighesthazardandexposuretonaturaldisasters in theworld.This isbecauseof thehighexposure toearthquakes, tropical cyclonesandtsunamis.Intheoverallriskindex,itisranked52nd.However,asregardsthelackofcopingcapacity,thePhil-ippinesareonly ranked107th in theworld,whichmeans that theircopingcapacity is relativelyhighdue to,7INFORMisacompositeindicatorthatidentifies190countriesatriskofhumanitariancrisisanddisasterthatwouldover-whelmnationalresponsecapacity.TheINFORMindexsupportsaproactivecrisisanddisastermanagementframework.Itisbasedonriskconceptspublished inscientific literatureandenvisagesthreedimensionsofrisk:Hazards&Exposure,Vul-nerabilityandLackofCopingCapacity.53coreindicatorsrepresentthethreedimensions(INFORM,2017).
Page33of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
amongothers,DRRplansandthequalityofphysical infrastructure.Theamountofuprootedpeopleandtheinequalityarethemainrisksintermsofvulnerability.
Goingastepfurtherbyconsideringthecitylevel,theLloyd'sCityRiskIndex8(2015)showsthatthecapital,Ma-nila,hasmoderatelyhigheconomicgrowth.However,GDP@Risk,thatis,theshareofGDPthatisthreatenedbypotential disruptionsof various kinds, is extremelyhigh. Theexpecteddisasters between2015 and2025maydestroy50%ofthecapital'seconomicoutput.Asasecondextreme,Table3showsthatabout90%ofMa-nila's riskofdisruptions is due tonatural disasters. Inparticular,wind stormsarepredicted to cause severedamage. In 2013, the Philippines experiencedmore than twenty wind storms, amongwhich the severe ty-phoonHaiyanisstillremembered.
• AverageGDPgrowthrate: 3.46%• AverageannualGDP: USD201.08bn• TotalGDP@Risk: USD101.09bn• ShareofAverageannualGDP:50.28%
Source:Lloyd’s(2015)Table3 GDP@RiskinManila
Threat GDP@Risk ShareorTotalGDP@Risk
Windstorm USD60.66bn 60.01%Earthquake USD13.29bn 13.15%Volcano USD5.81bn 5.74%Flood USD5.46bn 5.40%Marketcrash USD4.79bn 4.74%Humanpandemic USD3.49bn 3.45%Oilpriceshock USD2.39bn 2.36%Drought USD1.86bn 1.84%Terrorism USD0.76bn 0.75%Sovereigndefault USD0.71bn 0.71%
Source:Lloyd’s(2015)
MicroLevel:Expressways
SouthLuzonExpressway(SLEX)
TheSouthLuzonExpressway(SLEX)connectsManilatotheSouthLuzonBatangasprovince.Theprojectcon-sistedoftherehabilitation,constructionandextensionofthisexpressway.Inparticular,itinvolvedtherehabili-tationandextensionofthe1.2kmAlabangviaductandthe27.3kmexpresswaybetweenAlabangandCalamba,aswellas theconstructionofanew7.6kmexpresswaysection fromCalambatoSantoTomas.Thetwonewlanes enlarged the existing capacity of the expressway. Construction began in 2006 and was completed in2010,whentheexpresswaystartedoperating.Theprojectcompany is theSouthLuzonTollwayCorporation,whichisownedbythePhilippineNationalConstructionCorporation(PNCC)andbyMTDManilaExpressways,Inc. (MTDME).The InternationalFinanceGroup (IFC) contributedUSD50million to theproject,whichhadatotalbudgetofUSD214.6million.
8Lloyd’sCityRiskIndex2015-2025analysesthepotentialimpactontheeconomicoutput(GDP@Risk)of301oftheworld’smajor cities from18man-madeandnatural threats. It showshowgovernments,businessesandcommunitiesarehighlyexposedtosystemic,catastrophicshocksandcoulddomoretomitigateriskandimproveresilience(Lloyd’s,2015).
Page34of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
NorthLuzonExpressway(NLEX)
“In the early 1990s, the Government of the Philippines recognized the need to rehabilitate the 30-year-oldNorthLuzonExpressway(NLEX).Thestate-ownedPhilippineNationalConstructionCorporation(PNCC)hashadthe franchise for thetoll roadsince1977.With fastereconomicgrowth, trafficvolumeswere increasingandNLEXwas congested. Thiswas exacerbated by frequent flooding and the road‘s poor and potholed surface.PNCClackedthefinancialresourcestooperate,maintain,andexpandthetollroadtomeettheprojectedin-creaseintraffic. In1995,PNCCassigneditsrightsandinterestsunderitsfranchisetoconstruct,operate,andmaintaintollfacilitiesonNLEXtoManilaNorthTollwaysCorporation(MNTC).MNTCwasincorporatedunderajoint-venture agreement between the First Philippine Infrastructure Development Corporation (FPIDC) andPNCC for rehabilitationof theNLEX,withFPIDCowning60%of theequityandPNCC40%.FPIDCwasestab-lishedbyBenpresHoldingsCorporation(BHC)toenterintocontractswiththepublicsector.
On26October2000,theBoardofDirectorsoftheAsianDevelopmentBank(ADB)approvedadirect loantoMNTCofuptoUSD45millionwithoutgovernmentguaranteeandacomplementaryloanofUSD25million(allfromADB‘sordinarycapitalresources)torehabilitate,expandandoperate83.7kilometers(km)ofNLEXundertheNorthLuzonExpresswayRehabilitationandExpansionProject.Itinvolvedtheconstructionand/orrehabili-tation of 14 interchanges, 24 bridges, and 31 overpasses from Manila (Balintawak) to the Santa Ines exitprovidingaccesstotheClarkSpecialEconomicZone.Rehabilitationofan8.8kmexpresswayintheSubicSpe-cialEconomicZone,constructedin1996,wasincludedaspartoftheproject”(ADB,2011,p.1).
Useddata(seereferencesforfullcitation)
• EnvironmentalImpactAssessments(retrievedfromADB,JICA,orIFC)• PerformanceEvaluationReports(retrievedfromADB,JICA,IFC)• Variousacademicarticles• Onlinenewsarticles• Variousstakeholderwebsites
4.1.2 Resiliencelevelassessment
TheSuReSmartScanrevealsthefollowingprojectcharacteristics.TheoverallratingfortheNLEXisquitehigh,andisbetterthanfortheSLEX.Forinstance,theNLEXispartiallyconstructedonground-savingstiltsthataresuggestedtoprotectthetollroadagainstfloods.Moreover,theoperatingcompanyoftheNLEXfeaturesara-theroutstandingenvironmentalengagement.Atthesametime, ithastobesaidthattheSuReSmartScanoftheSLEX is respectable, too. IthastobenotedthattheSLEXassessmentwasmainlybasedonex-antedata,whiletheNLEXassessmentmainlyusedex-postdata.Thisisduetothepublicationtimeoftherespectivepro-jectreports.NotethattheSuReSmartScanoutcomeisclassifiedintothreecategories(‘leading’,‘commended’,‘drawbacks/roomforimprovement’).Insection3.2itisexplainedthattheSuReSmartScanquestionsarean-sweredbychoosingoutofthreetofourdifferentlevels(dependingonthequestion)accordingtotheproject’sengagementintherespectivethemes.Thus,thethreecategoriesinthebelowlistoftheSuReSmartScanresultsummarizetheachievedlevelsoftheprojectinthecorrespondingissues.Thesecategoriesareusedinallofthesubsequentcasestudies.
Page35of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Figure6 SuReSmartScanassessmentsforSLEXandNLEX
SouthLuzonExpressway(SLEX)
NorthLuzonExpressway(NLEX)
Page36of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Leading
SouthLuzonExpressway(SLEX) NorthLuzonExpressway(NLEX)
• Existingsocial,economicandenvironmentalliabilitiesincludedinplanning
• 60-100%ofmaterialstakenfromrecycledorreclaimedsources
• ExecutionofanEnvironmentalandSocialImpactAssessment(ESIA)andmaintenanceEnvironmen-talandSocialManagementSystem(ESMS)
• Clearorganizationalsetupwithseparationofroles• Transparentmulti-disciplinarydecision-making
process• Sustainabilitymanagerandexternalmonitoringin
place• Completionofanenvironmental,socialandeco-
nomicriskassessment• Accesstoservicesfromtheinfrastructureinpoor
areashasimprovedoverthelastfewyearsandef-fortswillcontinue
• 60-100%ofmaterialssourcedfromwithinthespecifieddistances
• Moresafetyagainstfloodingandreducedgreen-fieldconsumptionduetopartialconstructionofthetollroadonstilts
Commended
SouthLuzonExpressway(SLEX) NorthLuzonExpressway(NLEX)
• CarryingoutofanEnvironmentalandSocialIm-pactAssessment(ESIA)
• Implementationofconcreteresiliencemeasures(naturaldisasters,conflicts,healthepidemicsandemergencymigration)incollaborationwithrelevantactors
• Assessmentoftherisksofflooding,erosionandlandslides
• Stakeholderengagementwithreportingtothemanagement
• Clearoperationalsetup• Compliancewithallrelevantlaws• Complianceofemploymentpolicieswithnation-
alandinternationallaw• Protectionofminoritiesandindigenouspeople
andminimizationofimpacts• Promotionofhiringandtraininglocalstaff• Monitoringofsocioeconomicindicators• Assessmentandmonitoringofimpactsonbiodi-
versity,naturalhabitatsandtheecosystem• Nodeforestationor100%compensation• Wastereusestrategiesinplace• Noimpactonwatersourcevolumeorquality• Geotechnicalassessmentofthesite'ssuitability
fortheproject
• Implementationofconcreteresiliencemeasures(naturaldisasters,conflicts,healthepidemicsandemergencymigration)includingperiodicdrills
• Assessmentoftherisksofwaterscarcity,sea-levelrise,heatwavesandincreasedpopulation
• Evaluationofpotentialsuppliers'sustainability• Stakeholderengagementwithreportingtothe
management• Compliancewithallrelevantlaws• Complianceofcontractors/subcontractorswith
theoccupationalhealthandsafetypolicy• Protectionofminoritiesandindigenouspeople
andminimizationofimpacts• Promotionofhiringandtraininglocalstaff• Monitoringofsocioeconomicindicators• Assessmentofimpactsonbiodiversity,natural
habitatsandtheecosystemwithcontinuousim-provement
• Nodeforestationor100%compensation• Wastereusestrategiesinplace• Noimpactonwatersourcevolumeorquality• Geotechnicalassessmentofthesite'ssuitability
fortheproject
Page37of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Drawbacks/Roomforimprovements
SouthLuzonExpressway(SLEX) NorthLuzonExpressway(NLEX)
• Noassessmentwithregardtowaterscarcity,sea-levelrise,heatwavesandincreasedpopula-tion
• Nosustainabilityanalysisofsupplychains• Limitedparticipationofaffectedcommunities• Nospecificsustainability/resiliencemanager• Nosignsofhumanrightsabusesbutnopublic
disclosureeither• Noparticularpromotionofequalopportunities
andnon-discrimination• Nocomplianceofsubcontractorswithoccupa-
tionalhealthandsafetypolicies• Resettlementofpeopleduetotheproject• NomonitoringofGHGemissions• Nouseofrenewableenergy• Improvementoftheemergencypreparedness
planneeded• Noemphasisonstormwaters
• Limitedparticipationofaffectedcommunities• Noinclusionof“systemthinking”• Improvementinanti-corruptionandtransparency
policiesneeded• Nosignsofhumanrightsabusesbutnopublic
disclosureeither• Noparticularpromotionofequalopportunities
andnon-discrimination• NomonitoringofGHGemissions• Nouseofrenewableenergy• Improvementsintheemergencypreparedness
planneeded
4.1.3 Post-disasterassessment
Tostartthispartofthemeasurementprocedure,wegiveanoverviewofthenaturaldisastersofthelasttenyears in thePhilippines. It shows that theirnumber isquite large. Themostprominentonesare tropical cy-clones,floodsandearthquakes.In2013,theabove-mentionedcycloneHaiyancausedahighnumberoffatali-tieseventhoughitdidnotpassthroughManila.Table4 SummaryofnaturaldisastersinthePhilippines2006–2016
Disastertype Disastersubtype OccurrenceTotaldeaths
Totalnumberofpeopleaffected
Totaldamage('000USD)
Drought Drought 2 0 181,687 84,399
Earthquake Groundmovement 6 344 3,575,801 63,693Epidemic Bacterialdisease 3 53 3,975 0
Epidemic Viraldisease 2 770 130,717 0Flood Coastalflood 2 11 50,034 2,520
Flood Riverineflood 41 565 13,938,182 2,381,338Flood Flashflood 23 204 3,786,769 269,284
Flood -- 9 97 1,620,056 9,520
Landslide Avalanche 1 6 1,200 0Landslide Landslide 9 1,277 20,334 2,281
Storm Tropicalcyclone 100 15,887 84,131,418 16,593,176Storm Convectivestorm 1 0 100 5
Volcanicactivity Ashfall 6 0 153,114 0Source:CRED(2017)
Page38of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Forourinvestigation,wehavetomakeaselectionandchoosethedisastersthatwererelatedtoManila.There-fore,we focuson the two tropical stormsOndoy (Ketsana)andPepeng (Parma),whichoccurredwithin twoweeksinSeptemberandOctober2009.ItwasestimatedthatdamageandlossesamountedtoatotalofUSD4.38billion.Thepost-disasterneedsassessment (WorldBank,2011),executedby representativesof thepri-vatesectorandcivilsocietyorganizations,multilateraldevelopmentpartners,bilateraldevelopmentpartners,andthegovernmentsofvariouscountries,presentsanoutstandinglydetailedexplanationofthepost-disastereffectswithinthefollowingsectors:Agriculture 480,000affected farmers;maindamageand losses incrop irrigation;approx.
USD274millionneededforrecovery
Enterprisesector USD1.7billion in forgonerevenues inmanufacturing,wholesale, retail, tradeandtourismcombined
Housingsector 220,000homescompletelyorpartiallydamagedby floodwaters;hundredsofthousandshomeless
Educationsector 3,417schools,36collegesandabout2,800daycarecentersaffectedordam-aged;damagesandlossesofUSD54millionintotal
Culturalheritage Over45culturalheritagesightsweredamaged
Health Recoveryandreconstructionofpublicsectorfacilities-aroundUSD40million
Electricitysector DamagesofUSD32million
Watersupply Morethan50watersupplysystemsdamagedmainlyinMetroManila
Transportsector Totaldamageand lossesofUSD150million; typesofdamage included land-slides, eroded/washed out shoulder materials, embankments, and bridges;Roadinfrastructurewasthemostaffected;recoveryandreconstructionneedsamountingtoUSD233million
Telecommunications Extensivedamagetotelecommunicationsinfrastructure;costofrepairsUSD4million
Impactonemploymentandlivelihoods
Atotalof172millionworkdayswerelost(=664,000one-yearjobs),whichre-sultedinlossesamountingtoUSD1billionofincomein2009
Financialsector Trade volume first fell by50%, and thenby25%during the twodaysbeforeOndoystruck
Source:WorldBank(2011)The following table containsa listofallpost-disaster indicators for these two tropical storms,andalsowithregardstoSLEXandNLEX.Sincetheyoccurredshortlyoneaftertheother,manyindicatorsarepresentedinasummarizedway.
Page39of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Table5 IndicatorsofdisastersinManila
TropicalstormOndoy–September2009 TropicalstormPepeng–October2009
Macro andMesoLevel
• Totaldeaths:464• Totalinjured:529• Missing:37• Totalaffected:4,901,234• Immediatesearchandrescueoperations
inthefloodedareas• Requestforinternationalassistanceright
afterthestorm
• Totaldeaths:492• Totalinjured:207• Missing:47• Totalaffected:4,478,284• Earlywarningandevacuationofaround
45,500people
Indicatorsdescribingbothstormsjointly:• Ambiguousimpactoneconomicgrowth• Povertyincidenceincreasedby3percentagepointsinmostaffectedareasofLuzon• Majorityofpopulationaffected,homesflooded• Reconstructioncostperresidencebetween12,000and141,000Pesosdependingonin-
comeclassofhouseholds• Severelossesofhouseholdassetsfor45percentofthehouseholds• Interruptionofwatersupplyfor22days• Incomelossof21,000Pesosperhousehold• Medicalexpensesof6,517Pesosperhousehold
SLEX/NLEX• NLEX:USD1.6millionindamagesandlosses(totaltransportdamagesandlossesUSD150
million)• PartoftheSLEXandNLEXwasflooded
Sources:WorldBank(2011);Porio(2012)
4.1.4 ResilienceDividend
TheResilienceDividendof thetwoManilaprojects isportrayed intwocomponents: first, theavoided lossesafter the two tropical cyclones of 2009 are analyzed according to the above shown indicators. Second, theSRBAassessestheadditionalbenefitsofthetwoanalyzedtollwaysinabsenceofdisasters.ThecomparisonofthesetwoexpresswayswillshowwhethertheResilienceDividendcanbeconfirmed.Iftherearemorebenefitsfortheproject,whichexhibitsabetterSuReSmartScanresult,wegettheconfirmationthatresilienceeffortspayoff.
Page40of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Avoidedlossesduetodisruptionpreparedness
Table6 ResilienceDividendinadisastercase
Dividend Description
SouthLuzonExpressway(SLEX) NorthLuzonExpressway(NLEX)
FinancialDividend
• Avoidedlossesfromdailyoperation • Avoidedlossesfromdailyoperation
HumanDividend
• Securedaccesstobasicneeds • Securedaccesstobasicneeds
NaturalDividend
• Betterdrainoffofwatersubmergedare-asduetoimproveddrainagesystem
PhysicalDividend
• Betterandmorereliableaccesstoprovidebasicneeds(healthandsanitation,food,water,shelteretc.)inastateofemergency
• Betterandmorereliableaccesstopro-videbasicneeds(healthandsanitation,food,water,shelteretc.)inastateofemergency
• Earlywarningsysteminplace,whichpro-ducesalertsbefore,duringandafteranevent
• Constructionofviaductsinthewetlandsonstilts:lessfloodedroads
PoliticalDividend
• Addressingcitizens’requestsforpublicdiscussionsonroadinfrastructure
• Addressingcitizens’requestsforpublicdiscussionsonroadinfrastructure
SocialDividend
• Fasterrecoverytoanormalwork-day • Fasterrecoverytoanormalwork-day
Additionalbenefitsinabsenceofadisaster(SRBA)
Environmental
• AbsorptionofGHGemissionsduetonewtreesalongtheexpressways(SLEXandNLEX)(Santosetal.,2009;DENR,2011)
Social
• SLEX:timesavingofalmost50%,vehicleoperatingcostsavingsof1.38Pesosperkm,NLEX:Improvedsafe-ty,lighting,signageandenforcementoftrafficlaws(ADB,2010)
• NLEX:alertsoncongestionweather,trafficetc.forthewholepopulationduetotrafficmanagementsystem• SLEXandNLEX:reducedtraveltimes• SLEXandNLEX:increasedsafetythroughspeedlimitsandwiderlanes• SLEXandNLEX:improvementingenderequalitywithtraining,publicinformationandprovisionofsanita-
tionfacilities
Governance
• NLEX:benchmarkforothertollroadprojectsinthePhilippines(ADB,2011)• NLEX:RolemodelforfuturePPPininfrastructure
Economic
• NLEX:strongincreaseinthenumberofbillboardsalongtheroadasanindicatorofaneconomicupswing(ADB,2010)
Page41of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
• NLEX:riseintourism(numberofvisitorsincreasingby24%from2007to2008)(ibid.,2010)• NLEX:creationof5,000newjobs(ibid.,2010)• NLEX:increaseinoperatingrevenues• NLEX:Increaseintaxincomefromexpresswayoperation• SLEX:increaseinoperatingrevenues
4.1.5 InterpretationoftheResilienceDividend
TheSuReSmartScanyieldsagoodresultfortheSLEXandaverygoodresultfortheNLEX. Indeed,there isapositiveResilienceDividendforbothprojects.Afteradisaster,bothareabletokeepupoperationsortore-establishthemsooniftheyhavebeeninterrupted.Thankstoearlywarningsystems,theNLEXisalittlebetterpreparedforemergencies.Bothhighwaysareespeciallyimportanttoenablepeople’smobilityandthedeliveryofemergencyservicesinthedisastercase.WhatismissingfortheSLEX,however,isaclearlydefinednaturaldividendafteradisaster.
Theco-benefitsintheabsenceofadisruptionarealsovisiblewhilemoreindicatorsaremeasuredfortheNLEX.Mostofthemareofasocialoreconomicnatureandconcernsmoothoperationsandusageoftheexpresswaysaswellasbusinessdynamicsthathavebeensparked.Ithastobenotedthat,inametropolisasdenselypopu-latedasManila,thecapacityofthepreviouslyexistingroadnetworkwereoftenexceeded,resultinginregulartrafficcongestion.Hence, thecase tobuildnewtoll roadswaspresent (Boquet,2015,p.460).On theotherhand,additionaltrafficcapacitiesmeanadditionalenvironmentalpollution.ThisproblemisclearlyrevealedintheSuReSmartScanresultsforbothSLEXandNLEXastheybothfeaturequitelowvaluesinrelationtoclimateissues.
4.2 Mathbaria
4.2.1 Background
MacroandMesoLevel
AccordingtotheINFORMindex,Bangladeshhasaquitehighhazardandriskexposure(rank15outofallcoun-tries)(2017).ThisiscloselyconnectedtothefindingsofNationalGeographic,whichstatethatBangladeshandIndia are the two countriesmost vulnerable to the impacts of climate change (2010).On the city level, theLloyd’sCityRisk Indexshowsthat,despitegoodeconomicgrowthprospects,a largeshareofGDP inBangla-desh’sCapitalDhaka is threatenedbypotential disasters (Lloyd’s, 2015).Among the ten riskiest disasters inBangladesh,naturaldisastersaccountforabouthalfofGDP@Risk.
• AverageGDPgrowthrate: 6.19%• AverageannualGDP: USD36.76bn• TotalGDP@Risk: USD6.57bn• ShareofaverageannualGDP: 17.86%
Source:Lloyd’s(2015)
Page42of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Table7 GDP@RiskinDhaka
Threat GDP@Risk ShareoftotalGDP@Risk
Marketcrash USD1.57bn 23.95%Flood USD1.07bn 16.29%Humanpandemic USD1.05bn 15.96%Earthquake USD0.94bn 14.26%Sovereigndefault USD0.92bn 14.05%Oilpriceshock USD0.44bn 6.65%Poweroutage USD0.17bn 2.59%Drought USD0.14bn 2.19%Windstorm USD0.10bn 1.54%Solarstorm USD0.06bn 0.86%Cyberattack USD0.05bn 0.79%
Source:Lloyd’s(2015)MicroLevel:theMathbariaProject
TheMathbaria project is part of a large project of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the RockefellerFoundationledAsianCitiesClimateChangeResilienceNetwork(ACCCRN)comprisingresilienceimprovementsin eight coastal towns in Bangladesh. In particular, the project provides climate-resilient infrastructure andaimsatstrengtheninginstitutionalandgovernancecapacities,forinstancebyfosteringtransparencyandanti-corruptionmeasures,aswellasdisasterpreparedness.OverallprojectcostsarebudgetedatUSD117.1million.GIBchoseMathbariaoutof theseeightcitiesbecause it is theproject,whichtakesthemostcomprehensiveaccountofresilienceaspects,i.e.itcomprisesallenvisionedinfrastructuremeasuresinonesingletown:itcon-sistsofseveralsubprojects.First,thereisawatersupplysubprojectbecausethereiscurrentlynopipedwaterinMathbaria.Moreover,anadditionalcycloneshelterisbeingconstructedbecausethecurrentsheltercapaci-ty is insufficient. Furthermore, river embankments are being strengthened and the city’s drainage system isbeingimproved.Andfinally,someroadsandabridgehavebeenrestored.
Mathbaria is the joint case tobe investigatedbyboth theRANDCorporationandGIB. This sectionpresentsGIB’scontribution.It isanexceptionalcasebecauseitanalyzesresilienceonthecity levelratherthanonthelevel of an individual project. However, the tools can be applied in an analogousway.Due to the city-levelanalysis,thenumberofpotentialstakeholdersislarge.Basically,thewholecitypopulationandparticularlythemost vulnerable andpoor people are affectedby theproject. Regional and city authorities naturally have agreatinterestinthisprojectaswell,astheygetfundingsupportandreceivegovernancesupport.Furthermore,thecivilsocietyhasparticularinterestsintheprojectaspectsthatconcernenvironmentalorsocialissues.Oth-erstakeholdersincludelocalslivinginthevillagesaroundMathbaria,sincetheymayforinstancefindshelterwhendisastersoccurintheirregion.
Asstatedrepeatedly,dataavailabilityisthemainbottleneckinthisstudy’sapproachtorealinfrastructurepro-jects.Sincetheprojecthasnotyetbeenfullyrealized,theconcepthastobeadapted.Inparticular,thesitua-tionpriortoprojectrealizationistakenastheinitialsituation.Thedamagesandlossesincurredduringthedis-asters,aswellasmanyadditionalproblemsandchallenges,indicatetheneedforimprovementstoMathbaria’sresilience.GIB investigated how far the project at hand responds to these needs in order to get an idea ofwhetherMathbariawillbeprepared for futurecatastrophes. In thisway, theResilienceDividendcanbeap-proximated.
Page43of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
DatafortheSuReSmartScanassessmentandtheSRBAarecontainedintheADBprojectreports.Ontheonehand,thereisthemainreportfortheoverallprojectforalleighttowns(GHKConsultingLimited,2013).Ontheotherhand,theMathbariaprojectisdocumentedinthreedifferentreportsconcerningthewatersupplysub-project, a resettlement plan and the cyclone shelter subproject respectively (Government of Bangladesh,2013a,2013b,2013c).Additionalsourcesusedinspecificplacesareindicatedaccordingly.
Dataused(seereferencesforfullcitation)• Projectreports(retrievedfromADB)• Variousacademicarticles• Onlinenewsarticles• Variousstakeholderwebsites
4.2.2 Resiliencelevelassessment
TheSuReSmartScanrevealsthefollowingprojectcharacteristics:overall,therating isquitehighasthecom-mendedbenchmarkisreachedforalmostallthemeswitheithercurrentorfuturemeasures.Specifically,thereisastrongemphasisoninstitutionalandgovernanceissuesasforexamplesophisticatedstakeholderinclusionand sustainability training for employees.Asdescribed above, theproject doesnotonly take resilience intoaccountbutisratherdirectlydedicatedtobuildresilience.Thelistbelowprovidesashortsummaryofthepro-jectsresilienceandsustainabilitylevelaccordingtotheSuReSmartScan.Theinterpretationofthesefindingsispresentedattheendofthiscasestudyanalysis.Figure7 SuReSmartScanassessmentfortheMathbariaresilienceimprovementinfrastructureproject
Leading
• Clearorganizationalsetupoftheproject• Employeesprovidedwithtrainingforsustainabilityskills
Page44of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
• Establishedanti-corruptionpolicy• Employmentoflocalstaffhasfirstpriority• Project-specificgenderactionplanwithtargetsandmeasures• Complaintandgrievancemechanismtoeliminatediscrimination• Stakeholderengagementisanon-goingprocessthroughouttheimplementationphase• Accountingforabroadrangeofrisksandemergencies:
o Environmental:sea-levelrise,intensifyingcyclonesandfloodso Social:healthepidemics(freshwatersupplyandsanitation)o Governmental:technical/operationalrisks,urbanplanningrisks,governancerisks
• Concreteemergencypreparednessmeasures:o Cyclonesheltero Drainageandfloodcontrols(constructionofearthenchannelsanddrains)o Watersupply(constructionofpipelines,welldrillingetc.,back-upgenerators)o Sanitation(publictoilets,schoollatrinesetc.)o Improvementofriverembankments
• Improvedsanitationconditionsforcitypopulation• IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)scenariosaretakenintoaccount• Useofhazardousmaterialsminimized• Nothreattoforests,wetlandsormangroves• Floodingcausedbystormwaterflowsprevented• Wasterecycling
Commended
• Separationofrolesintheconstructionandoperationphases• Sustainabilitymanager• EmploymentconditionsaccordingtoILOconventions• Publicmeetingsforinformationdisclosure• PositivespillovereffectsontheareasaroundMathbariathroughincreasedincomeaswellasimprovedre-
silience• Betterfloodandcycloneprotectionraisesinvestmentsecurity• Allrevenue-generatingsubprojectsarejudgedasfinanciallyviable• Impactsonbiodiversityandecosystemsaremonitored• Standardssetforwaterquality,airpollutionandnoise
Drawbacks/Roomforimprovement
• Nospecificemphasisonhealthandsafetyconditionsduringprojectimplementation• Renewableenergiesandenergyefficiencynotemphasized• Resourceefficiencynotemphasized
4.2.3 Post-disasterstressassessment
Disasters
Floodsandstorms(oftenintheformofcyclones)arethenaturaldisastersthathitBangladeshmostoften.AsTable8shows,theyhavealsohavecausedthemostfatalitiesanddamageduringthepasttenyears.
Page45of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Table8 SummaryofnaturaldisastersinBangladesh2006–2016
Source:CRED(2017)
Thereweremanydifferentdisastersduringthepasttenyears.ThisstudyfocusesonthosewithadirectimpactonMathbaria.Table9givesanoverviewusingaconsiderablenumberofindicators.Insomecases,effectscanbedirectlyattributedtoMathbaria,whileothershavetorelyonhigher-leveldata.Nevertheless,thelattercanstillyieldconclusionsthatarerelevantforMathbaria.Table9 IndicatorsofdisastersinMathbaria
Disaster Indicators Mathbariarelated
SuperCy-cloneSidr20071
• Numberofkilledpeople:3347and871missing• Numberofaffectedpeople:8,923,259• USD26.309millionofdamagetowaterinfrastructure• Long-termreconstructioncostUSD294million• 12,984watersourcesdamaged(10,412restoredby
endof2007)• 5982pondsdamaged• Totallyruinedcroplandinfourworstaffecteddistricts:
55,950ha,partiallydamaged:472,505ha• Lossofproductioninfourworstaffecteddistricts:
535707MT• Damagedhouses:563,877fully,955,065partially• 4milliontreesdestroyed• Among475jetties,103damaged• 125.40kmofembankmentfullywashedout• 9kmofriverbankheavilydamaged• 8075kmroadsaffected• 3705schoolbuildingstotallyorpartiallydamaged
MathbariawasamongtheworsthitUpazilas(administra-tionunit)inPirojpur(province),whichisitselfoneoftheworstaffecteddistricts
CycloneAila20092
• Numberofpeoplekilled:190• Numberofpeopleaffected:3,037,529• AffectedpeopleinPirojpur:300,000• Monetarylosses:USD269.28million
Mathbariaexperienced6-7feetofwater
CycloneMa-hasenMay20133
• Numberofpeoplekilled:17• Numberofpeopleaffected:1,258,508• Croplosses:USD5.14million
• 1deadinMathbaria• 13’960affectedpeople
Disastertype Occurrence TotaldeathsNumberofinjuredpeople
Totalnumberofpeopleaffected
TotaldamageinUSD(‘000)
Drought 1 Earthquake 2 9 270 270
Epidemic 2 86
284,910Extremetemperature 5 399
327,000
Flood 18 1,634 21,160 29,255,237 314,000Landslide 4 103 153 56,283
Storm 28 5,098 65,523 18,891,544 2,634,000
Page46of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Table9 continued
FloodandcycloneKomenJune/July20154,5
• Numberofpeoplekilled:56• Numberofpeopleaffected:2,610,000• Monetarylosses:USD40million• Pirojpur:60’690peopleaffected,1death• Around6000housescompletelyorpartiallydamaged
• Collapseofembankmentduetoriverbankerosion
• Only50shelterswereavail-ableinMathbaria;asheltercouldaccommodatearound200-400persons
Sources:1MinistryofFoodandDisasterManagement,2007;2MinistryofFoodandDisasterManagement,2013;3MinistryofDisasterManagementandRelief,2013;4Nirapad,2015,p.4;5DhakaTribune2015
Stresses
Besidesthedisasters,therearenumerousproblemsandchallengesaspartofawidertrendinsouthernBang-ladeshincludingwidespreadpovertythatspecificallyconcerntheMathbariaregion.Manyexistirrespectiveofdisasters,butoftenhavemutualinterrelationswithsuchdisastersandmayenhancetheirimpacts.Thefollow-ingissuesshouldbetakenintoaccountwhentryingtobuildresilienceinMathbariaandtheADBproject:
• Highlyseasonalhydrology:therearedroughtsinspringandheavymonsoonrainsthereafter.Eachstatehasdifferentissues.
• Cholera: both drought and rainy seasons often give rise to cholera epidemics. Shafqat Akanda et al.(2012,p.11),describeMathbariaasa‘largescaledriver’ofcholeraoutbreaks.Therewerecholeraout-breaksinMathbariain2004and2005(Mahapatraetal.,2014,pp.148–150).
• Salinity:Risingsalinityofsoilsthreatenstheavailabilityofdrinkingwaterandfreshwaterforagriculturalproduction InMathbariacity.65percentof thearea isaffectedbysalinity (Rahman&Rahman,2015,pp.99–100).
• Arsenic:groundwaterofalargepartofthecoastalzoneiscontaminatedbyarsenic.Mathbariaisrightinthecenterofthisarea(ibid.,2015,p.102).
• Spatialexpansion:unplannedurbandevelopmentmakesitmoredifficulttoprovidesanitation,drinkingwaterandeffectivefloodprotection.
• Migration: due to increasing difficulties in agricultural production and the threat of cyclones, floods,droughtsanderosion,thereisastrongmigrationmovementfromthecoastalareastotheCapitalDhaka(ibid.,2015,p.104–105).
Inrelationtothesefacts,thereareadditionalproblemsintimesofnaturaldisasters:
• Waterlogging:relativelylittlerainfallcanfloodlargeareasincoastalcitiesduetoinsufficientandinef-fective drainage infrastructure.Water cannot recede and therefore damages agricultural land. Floodimpacts areworsenedby the constructionof artificial canals used for shrimpproduction andpolders(Rahman&Rahman,2015,p.100–101).
• Mangroves:thereis insufficientcoastalvegetationnearMathbaria.Astudyshowsthata150mbeltofmangroveswouldlowerastormwatersurgeby0.5-1m(InvestigationTeamofJapanSocietyofCivilEn-gineering,2008,p.62).Accordingly,theADBinitiatedmeasuresforthecoastaltownofMathbariaareofutmostimportancetocounterbalancethesechallenges.
Finally,climatechangeamplifiesmanyoftheexistingchallengesandaddsnewones.Cyclonesandfloodstendtobecomestronger.Theexpectedriseinsealevelwillleadtosaltwateringressionintorivers.Theavailability
Page47of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
of freshwaterwill reduce, and seepageof seawater into the groundwaterwill increase the salinityof soils(Rahman&Rahman,2015,p.100).
4.2.4 ResilienceDividend
Giventhattheprojecthasnotyetbeenfullyimplemented,theResilienceDividendisestimatedinthefollowingway:theindicatorsofthelossesincurredintheabovedisastersarefirstconsidered(refertoTable9)andthencomparedwithaSuReSmartScanassessment.Thisallowsanestimatetobecarriedoutdemonstratinghowfartheprojectgives convincing responses toexisting risksandproblems.ForaResilienceDividend toexist, theproject should containmeasures that correspond to issues that faced bad indicator values in the precedingdisasters.Theprocedure for long-runstresses isanalogous.Since there isno referencedatadue to thepro-ject’songoingrealization,itisnotpossibletoprovidedefinitivenumbers.Nevertheless,thereisaclearindica-tionofthebenefits.Finalquantificationmayoncebecompletedwithmoredata.Thesameisvalidforthevari-ousbenefitsinnon-disastersituations,whichareexhibitedbytheSRBAmethodology.Estimatedavoidedlossesbecauseofdisruptionandstresspreparedness
Table10 ExpectedResilienceDividendindisastercases
Dividends Description
FinancialDividend
• Reducedmaterialdamages,reducedmonetarylosses• Lessfinanciallossesduetoshorterrecoverytimesaslessreconstructionisre-
quiredandcantakeplaceimmediately• Limitedlossoflocalworkforceduetosavedlives
HumanDividend
• Greatlyreducednumberoffatalitiesduetoshelterconstruction• Lesscholeraoutbreaksthankstoimprovedsanitationandwatersupply• Increasedawarenessregardingpersonalemergencypreparedness• Watersupplynotinterruptedduetoback-upgenerators• Fasteremergencydeliveriesasnewroadscanbetterwithstanddisasters
NaturalDividend • Lesserosionalongriverembankments
PhysicalDividend• Lessdamagetoroads,watersupplyandsanitationinfrastructure• Nodestructionofwatersourcesduetosafewatersupply• Nowaterloggingduetoimproveddrainagesystem
PoliticalDividend • Politicalacceptanceduetothoroughstakeholderinclusion
SocialDividend
• Betterandarsenic-freewatersupplyforthecitypopulationinthelongrun• MoresafetyandriskreductionforthegreaterMathbariaareaincludingtheagri-
culturalsector• Reductioninmigrationduetobetterdisasterresilience
Expectedadditionalbenefitsinabsenceofadisaster(SRBA)
Environmental
• Cleanerenvironmentduetominimizeduseofhazardousmaterial• Reducedagriculturalcroplossduetoflooding
Social
• Improvedlivingconditionsthankstoemploymentoflocalstaff
Page48of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
• Improvedaccesstohospitals,markets,schools,placesofworketc.,enabledbybetterroads• Solidwastemanagement:improvedqualityoflifeduetocleanersurroundings• Accesstoreliablewatersupplysysteminthetownbyallresidents• Positivehealthimpactsofwatertesting/qualitysupply• Increasedaccesstosafesanitationbyallpeople,andspecificallypoorhouseholds,womenandchildren• Increasedsafety,securityanddignityforwomenandfemalechildren(whowillnothavetopracticeopen
defecation)• Potentialraisingofhealthandsocialstatusofmanualworkersengagedindesludging
Governance
• Institutionalstrengthening• Reducedcorruptionduetocorrespondingmeasures• Increasedtransparency
Economic
• Increasedincomeduetoreducedtimespentoncommuting• Savingsinroadinfrastructureoperatingcosts• Increasedincomeduetoemploymentoflocalstaff• Reducedmedicalcostsduetodecreasednumberofsickdaysthankstoimprovedsanitationanddrainage
system• Increaseinsavingsperhousehold(aswaterchargepermonthenvisagedwillbelowerthanpresentdirect
opportunitycostforpurchaseofwater)• Moreinvestmentsecurityduetoriskreduction• Reducedstoragetankcostthankstobetterwatersupplysystem
4.2.5 InterpretationoftheResilienceDividend
TheaboveanalysisshowsthattheMathbariaprojectcanbeexpectedtoyieldaclearlypositiveResilienceDivi-dend. Quantification ismore difficult because the project has not yet been completed. However, it can beshownthattheprojectrespondstomanyproblems,whicharerevealedbybad indicatorvaluessuchashighnumbersof fatalities following theabove-mentioneddisasters. Inparticular,wehavegood reasons toarguethathumanliveswillbesavedandmaterialdamagescanbereduced.Thisprojectcontainsmanyelementsthatare recommended to develop a long-term adaptation strategy in coastal areas (see Barbier, 2014p. 1251).Moreover,severalmaindisaster-independentandlong-termstressesareaddressed.Forexample,betterwatersupplyallowspeopletoavoiddrinkingwaterthatiscontaminatedbyarsenicandsalinity.BesidetheResilienceDividendintheformofadisruptionresponse,therearealsomanybenefitsindependentofadisastersuchasemploymentcreation,positive long-termhealth impactsand institutional improvements.Duetotheprojectsongoingimplementation,wecanonlymakeanestimateofwhattheresiliencedividendwillbeinthefirstdis-asterafterprojectcompletion.Nevertheless,therearestrongargumentsthatsupporttheexistenceofthere-siliencedividend.
However,therearestillsomeimportantissuesthatarenottakenintoaccountbytheMathbariaproject.Forinstance,therearenomeasurestopreventthedestructionoftrees,whichhappenedagreatdealduringsupercycloneSidrin2007.Hence,thereseemstobenonaturalResilienceDividendinthisrespect.Similarlyforthelong-termstressofsalinity,thereisnostrategytocopewithitsystematically.Allinall,however,itcanbesaidthatthisbundleofinfrastructureprojectsisquiteeffectiveinaddressingmostoftheidentifiedproblemsandchallengeseitherinadisastersituationorinthelongerterm.
Page49of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
4.3 Quito
4.3.1 Background
Macro/MesoLevel
Ecuador isexposedtonaturalhazardssuchas frequentearthquakes, landslides,volcanicactivity, floods,andperiodicdroughts(CIA,2017).AccordingtotheOECD(2017),Ecuadorwasthe69thlargestexporterintheworldin 2014. The main exports are crude petroleum (50%), bananas (12%), crustaceans (9.3%), processed fish(4.7%),gold(3.5%)andcutflowers(2.8%).Thisisanimportantissueinthiscontext,sincethechosenprojectofinterestisaninternationalairport–ahubforexports.
According to the INFORM country risk profile for Ecuador (2017), earthquakes, tsunamis and floods are themost prominent hazards for the country. Concerning overall risks, Ecuador is ranked 69th out of 191 in theworld,andthetrendforthenextthreeyearsisstable.AccordingtoLloyd’sCityRiskIndex,Quito’sfast-growingeconomyisexposedtoahighlevelofrisk(Lloyd’s,2015).Inparticular,aboutonethirdofthecapital’seconom-icoutputisatriskduetodisruptionsofvariouskinds.AsTable11shows,naturaldisastersmakeupalmost75percentoftheGDP@Risk.
• AverageGDPgrowthrate: 5.76%• AverageannualGDP: USD35.32bn• TotalGDP@Risk: USD11.70bn• ShareofaverageannualGDP: 33.13%Source:Lloyd’s(2015)Table11 GDP@RiskinQuito
Threat GDP@Risk ShareorTotalGDP@Risk
Earthquake USD6.00bn 51.25%Volcano USD2.22bn 18.98%Marketcrash USD1.52bn 13.00%Sovereigndefault USD0.83bn 7.06%Humanpandemic USD0.82bn 6.97%Poweroutage USD0.08bn 0.70%Solarstorm USD0.05bn 0.46%Flood USD0.05bn 0.45%Cyberattack USD0.05bn 0.43%Terrorism USD0.05bn 0.41%Plantepidemic USD0.04bn 0.30%
Source:Lloyd’s(2015)MicroLevel:NewQuitoInternationalAirportProject
TheNewQuitoInternationalAirportprojectedislocatedclosetothecapitalcityandwasdevelopedtoreplaceMariscalSucreAirport.Ithandlesmorethan5millionpassengerseveryyearandservesasanexporthubforupto20millionrosesperday(Chalk&Beane,2014).TheprojectcostforbuildingthisnewairportwasUSD700million.MostimportantstakeholdersbelongtotheexportingsectorsoftheEcuadorianeconomy,thetourismbranch,aswellasthenationalandcitygovernments.Moreover,thepopulationwithintheprojectzone,airportstaff andNGOs– specifically thosewithan interest in thehighbiodiversityof thepreviousgreenfield site–
Page50of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
each have their own particular interests. Further stakeholders include the city population and internationalfinancialinstitutionsinvestingintheairportproject.
In2016,therewasastrongearthquakewithamagnitudeof7.8 intheareasurroundingQuito.Ataboutthesametime,volcanicactivitythreatenedeconomiclifeinthecapital.Inthisparticularcasestudy,GIBinvestigat-edhowthenewairportrespondedtothesedisruptionsandevaluatedwhetherthespecificresiliencemeasuresobservedintheSuReSmartScanassessmentwereeffective.
TheprojectwaspartiallyfundedbytheInter-AmericanDevelopmentBank(IDB)andpartiallybyothercompa-niesfromvariousAmericancountries.ThedatausedaremainlythoseprovidedbytheIDB’sFinalEnvironmen-talImpactAssessment(Komex,2003).Othersourcesareindicated.
Useddata(seereferencesforfullcitation)• EnvironmentalImpactAssessment(retrievedfromIDB)• Variousacademicarticles• Onlinenewsarticles• Variousstakeholderwebsites
4.3.2 Resiliencelevelassessment
TheSuReSmartScanrevealsthefollowingprojectcharacteristics:overall,theratingforQuitoairportisgood,withthegovernancepartbeingratedverygood.Unfortunately,dataontransparencyandanti-corruptionpoli-ciesarecompletelymissing,whichpreventsanydefinitiveconclusionsbeingmadeinthisregard.However, itcanbeseenthatresilienceaspectsareemphasizedindetail.Ontheotherhand,thereisstillpotentialinsocialandenvironmental themes. Therefore, the airport seems tobewell prepared for disasters butmay still im-proveitsperformanceintimesofnon-disruption.Figure8 SuReSmartScanassessmentfortheQuitoairportproject
Page51of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Leading• EnvironmentalandSocialImpactAssessment(ESIA)andEnvironmentalandSocialManagementSystem
(ESMS)• Lifecyclethinkingwhenplanningandoperating(includingimpactsforfutureusers)• Accountingforhighlyrelevantrisksandemergencies:
o Environmental:seismicactivity,landslides,volcanichazardso Social:riskstopublichealthandsafety
• Concreteemergencypreparednessmeasures:o Regionalmonitoringandearlywarningsystemo Trainingdrillscarriedoutjointlywithotherstakeholderso ESGrisktrainingandeducationo Structuredesignedtoresistseismicactivityo Emphasisofevacuationroutesandemergencyprotocols(Georgouliasetal.,2014,p.143)
• Accountingforpre-existingliabilitiesandgrievances• Exceptionalstakeholderengagementduringallphasesoftheproject• Clearorganizationalsetupandtransparentdecision-makingprocess• Employmentofasustainabilitymanager;externalmonitoring• Fairandnon-discriminatoryemploymenttermsandconditionscompliantwithinternationalbestpractice• OccupationalHealthandSafety(OH&S)managementsystem• 10%moretreesthanbeforeprojectrealization
Commended
• Systemsthinkinginrelationtotheoverallmasterplan(national,regional)• Minimizationofthenumberofdisplacedpeople• Studyonculturalheritageandminimizationofpotentialimpactsonculturalheritage• Employmentoflocalstaffandfurthertrainingforlocalskills• Localprocurementofmaterial• Assessmentofpotentialcontributiontowidersocioeconomicdevelopment,forexample:changes,stresses
placedonlocalandregionalinfrastructureandcommunityservicesetc.• Considerationofproject-relatedimpactsonbiodiversity,naturalhabitatsandtheintactnessofecosystems
withcontiguousimprovement(adaptivemanagement)• Nointroductionofspecieswithahighriskofinvasivebehavior• Wastere-usestrategy• Air,waterandsoilbasedpollutiontargets• Noise,vibrationandlightlevelscompliantwithnationaland/orinternationalstandards• Nosignificantimpactonstormwaterflowpatterns
Drawbacks/Roomforimprovement
• Nodataregardingtransparency• Noreportingonhumanrightsofcontractorsandsubcontractors.• Noclearconsiderationoflong-termimpactssuchasthosecausedbydecommissioning/climatechange• Nofocusonpoorcustomers• FurthereffortstominimizeGHGemissionsneeded• Noemphasisonenergyefficiency,renewableenergyandembodiedenergy• Negativeimpactsonwatersourcevolumeandquality• Lossofgreenfield
Page52of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
4.3.3 Post-disasterassessment
TheoverviewofdisastersinEcuadorinthepasttenyearsshowsthatearthquakes,floodsandvolcanicactivi-tiesarethemostprominent.Naturaldisasterscausedthemostfatalitiesanddamage.Table12 SummaryofnaturaldisastersinEcuador2006–2016
Disastertype Disastersubtype Occurrence Totaldeaths
Totalnumberofpeopleaffected
Totaldamage('000USD)
Drought Drought 2 0 110,665 1,700Earthquake Groundmovement 3 680 1,230,165 3,300,000
Epidemic Viraldisease 2 15 10,967 0Flood Riverineflood 10 115 491,706 1,002,800
Landslide Landslide 3 31 150 0
Volcanicactivity -- 2 9 140,042 10,000Volcanicactivity Lavaflow 1 0 800,000 0
Volcanicactivity Ashfall 3 5 302,763 150,000Wildfire Forestfire 1 5 1,945 0
Source:CRED(2017)TheQuitocasestudyfocusesonthe7.8magnitudeearthquake in2016andvariousvolcanicactivitieswithinthelasttwoyears.Table13showshowthesedisastershaveaffectedtheregion,andinparticulartheairportofQuito.Theindicatorsinforminhowfartheprojectwasabletowithstandthedisastersandtokeepupitsoper-ations.Table13 IndicatorsofdisastersinQuito
Macroandmesolevelindicators Microlevelindicators
2016Earth-quake(includ-ingafter-shocks)1,2,3
• Totaldeaths:676• Totalpeopleaffected:1,230,000• Totaldamage:USD3,300,000,000• Magnitude:7.8• Partsofthecapitalleftwithoutpower
ortelephoneservice
• Totaldeaths:0• 4.6magnitudeaftershockinQuito:
temporaryinterruptionofoperationsattheairport
• Threedaysaftertheearthquake:airportbacktonormaloperation
• Assessmentoftheairportinfrastructurebycrisiscoordinationcommitteecon-firmsgoodstate
• Suspensionsanddelaysatotherairports
VolcanicActivi-ties2015and20164,5
• Totalpeopleaffected:930,042• Spreadoffinegreypowderinareawith
radiusof30km• Lossofflowerexportsduetoash• Decreaseinmilkproductionduetoash-
esdestroyingacresofpasture
• Approachesinplaceforflightstoavoidvolcanoinsteadofcancellingthem
• Airportoperationsremainopen• Airportcrisiscoordinationcommittee
activetoanticipatechangesinsituation
Sources:1Elgotetal.(2016);2teleSUR(2016);3BreakingTravelNews(2016);4Gupta(2016);5Jean(2015)
Page53of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
4.3.4 ResilienceDividend
Since there is no reference project,we compare the new airport’s performancewith the suggested perfor-manceinthecasetheresiliencemeasureswouldnothavebeentaken.Thisdoesnotallowforanobservabledirectcomparisonbut isneverthelessbasedonargumentsthatrelyondata:theResilienceDividendcompo-nentintheformofavoidedlossesaftertheearthquakeisjustifiedbytheobservedindicatorvaluesinTable13.Likewise,theSRBAapproachdetectsthebenefitsarisingfromtheairportintimesofnodisaster.Avoidedlossesbecauseofdisruptionpreparedness
Table14 ResilienceDividendinadisastercase
Dividend Description
FinancialDividend • Increaseinnationalincomeasflowoftouristscanbemaintained(2015:706,000tour-istsinQuito)
• Securityofoperationsprovidesdailycashflow.Operationdata:167dailyflights,14,730passengersperdayand516tonsofcargoperday1.Anyinterruptionofopera-tionsyieldsacorrespondingloss.
• Financialsavingsduetoreducedreconstructionneeds(reconstructioncostswouldbequiteexpensiveas95%ofthecountry’sinfrastructureisnotinsured)2
HumanDividend • Securityof14,730passengersperday
NaturalDividend • Integrationofwaterbodiesinthesurroundingareatopreventwatercontaminationandflooding(Georgouliasetal.,2014,p.132)
PhysicalDividend • Essentialcontributiontoemergencysupportandrecoveryinareasaffectedbytheearthquakeasmaterialdeliveriesanddonationscanbeimportedthankstosafeoper-ations1
PoliticalDividend • Improvedcoordinationandcollaborationwithpoliticalauthorities
SocialDividend • AccessibilitytoandfromQuito
Sources:1Quiport(2016a);2SMIC(2006,p.7)
Additionalbenefitsinabsenceofadisaster(SRBA)
Environmental
• LesscongestioninQuitocity,wheretheoldairportwaslocated• ProvisionofpublictransportservicebetweenQuitoandairport
Social
• Improvementofairqualityindenseurbanarea• Reducedhealthandsafetyrisksforpopulation• Potentialforarcheologicalfindingsassometraceswerefoundduringexcavationatthenewairportsite• Integrationofwaterbodiesinthesurroundingareatopreventwatercontaminationandflooding(Georgou-
liasetal.,2014,p.132)• Inclusionofthecommunityneedsofthesixneighboringparishesintermsoftraining,employment,new
businessesandindustries(ibid.,p.126)• Investmentsinsportingfacilitiesandequipment,andeducationprogramsinthesurroundingcommunities
(ibid.,p.129).
Page54of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
• Protectionandpreservationofculturalandhistoricalresourcesthatareimportanttolocalcommunities(ibid.,p.129).
• Reintegrationoftheoldairportinthecity;creationofaparkforleisureactivitiesetc.
Economic
• UpdateofexistingroadfromTumbacotoYaruqui,twomunicipalitiesinthevicinityofQuito• Socioeconomicdevelopmentintermsofgrowthintourism,agriculture,andproductexports(Georgoulias
etal.,2014,p.126)• Establishmentofacommunalenterpriseforsolidwastemanagement• MorepeoplespendtimeinQuito:openingofhotelsandrestaurants(PanamericanWorld,2016)
Governance
• Wildlifecontrolprogram:trainedbirdsofpreyareheldintheairportareatopreventotheranimalsfromenteringtheairportzoneinordertoensurethesafetyofairportoperations(Quiport,2016b)
4.3.5 InterpretationoftheResilienceDividend
ItgoeswithoutsayingthatapositiveResilienceDividendcanexistwhenthere isadisasteraswellasduringnormaltimes.EventhoughthedisruptionsdescribedabovetookplacepartiallyinthewiderQuitoarearatherthandirectly inthecenterofthecity, it isclearthattheairportadministrationiswellpreparedfordisasters.Hardlyanyof theairportoperationswere interrupted.Thesestrong institutional skills correspondquitewellwiththehighresiliencelevelachievedingovernancethemesintheSuReSmartScan.Moreover,thestrongem-phasisofnaturaldisastersintheprojectplanningphaseseemstobereflectedinthegoodperformanceduringthedisasters.Eventhoughanindividualinfrastructureprojectisconsidered,thereisaclearconnectiontothecity-levelandevennationalresilienceneeds:aswearedealingwithanairportwhichisthecountry’smostim-portantbottleneckforimportsandexports,theresiliencelevelofthisprojectisimportantfortheresilienceofthewholecountry.ApartoftheResilienceDividendthusconsistsoftheairport’sabilitytodeliveremergencymaterialandaidtotheareasthataremostaffectedbydisruptions.AgainstthebackgroundofthecountryrisksindicatedbytheLloyd’sindex,andthehappeningsduringthestrongearthquake,weseethatresilienceeffortseventuallypayoff.
Thenon-disaster relatedbenefits are clearly visible. Therearebenefits inall areas,but theymainly concernsocial issues.However,therearealsosomelosses,which includethereducedbiodiversityattheairportsite,whichwaspreviouslygreenfield.Moreover,therearenospecificmeasurestoaccountforincreasingnoisepol-lutioninthepartsofthecitysurroundingtheairport.
4.4 Port-au-Prince
4.4.1 Background
Macro/MesoLevel
Haiti isexposedtovariouskindsofdisruptions.IntheINFORMoverallriskindex,it isranked14thofallcoun-tries(2017).Asaconsequence,economicproductionandnationalwealtharejeopardized.Thefollowingnum-bersrelatingtotheeconomyinHaiti’scapitalPort-au-Princeshowthat,despitehighgrowthrates,itisstillverypoor.Additionally,morethanathirdofGDPisthreatenedwithbeinglostduetodisasters.ThisisaquitehighvalueandindicatesthatresilienceisnotverywelldevelopedinHaiti,andparticularlyinPort-au-Prince.Table
Page55of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
15showsthatthisthirdoftheso-calledGDP@Riskiscausedmainlybythefollowingnaturalcatastrophes:windstorms, earthquakes, human pandemics, floods, droughts and plant epidemics. In particular, 72.13% of theGDP@Riskisendangeredbynaturaldisasters.
• AverageGDPgrowthrate: 5.11%• AverageannualGDP: USD1.43bn• TotalGDP@Risk: USD0.52bn• ShareofaverageannualGDP: 36.06%
Source:Lloyd’s(2015)Table15 GDP@RiskinPort-au-Prince
Threat GDP@Risk ShareorTotalGDP@Risk
Windstorm USD0.24bn 45.89%Sovereigndefault USD0.07bn 14.11%Earthquake USD0.05bn 9.16%Marketcrash USD0.04bn 8.26%Humanpandemic USD0.04bn 7.17%Flood USD0.03bn 5.65%Oilpriceshock USD0.02bn 3.29%Drought USD0.01bn 2.57%Plantepidemic USD0.01bn 1.69%Poweroutage USD0.01bn 1.28%Cyberattack USD0.00bn 0.00%
Source:Lloyd’s(2015)
MicroLevel:thePortProject
PortLafitoisthenewportofPort-au-Prince.ItislocatedinLafiteau,whichisavillagequiteclosetothecapital.ThetotalprojectcostwasUSD65million (Haiti libre,2015)andtheportopened in June2015.PortLafito ispartoftheLafitoGlobalEconomicZone,whichisafreeeconomiczoneaimingtoboostregionalandnationaleconomicdevelopment.ThezoneandspecificallytheportarerunbyGBGroup(GoneNativeLLC,2015).Thereis a large spectrum of different stakeholders: local citizens, employees and the local community expect im-provementsinlivingconditions,whileinternationaltransportcompaniesrequireasadvantageousconditionsaspossible.TheHaitiangovernment is involved in theproject realization,which raises theclaims foreconomicbenefits.
TomeasuretheResilienceDividend,GIBfocusedonthePortinternationaldePort-au-Prince,thatis,thehith-ertosinglecapitalport,asthereferenceprojectforPortLafito.Whilethereisenoughdatatoallowforacom-parativeanalysisattheprojectlevel,thedataisnotenoughtoproduceaSuReSmartScanfortheoldPortin-ternationaldePort-au-Prince.Therefore,somemodificationshavetobemade.Theprocedureisasfollows:thedevastating2010earthquakeinPort-au-PrinceisusedtoassesstheResilienceDividend.ThePortinternationaldePort-au-Princewasalmostcompletelydestroyedbythisdisaster.Conclusionsabouttheshortcomingsoftheportinfrastructure’sconditionrevealtheneedforimprovementsinanewportproject.PortLafito,whichwaspartiallyaresponsetotheearthquake,isanalyzedinthissense.Sinceitisquitenew,andnodisasterhastakenplaceinthisareatodate,nojudgmentcanbemadeastowhetherornotPortLafitowillperformbetterinacatastrophe.However,duetothedifferencesbetweenthetwoports,wecanestimatePortLafito’sResilienceDividend.
Page56of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Themaindata isprovidedby theproject reportof the InternationalFinanceCorporationof theWorldBank(GoneNativeLLC,2015).ItisaprincipalfunderbesideoftheGBGroup.Whereadditionalinformationismen-tioned,thecorrespondingsourceiscited.
Useddata(seereferencesforfullcitation)• EnvironmentalandSocialImpactAssessment(retrievedfromIFC)• Variousacademicarticles• Onlinenewsarticles• Variousstakeholderwebsites
4.4.2 Resiliencelevelassessment
TheSuReSmartScanofPortLafitoshowsanambiguousresult.First,mostsustainabilityandresilienceactionsare future rather thancurrentpractices.This isdue to theproject report’spublication inadvanceofprojectrealization.Whiletheproject isexpectedtobringnumeroussocialbenefits totheLafiteaucommunity,envi-ronmentalandgovernanceactionsarenotexceptionalinnumberandquality.Figure9 SuReSmartScanassessmentofthePortLafitoproject
Leading
• Locatedonthecoast,anareawithlowerearthquakerisksthaninthecentreofPort-au-Prince,wheretheoldPortdePort-au-Princeislocated(IFC,2011)
• Health,Safety,SecurityandEnvironmentalPlanwithreportingonkeyperformanceindicators• Employeesprovidedwithtrainingonsustainabilityskills• Freedomofassociationandcollectivebargaining• Grievancemechanisminplace
Page57of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
• Accountingforrisksofdifferentkinds:o Environmental:hurricanes,earthquakes,floodso Social:communityhealthandsafetyrisks
• Focusonlocalsupplychains• Noresettlement• Socialinvestmentandlocalhiringprograms
Commended
• Assessmentofenvironmental,socialandeconomicrisksandopportunities• Sustainabilitymanagerappointed• Publicreportingofsocialandenvironmentalpolicies• Commitmenttogenderequality• Genderopportunitypolicyandprograms• Commitmenttogoodandsafeworkingconditions• Avoidanceofdiscriminationbasedonage,gender,sexualorientation,health,race• Ongoingstakeholderengagementthroughoutimplementationphase• Concretemeasuresforemergencypreparedness:
o Sitespecificemergencypreparednessandresponseprocedureso Spillpreventionandcontrolmeasureso Trainingprogramforemployeeso Coordinationwithlocalauthoritieso Riskassessmentoftheterminal
• Projectlocatedinanareawithhighpovertyandunemployment• Occupationalhealthandsafetyguidelinesconcerningwaterquality,life,transportandfiresafety,hazard-
ousmaterials,diseasepreventionandemergencypreparedness• Limitedimpactonbiodiversityduetobiodiversityconservationbyrevegetationofdisturbedareas• WastemanagementplancompliantwithWorldBankguidelines• Monthlyairandnoisemonitoring• Wastegenerationminimized
Drawbacks/Roomforimprovement
• NoaccountofclimatechangeandGHGreductiontargets• Renewableenergiesandenergyefficiencynotemphasized• Resourceefficiencynotemphasized• PuregreenfieldprojectAsmentioned,itisnotpossibletocarryoutafullSuReSmartScananalysisforthePortinternationaldePort-au-Prince.However,someinformationfrompriortothedevastatingearthquakeof2010isavailable.Astudyfoundthatthephysicalconditionoftheportwasquitepoor.Forinstance,aninspectionofthewharfrevealedthathalfofthebentswhereinsufficientlycoveredbyconcreteandmanypileswheredestroyed(Greenetal.,2011,p.S47).Moreover,theseaportfillswerehighlysusceptibletoliquefaction(ibid.p.S60).TheseareclearindicationsthattheresilienceofthePortinternationaldePort-au-Princewashighlyinsufficient.
Page58of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
4.4.3 Post-disasterassessment
AnoverviewofthedisastersinHaitioverthepasttenyearsrevealsthattheyarelargeinnumberandmostofthe catastropheswere the result of floods and storms (hurricanes).Often, the floodswere causedbyhurri-canes.Table17 SummaryofnaturaldisastersinHaiti2006–2016
Disastertype Occurrence TotaldeathsTotalnumberofpeopleaffected
TotaldamageinUSD(‘000)
Drought 2
4,600,000Earthquake 1 222,570 3,700,000 8,000,000
Epidemic 6 7,128 585,253Flood 26 289 395,345Storm 16 1,474 2,769,807 2,254,000
Source:CRED(2017)AmongthemanydifferentsmallerandlargerdisastersinHaiti,oneovershadowsallothersandtookplaceinthePort-au-Princearea.Asalreadymentionedabove,theHaitistudyconcentratesonthiscatastrophe,namelytheearthquakethattookplaceinJanuary2010.Specifically,thestudyfocusesontheperformanceofthePortinternationaldePort-au-Princebothduringandaftertheearthquake.Sincethedataavailableisnotsufficient,theport-relatedindicatorsarecomplementedwithhigher-leveldata.All inall,thePortinternationaldePort-au-Princesufferedseveredamage,whichhadafar-reachingimpactbyhamperingemergencyservicedeliveriestotheaffectedcitypopulationanddelayingrecovery.Table18 IndicatorsoftheearthquakeinPort-au-Princein2010
MacroandmesoLevelIndicators1,2,3,4 Microlevelindicators5,6
• Numberofpeoplekilled:222,570• Numberofpeopleaffected:3,700,000• Damage:USD8billion• Displacedpeople:1.5millionimmediatelyafter
theearthquakeandstillabout55,000inSeptem-ber2016
• 293,383housesdamagedordestroyed• 1.5millionhomelesspeople• 60%ofgovernmentandadministrativebuildings,
and80%ofschoolsdestroyed• Choleraoutbreaksduetoinsufficienthealthsup-
plies
• Extensiveliquefactionofnorthwharf• Largelateralspreadingofsoil• Cranesandconcretemarginalwharfdisplaced
intothebay• Entranceroadsdamaged• Partofthesouthpiercollapsed• Portunabletoreceiveemergencyreliefcargos• Effortstorestoreshippingdeliveriesforhumani-
tarianemergencyresponsestartedonlysixdayslater
• ReconstructednorthwharfonlyreopenedinJan-uary2016
Sources:1NaturalCatastropheDatabase,2016;2CNNLibrary,2016;3DisasterEmergencyCommittee,2016;4Basu,2010;5Greenetal.,2011,pp.S47–S54);6Edward,2012,pp.81,88,114)
4.4.4 ResilienceDividend
ThenewPortLafitohasnothadtoendureadisasteryet.ButGIBcanidentifytheshortcomingsofthePortin-ternationaldePort-au-Prince.TheSuReSmartScanshowshowfarPortLafitotakesthesedrawbacks intoac-count.DependingontheSuReSmartScanjudgment,wegetanindicationofwhetherthelossestohumanlives
Page59of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
andphysical infrastructure canbeprevented in the future. This estimate allowsus to compare the avoidedlossesofPortLafitoandPortinternationaldePort-au-Princerespectively,andhencetoquantifytheResilienceDividend.Theprocedureforbenefitsinasituationwithoutadisasterisanalogous.Assumedavoidedlossesbecauseofdisruptionpreparedness
Table19 ExpectedResilienceDividendinadisastercase
Dividend Description
FinancialDividend
• Reducedinfrastructuredamage,reducedmonetarylosses(oldport’sreconstruc-tioncostssuggestedtobemanymillionsasoverallreconstructioncostsinPort-au-PrinceaftertheearthquakeareestimatedtoamounttouptoUSD14billion1)
• EconomicgainsduetofasterreconstructionandrecoveryofPort-au-Prince• Financialgainsforportsinceoperationscangoon(theoldPorthandled200–250
containersperday2;lossescanthusbecalculatedbymultiplyingthemwiththenumberofnon-operativedays)
HumanDividend
• Humanlivessavedduetofasteremergencyreliefdelivery• Preventionofepidemicsthankstomedicinedelivery• Reducedornofatalitiesandinjuriesamongstaffduetotrainingprogramforem-
ployeesNaturalDividend • NoenvironmentalcontaminationbypotentiallytoxicstoredfreightsPhysicalDividend • Nophysicalmateriallosses
PoliticalDividend • Intactnessofportasaninfrastructuralandeconomicbottleneckfacilitatescoordi-nationofreconstructionofthewholearea
SocialDividend • Nolossofemploymentandincomeofthecommunitywhenportoperationismaintained
Sources:1Reuters(2010);2KInternational(2016)
ExpectedadditionalBenefitsinabsenceofadisaster(SRBA)
Environmental
• Vegetation/landscapingonandaroundthesite• ImprovementstolowheaddamsinSimonette,amunicipalityclosetoLafiteau
Social
• Improvedlocalskillbase
Economic
• Directandindirectemploymentopportunitiesestimatedat25,000(PortStrategy,2015)
4.4.5 InterpretationoftheResilienceDividend
AsregardstheportsinPort-au-Prince,GIBfoundevidenceofapositiveResilienceDividendthatisrealizedovertime and assessed as a difference in resilience between the Port international de Port-au-Prince and PortLafito.Whilethephysicalstructureoftheoldportwasoverwhelminglypoorandindicatedalowresiliencelev-el, thenewportdoesnothaveanoutstanding resilienceperformance, buthas implemented several crucialimprovements.Thereisprogressinportoperationgovernanceandinstakeholderengagement.Adistinguishedcharacteristicoftheprojectis itsfocusonemergencypreparednessintheformofresponseprocedures,em-
Page60of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
ployee trainings and coordinationwith local authorities. Crucially, the chosen locationmeans that the infra-structure isbetterprotectedfromearthquakesandfloods.Therefore, theResilienceDividendmaterializes initsvariouscomponentsasitcanbeexpectedthathumanliveswillbesavedandmaterialandfinancialdamageswillbepreventedinfuturedisasters.SincePortLafitohasnotexperiencedadisasteryet,theResilienceDivi-dendcanonlybeestimatedbasedonexistingdata.
WhilethedisasterpreparednesscomponentoftheResilienceDividendisclearlyidentifiable,theassessmentofthebenefitsintimesofnon-disruptionismuchlesspronounced.Theemploymentprospectisbright.However,otherfreeeconomiczonesinHaitihaveshownthatpromisedemploymentdidbyfarnotrealizeandthatwork-ingconditionsareoftenprecarious(see,forinstance,Thomas,2016).Furthermore,thenewPortLafitoprojectfails toprovide abroader emphasis onenvironmental issues, including climate change andnatural resourceconsumptioninparticular.
Page61of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
5 OverallInterpretationoftheResilienceDividendStudy
Despitedatalimitations,thefourcasestudieshaverevealedimportantaspectsofresilience.Inthischapter,anoverallinterpretationdiscusseswhethertheapproachtoresiliencemeasurementcanbeconfirmedandwhatthemainfindingsare.Inaddition,itisaboutwhatcommunalitiesinfrastructureprojectshavewithrespecttoresilienceandwhatthemainlessonslearnedare.
5.1 ComparingtheProjectFindings
Overall,theappliedindicatorsfordisasterandnon-disasterscenariosconfirmtheSuReSmartScanfindings.Inorder to achieve a synthesized judgment on the case studies, Table 20 outlines defined performance levels(verybad,bad,medium,good, verygood,excellent).We see that theprojectswithagoodSuReSmartScanoutcomehaveahigherdegreeofdisasterpreparednessandmoreadditionalbenefitsthanthosewithabadormediumSuReSmartScanresult.Thisconclusionisverypromisingforfutureworkregardingresilienceandin-frastructure.Table20Summaryoftheprojectcasestudyresults
Manila Mathbaria QuitoPort-au-Prince
SLEX NLEX SuReSmartScan(Overallresiliencelevelassess-ment)
Good Verygood Verygood Good Medium
RDcomponent:Disasterpreparedness(avoidedlosses)
Medium Medium Good Verygood Medium
RDcomponent:Additionalbenefits(inabsenceofadisaster)
Medium Good Verygood Good Bad
OveralljudgmentMedium-good
Good Verygood Good Medium
Source:GIBFoundation
5.2 OverallInterpretation–CommunalitiesandOverlaps
Even though the case studies are quite different in their character, there are several overlaps and commoncharacteristics.Bydetectingandinterpretingthem,wegainnewinsightsforfutureresilienceresearchandpol-icymaking.Thefirstoverlapoftheinfrastructurecasefindingsclearlyindicatesthatthesecriticalinfrastructureprojectsplayacrucialroleintheoverallwell-beingofacountries’economy.InthecaseoftheairportinQuito,Ecuador,themajorpartoftheimportandexporteconomyreliesonthefunctioningoftheairport.Similartotheairport,theNLEXexpresswayinManilaandtheportinPort-au-Princeareimportantforthesmoothtransi-tionofgoodsandservicesfromandtothecustomer.
The involvement of all stakeholders in the projects of Manila (NLEX), Quito, and Mathbaria (Bangladesh)provedtobeveryeffective,asindicatedbytheSuReSmartScan.Accordingtovarioussources,theoverallac-ceptanceoftheseprojectswashigherthan inPort-au-Prince, forexample. Inotherwords, ifallstakeholders
Page62of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
areinvolved,theinfrastructureprojectismorewidelyaccepted,whichresultsinabetteroverallresiliencelev-el.
Infrastructureprojectsthathavebeencompletedmorerecentlyhavealargerfocusonresilienceandsustaina-bilitythanolderprojects.ThereisacleartrendthatresilienceandsustainabilityplaysamoreprominentroleinthethinkingofupcominginfrastructureprojectsfinancedbyMDBs.Themostrecentoftheprojectsexamined,thecoastaltownprojectinMathbaria,includesthemostresilienceplanninginitsthinking.Thegoalnowistopromotethiskindofthinkinginthenextdecadestocome.
WhenthefocusofanassessmentisonESGtopics,itisoftenbecausetheprojectownerhascarriedoutanen-vironmentalimpactassessment(EIA).Sometimes,inthecaseofQuitoforexample,anenvironmentalandso-cialimpactassessment(ESIA)iscarriedout.ThefocusofprojectownersonESGcriteriaispreliminarilyontheenvironmentalpart.Thesocialpartisonlysometimescovered,andonlyassessestheamountofpeopleaffect-ed.Thethirdcomponent,thegovernmentalpart,isoftennotlookedattothesameextentastheothertwo.
TheFinancialDividend inthenon-disastercomponentof theResilienceDividend isnoteasytocalculateandquantifyinUSDterms.Inthecaseofaninfrastructureproject,futurequantificationcouldbedoneinthefol-lowingway: forexample,Quitoairporthasacertainnumberofdaily flights thatprovide informationonthenumberofpeopletransportedandtheamountofgoodsimportedandexported.Therefore,theindicatorcoulddetecthowlongtheairportisnotrunningproperly,whilethemonetarylosscanbecalculatedbymultiplyingtheindicatorvaluebythedailyfinancialturnoverattheairport.
Anotherpointtobeemphasizedisthefactthattheavoidedlossesarenotasvisibleastheadditionalbenefits.ThesetwopartsoftheResilienceDividendclearlyplayadifferentrolewhenplanninganinfrastructureproject.Additionalbenefitswillpositivelyaffectthesociety,theeconomy,andtheenvironmentrightaftertheproject’scompletion.Ontheotherhand,avoidedlossesonlycomeintoplaywhentherehasbeenadisaster,whichcanofcoursecomeinallshapesandsizesandcanoccuratanytime.Therefore,thesalespitchfordevelopers,au-thoritiesandinvestorstoinvestinacertainresiliencemeasureisquitecriticalbecauseonebenefitwillcomerightaway,andtheotheronlyinthefuture.However,therewillalwaysbedoubtconcerningwhichbenefitismoreimportant.Inotherwords,long-termthinkingaboutriskandopportunitieshastobeconsideredineveryinfrastructureproject.
Othermajorpointsfordiscussionarethetrade-offsandthesustainabilitycostswithininfrastructureprojects.Intheplanningandexecutionofaninfrastructureproject,trade-offsarecommonplace.Theprojectownerhastodecidewhichfeaturestheinfrastructurewillhaveandwhowillbeaffectedorbenefitfromit.Forexample,aquestioncouldaskwhetherthenewairportinQuitoisbetterbecausethereislesstrafficinthecitycenterorwhethertheairportisworsebecauseitwasbuiltinagreenfieldzone.ThenewairportinQuitoalsoaffectsnewneighborhoodsbecauseoftherelocationofthisimportanttransporthub.Or,inthecaseofPort-au-Prince,issavingtheworkoftraditionalfishermenmoreimportantthanhavingaportinalessdisaster-pronearea?Thenew port increases the noise pollution in the neighborhood and sedimentation in seagrass beds. In otherwords,everyinfrastructureprojecthassustainabilitycostsaswellasbenefits.Asaresult,trade-offswillalwaysbeapartofinfrastructureprojects,whichcanbeseeninallthecasestudiesexamined.Itisunlikelythatanyoneapproachwillbeabletodissolvethistrade-off.ThisisvalidfortheSuReSmartScan,too.However,whiletheGIBmethodologycannotmakethetrade-offvanish,itcanoptimizeit.
Similaritiesbetweentheassessedinfrastructureprojectsalsoincludedthelackofadherencetolong-termcli-matethinking.TheexampleofthePanamaCanalinsection2.3highlightedthatlong-termthinking(>20years)mustbetakenintoaccountintheplanningofcriticalinfrastructure.Onlythenewestinfrastructureprojectofthe coastal townMathbaria took the IPCC climate change scenarios into account. In general, infrastructure
Page63of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
projectsarebuilttolastalmostalifetimeandtherefore,long-termthinkinginESGhastobeamajorplanningpoint.
Thelastoverlapbetweenthefourinfrastructurecasesisthelackoftransparencywithinthewholeinfrastruc-turelifecycle.Inthedesignandconstructionphase,therearesignsoftransparencyandinclusionoftheaffect-edcommunities.However, all fourprojects lackdataon topics likehuman rights,politicalparticipation,andcorruption.Itisalsouncommonforimpactassessmentstobecarriedoutinatransparentwayonceaninfra-structureprojecthasbeenfinalized.SomeMDBsareabouttostartwithperiodicassessments,whicharepub-liclyavailable.
5.3 LessonsLearned
The next fewparagraphs contain some insights into the lessons learned during this study,which set out toidentifyandmeasuretheResilienceDividend.First,theResilienceDividenddoesexist,andinvestmentsorin-putsinresiliencedopayoff.ThefourinfrastructurecasestudiesclearlydemonstratethatthereisaResilienceDividendinthecaseofadisasterorevenwithout;andthisistrueevenintheeventofinsufficientdata.Futureresearchisneeded,andasolutiontothelackofdataispresentedinthenextchapter.Onecanalsosaythatthemoreresiliencemeasuresaretaken,thelargertheassociatedbenefitswillbe.
Second,theconceptbehindresilience ismultidimensionalandinterdisciplinary. IfonewantstomeasureandquantifytheResilienceDividend,onehastoassessresilienceinastandardizedway,repeatedlyandoveralongperiodoftime.Presumably,ourresearchpartnersattheRANDCorporationhaveachievedthisinsightaswell.“Resilience”isahugeconcept,meaningthatpartnershipswithdifferentbackgroundsandsectorswillbenec-essarytotackletheissueofnotbeingresilient.
Third,and themost importantquestions toask in termsof resilience: ‘resilience forwhomandresilience towhat?’.Beforeassessing resilience,onehas toask thesequestions. It is crucial thatall stakeholdersprovideanswersinthisregardsothateventualtrade-offscanbereduced.GIB’sapproachtoresiliencefocusesonresil-ienceandsustainabilityinthe(ESG)infrastructureassessment.Thisnaturallyhaslimitations,aspreviouslyex-plained.However,criticalinfrastructureplaysanimportantroleinacountry’seconomyandinthewell-beingofitscitizens.
Fourth,therearesustainabilitycostsandtrade-offs intheinfrastructuresector–aspresentedabove.Hence,theResilienceDividenddoesnotequallybenefitallstakeholders;somemightevenexperiencenegativeeffects.ThishastobekeptinmindwhenmeasuringtheResilienceDividendforaspecificgroupofpeople.TheRANDCorporationhassimilarconclusionsregardingthispoint.
Thefifthpointrelatestotheinsufficientdatatoproveand/orvaluetheResilienceDividend.Inthesameman-ner, closing the sustainable and resilient infrastructure investment gap requires compelling risk-return data.Data isneededregardingreturnson investmentforresiliencemeasuresandforthecorrelationbetweentheESGandeconomic/financialperformanceof infrastructureprojects.Thisdatawillhelp tomake resilientandsustainablesolutionsmoreattractivetoinvestors,developers,andpublicauthorities.
Inaddition,decisionmakersandotherstakeholdersneedadditionalinsightsintotheconceptofresilience.Atthemoment,theSuReSmartScangivesinfrastructuredecisionmakerstheoptiontocomparetwoprojectsre-gardingtheESGcostsandbenefitsatacertainpointintime.Forexample,thedecisionmakersoftheNewQui-toAirportcouldhaveassessedtheoldandthenewairportwiththeSuReSmartScantogetanideaofwhichairportismoreresilientandsustainable.
Finally,theresilienceofindividualinfrastructureprojectsiskeytotheoveralldisruptionpreparedness(avoid-inglosses)andthevalue-addingbenefitsinacertainneighborhood,cityorcountry.Inotherwords,whenin-
Page64of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
frastructure is better prepared for disasters, the communitywill experience a higher Resilience Dividend intermsofvalue-addingbenefitsandintheeventofadisasterwhenlossesareavoided.
5.4 WhatIsMissing?
As indicatedunderthe lessons learnedabove, resilience isamulti-facetedandhighlydynamicanimal that isdifficulttocatch.Inordertocaptureit,theauthorsofthisstudyfoundthatthefollowingelementsaremissing:
1) Aneasy-tousetoolthatcapturesthecomplexandevolvingnatureofresilienceaswidelyaspossible,e.g.thatgoesbeyondthescopeoftheSuReSmartScan.TheSuReSmartScanisatoolforpracticalpro-jectdevelopment,whilethenewtoolwillinadditionbededicatedalsotoresilienceresearchandtheaccumulationofnewconceptionalandempiricalinsights.Whilealigningexistingresiliencelanguages,definitionsandtaxonomies,suchatoolshouldservetheneedsofeveryonealreadyconcernedaboutassessing, fosteringandmeasuringresilience.Thistoolshould likewiseserveasachecklistprovidingananswertothequestion:“Whatdatadoweneedinordertovalidateresilience?”
2) Resilienceawarenesstrainingsforthoseunawareofresiliencebenefitsandnotyetconcernedaboutfostering,measuringandenhancingresilience.Suchtrainingsshouldprovideanswerstothequestion:“Whyshouldweimplementresilienceandcollectdataforitsvalidation?”
3) Resilience implementation trainings on the ground that go beyond awareness raising and help todeeplyrootresiliencethinkingandbehavioramongactorsintheinfrastructuresector–especiallyformultipledisadvantagedgroups.Resilienceimplementationtrainingsshouldprovideananswertothequestion:“How,whereandwhenshouldwecollectdata?”
4) Aregistrycontainingthecollecteddataandservingasasourcetoprovetheexistenceandthevalida-tionoftheResilienceDividendacrosssectorsandcountries.Sucharegistryshouldaddresstheques-tion:“Howcanwestoreandevaluatedataforthebestpossibleuseinthefuture?
Page65of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
6 Outlook
Thefinalchapterofthisstudyprovidesatheoryofchangeaswellasaderivedpossibleapproachonhowtoprove the existenceof theResilienceDividendmore efficiently andwithmoreprecision in future. The logicbehindtheattempts introducedbelowisdeeplyrootedinGIB’sthinkingonwhat ismissing:Today,actors ininfrastructurelackeasy-to-usetools,resilienceawarenessaswellasthetechnicalexpertiseneededinordertoimplementresilienceaspectsrightatthebeginningofeveryinfrastructureproject’slifecyle.Inaddition,mean-ingful data is rarely collected. Currently available resiliencedata is either completelymissingor inadequate,whichpreventsmanyinstitutionalinvestorsfromfinancingresilientandsustainableinfrastructure.
6.1 TheoryofChange
Atheoryofchangeismorethanalogicalframeworkaboutactivities,outcomes,outputsandgoalsbecauseitnotonlydetailswhatislinked,butalsohowsomethingislinked.Inourfast-paced,ever-changingworld,newknowledge,additionalinsightsandnewtheoriesareemerginginhighnumbers,hencethedevelopmentofanytheoryofchangewillalsobesubjecttochangeandthusrathertimeconsuming.
Accordingly,Figure11belowdemonstrateshowGIB’scurrenttheoryofchangewillneedtobeadjustedovertime as well. The interconnectivity of the several steps mentioned today might be mapped differently orchangecompletelyinfuture.
InlinewiththeGIBFoundation’smission,thefouranticipatedactivitystreamsfocusingon:
1) Tools;
2) Capacitybuilding;
3) Technicalassistance(TA);and
4) Aprojectregistry
willultimatelyleadtoonecommongoal:“resilientandsustainableinfrastructureasthenewnormal”.
Theachievementofthisgoalwillprovidetheresilience-associatedbenefitsofinfrastructuretosocietyintimesof disruptions and times without disruptions. In addition, the four depicted streams of activity will be themeanstoovercometheabove-mentionedobstaclestomeasuringtheResilienceDividend:unsatisfactorytools,insufficientcapacity,knowledgeandtechnicalassistanceaswellasmissingorinadequatedata.
Given theprospect thatmostof the future infrastructureneedshave tobesatisfiedwith infrastructure thathasnotyetbeenbuilt, incorporatingthefinancialsectorandaddressingitsrespectiveneedsalongtheentirefinancialvaluechainwillbedecisive.Themake-or-breakpoint inreachingtheultimategoalof“resilientandsustainableinfrastructureasthenewnormal”willbetheabilitytodemonstratethemeritsofsuchinfrastruc-ture.Giventheclassiccharacteristicsofany infrastructure, i.e.assetheaviness, its long-termnature, specificlocationandrather illiquid investmentcharacteristics,onemight intuitivelyunderstandthatconsiderationofandadherencetoresilienceandsustainabilityaspectswillbearfruitovertime.However, inorderto“unlockthetrillions”ofDollarsneededtosatisfyfuture infrastructuredemands,hardnumerical factsare indispensa-ble.Likewise,adifferentapproachandunderstandingofriskisalsoneeded.Tothisend,andrightontheinter-facebetweeninfrastructureresilienceandsustainabilityassessmentandfinance,appropriateproductshavetobe developed that provide additional insights into the risks and opportunities of infrastructure investmentsfromaresilienceandsustainabilityperspective.Oncetheproofforthesuperiorityofresilientandsustainableinfrastructure isathand,andalldecisiveplayersalongthefinancialvalue-chainusetoolsbasedonthesame
Page66of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
resiliencelanguage,definitionandtaxonomy,a“ResilientandSustainableInfrastructureAssetClass”–anewassetclassblendingthecharacteristicsofalltypesofexistingassetclasses–mightemerge.Thenumberofin-ternationalactorssharingthevisionofsuchanewassetclassiseverincreasing.
Please note that, in the following, “outputs” are regarded as short-term, “outcomes” asmedium-term, and“impacts”aslong-termachievements.Figure10TheoryofChange(GIB)
Source:GIBFoundation
6.2 Tool
Asdepictedabove,aneasy-to-usetoolshouldbedesignedthat:
1) Indicateswhattolookatinordertoachieveandvalidateresilience;
IMPACTS
OUTCOMES
OUTPUTS
ACTIVITIES
Buildcapacitywithactorsnotyet
awareofresilience&sustainability
benefits
Awarenessoftheimportanceand
meritsofresilience&sustainability
Enhancedeffortsforresilientandsustainableinfrastructure
Realiza=onofinfrastructure’sresilience&sustainability
benefits
CAPACITYBUILDING
Collectproject-specificESG,economicandfinancialdata
Detailedprojectdatabaseacross
sectors,regionsandcountries
Insightsintorisk-returncorrela=onsofESG,economicandfinancialdata
Informeddecisionmaking
PROJECTREGISTRY
Resilienceassessmenttool+sector/project-
specificindicators
Efficientandstandardizedresilience&sustainabilityassessment
Common
denominatorusedbypublicsector,
financialsectoranddevelopers
Increasedandsharedknowledgeonresilience&sustainability
TOOL
Providetechnicalassistanceforindividual
infrastructureprojects
Bestprac=ceresilience&
sustainabilityacrossallinfrastructure
stages
Op=miza=onofresilience&sustainability
measuresacrossallinfrastructurestages
Realiza=onofresilient&sustainableinfrastructure
TECHNICALASSISTANCE
RESILIENTANDSUSTAINABLEINFRASTRUCTUREASTHENEWNORMAL
Page67of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
2) Providesa snapshot resilience level assessmentatonepoint in timeagainstwhich tobenchmark thesubsequentresilienceandESG-performanceofanyproject inpredefinedcyclesoraftercertaineventshavetakenplace;
3) Providesasetofsector-and,whereapplicable,region-specificindicatorsfortestingandvaluingtheRe-silienceDividend;
4) Isinformedbytheworkofothersandthusincorporatesthefindingsofthecurrentstudyandotherex-istingknowledgeonresilience.
TheFigurebelowshowsthespecifictheoryofchangebehindGIB’sactivitystreamnumber1depictedabove,i.e.“Tool”.Figure11TheoryofChangeforthe“Tool”(GIB)
Source:GIBFoundationThis theoryofchange isbasedonthehypothesis that the levelof resilienceassessedatonepoint in time (asnapshot)willovertime leadtoacorrespondingResilienceDividend: ifan infrastructureprojectmeetsnooronlyveryfewSuRe®criteriaatlowlevels(seesection3.2.2),alowResilienceDividendisexpected.Incontrast,projectsmeetingallcriteriaatthehighestlevelwillindicateanexceptionallyhighResilienceDividend.
Inordertofurtherprovethisassumptionbeyondthefeaturedcasestudies,GIBsuggestsassessingpublicandprivateinfrastructureprojectsusingitsSuRe®criteria.Suchsnapshotassessmentswillsubsequentlyserveasabenchmarkagainstwhichtheresilienceandsustainabilityperformanceofthegivenprojecthastobeconduct-edusinginfrastructuresector-specificindicatorsinpredefinedcycles,oraftercertaineventshavetakenplacesuch as disasters or refurbishments of a particular infrastructure. The repetition of these snapshot assess-ments,withthesubsequentcomparisonof“real-worlddata”suchaseconomicandfinancialperformancedataover time,will not only lead to theproof of corresponding correlationsneeded in order to “unlock the tril-lions”,butalsototherefinementofthetoolused.Throughthis,userswilleventuallybeabletoidentifyresili-
ResilienceLevel
ResilienceDividend
AllPublicandPrivateInfrastructureProjectsatanypoint
in7me
SuRe
Low
Med
ium
High
Excep2
onal
Increasing
IndicatorstoverifyResilienceLevelandResilienceDividendover5me
Hypothesis:HigherResilienceLevel=HigherResilienceDividendSnapshot
Page68of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
enceandsustainabilitybenefitswithahighdegreeofprobability. Inotherwords,“this levelofresiliencewillyieldthatspecificbenefit”.Accordingly,informed(investment)decisionsonfutureinfrastructureprojectswilltakeplaceandtherebymakeresilientandsustainableinfrastructurethenewnormal.
Indevelopingsuchatool,theenhancementand/oralignmentofexistingtoolsandconceptsisnecessary,9asistheincorporationofadiverserangeofstakeholders.Infact,thecombinationofmulti-stakeholderknowledgeandthealignmentofdifferentactorstowardsasharedandagreedresiliencelanguage,definitionandtaxono-mywillbekeyforthesuccessofsuchatool.
Withsuchatoolathand,anefficient,reliableandstandardizedassessmentandeventualvalidationoftheRe-silienceDividendwillbecomepossible.Thiswillinturnserveasacommondenominatorforthemostdecisiveplayersinanyinfrastructureproject, i.e.representativesfromthepublicsector,financialsectoranddevelop-ers.Thethusachievedincreaseandsharedknowledgeonresilienceandsustainabilityofallinfrastructureac-torswillbe thedecisivesteptorootingresilience in thedesign,planning,construction,operationand finallydecommissioningphaseof any infrastructureproject. In addition, such a toolwill include and align city andprojectmanagement-specificrequirementsandpavethewaytoassessingresiliencebeyondaprojectperspec-tive.Ideallythistoolwillcomeinaset,withahandbookthatnotonlyexplainsitsusagebutalsoshowshowtoconducteffectiveandinclusivecapacitybuildingfordiverseaudiences.
6.3 CapacityBuilding
AsseenintheSuRe®pilotphaseexamplesmentionedaboveinChapter3,carefullydesignedcapacitybuildingprogramsarehighlysought-after.Buildingthecapacityofactorsnotyetawareofresilienceandsustainabilitybenefits is an utmost priority. All too often, those prone to disruptions and stresses have insufficientknowledgeaboutavoidanceoflossesandhowtobettertheirlives.
Everymeaningful capacity building program focuses first on general awareness raisingwhile taking existinglevels of knowledge into account and, second, on project-specific on-location trainings serving the develop-mentneedsof the respective stakeholdergroup. It isdecisive togenerateaconsistentandcoherentunder-standingofwhatresilienceandsustainabilityare,andwhatbenefitscomeattachedtothem.Onceanunder-standingofthesebenefitsisachieved,theeffortstoincreasetheresilienceandsustainabilityofinfrastructureareusuallyincreasedbytheactorsinvolved.Atthisstage,capacitybuildingprogramsaimtoanswertheques-tionconcerninghowtoimplementsustainabilityandresilienceaspects intheplanning,design,procurement,construction,operationanddecommissioningphaseofanyinfrastructureproject.Equally,thequestionisad-dressedconcerninghowtocollectmeaningfuldataforasubsequentevaluationofwhetherthemeasurestakenarebearingfruit.
Acapacitybuildingprogramshouldincorporateaneasy-to-usetool,asoutlinedabove.Itisalsoimportantforthecapacitybuildingprogramtoincorporatestate-of-the-artknowledgefromahugevarietyofinfrastructurestakeholdersaswellascurrentinternationalbestpracticesforparticipatoryknowledgesharing.
9GIBforinstanceiscollaboratingwithQuantisInternationalinordertolinktheSuRe®criteriatothevaluationstandardsoftheNaturalCapitalProtocol(NCP)andtheSocialReturnOnInvestment(SROI).Thisallowsthemeasurementandvaluationofthetotal impactofaSuRe®infrastructureproject.Both,negativeandpositive impactswillbeaccountedforalongthesocial,environmentandgovernancethemes,togetherwiththesubsequenteconomicimpactsthattheseleadto.Theim-pactontheecosystemservicesandonthesocialsystemwillbothbemeasuredinmonetaryunitswhatallowsafullintegra-tioninthefinancialprofitandlossassessmentofaninfrastructureproject.ThisNaturalandSocialCapitalValuationallowsthecomparisonoftheimpactsandbenefitsofthethreepillarsofsustainability,i.e.environment,societyandgovernance.Furthermore,itallowsthedetectionandmitigationofcriticalrisksinanearlystageofprojectplanning.
Page69of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
GIB’sexamples from India showthat tailoredworkshopswithpublicofficials in theareaofmasterplanning,publicprocurementandpublicprivatepartnership(PPP)design,aswellaswithfinancialinstitutionsandcon-structioncompaniesonrespectivetopics,leadtofavorableoutputs.OnekeyoutcomefortheprojectinIndiawasanincreasedawarenessofclimatechangescenariosthatmightimpacttheprojectandothersinthesamedevelopmentprogram.Subsequent“trainthetrainers”sessionshelpedtoensurethattheknow-howachievedcouldbekeptinthelocation–asdidthefranchisingwithlocalcapacitybuildingorganizations.
6.4 TechnicalAssistance
TechnicalAssistance(TA)goesonestepfurtherthancapacitybuildingbyfocusingontheentirevalue-chainofanindividualinfrastructureproject,andusuallyspansamuchlongertimeperiod.TAisofparticularimportanceinsettingswhereactorsarenotsufficientlyawareofbestpracticeresilienceandsustainabilityapproaches.Ithelpstoimplementresilienceandsustainabilityrightfromthebeginningofanyinfrastructureprojectandthustooptimizeadherencetothesepracticesthroughoutitsentirelifespan.
Typically,TAstartswithadviceonhowtoconducttechnical,economicandsocial(pre-)feasibilitystudies.Sub-sequently,assistanceoncompilingandimplementingabusinessplanandondevelopingafinancingstrategyisgiven,usually followedbysupportondevelopmentof theseplansandstrategies. Inaddition, technologyas-sessmentsandevaluations,aswellasresilienceandsustainabilityassessmentsareconducted.
Basedonthis,localizedmulti-stakeholderprocessesaredefinedanddesigned–usuallyfromtwoangles:bot-tom-up and top-down. The bottom-up approach includes diverse forms of analysis like amulti-stakeholderneedsassessmentsbasedonqualitativeand/orquantitativesurveys,key informant interviews,etc.,whereastop-downevaluationsalsocomprisecontextualanalysis,takingintoaccountdiverseaffectedpoliciesandtar-getgroups, for instanceurbanplanning, landuse rights, economicand socialpolicies.Naturally, subsequentsynthesis and gap-analysis betweenbottom-up and top-down results takes place in close collaborationwithlocalpartners.Onceprocessesareinplaceor launchedrespectively,on-siteobservationsandanappropriatemappingofthecurrentstatustakesplacetocontrasttheplanningwithfuturedevelopmentsofinfrastructureandsociety.Thisdatacollectionprocessisespeciallyimportantinareaspronetonaturaldisasters,andallowsforadjustmentstotherespectiveactivitiesineveryphaseoftheinfrastructurelifespan.
6.5 Registry
Whereasa resilienceassessment tool, incombinationwithsector/project-specific indicatorsclarifieswhat tolook atwhen implementing resilience, Capacity Building and Technical Assistance raise resilience awarenessandpavethewayforthecollectionofdataalongtheentireinfrastructurevaluechainoveritslifecycle.Areg-istry for infrastructure project-specific data finally serves as the ultimate “collecting tank” for this data. Thesmoothandmulti-stakeholderbackedinteractionofallfouractivitystreams–thetool,capacitybuilding,tech-nicalassistanceandtheproject registry– isdecisiveandrepresentsacompellingwaytoachievethegoalofresilientandsustainableinfrastructurebecomingthenewnormal,andtheattachedbenefits.
Aprojectregistrywouldcontaininfrastructureproject-specificresilience,sustainability,economicandfinancialdataacrosssectors,regionsandcountriesinordertoprovideinsightsintorisk-returnparametersandthecor-relationsofESG,economicandfinancialdataandeventuallyallowbest informeddecisionmaking.Compilingsuchaproject registry isahugeendeavor thatwould require theclosecooperationofdiverseactorsoveralongperiodoftime.Theabove-mentionedimportanceofacommonresiliencelanguage,definitionandtaxon-omythereforebecomesevenstronger.
GIBconsidersthatfourstepsarenecessaryfortheimplementationofaprojectregistry:
Page70of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
1) Ananalysisofthecurrentglobalinfrastructuresituationwithregardtosectors,regions,countriesanditsdevelopmentoverthelasttenyearsinordertodefinetherangeofprojectsthatshouldbecontainedintheregistry.
2) Furtherteaming-upwithreliantandwell-connectedplayers10intheinfrastructurefieldtocreatepersonaltiesandtrustinordertogainaccesstohithertonotpubliclyavailabledata.Thecloseco-operationwitharesearchinstitutespecializingininfrastructureriskwillhelptofurtherdefinetherangeofdatatobecollected.
3) Establishmentoforganizationalstructuresguaranteeinganonymityofentrusteddata.
4) Developmentof amathematicalmodel in cooperationwitha suitablepartner inorder to com-putecorrelationsbetweenresilienceandsustainabilityperformanceaswellasfinancialandeco-nomicperformance.
Dependingonthedataqualityandfeasibility,aretrospectiveanalysis(“expost”)ofcorrelationsbetweenresilienceandsustainabilityperformancewitheconomicandfinancialperformancemaybeconducted.Aforwardlookinganalysis(“exante”),buildingontheworkdoneinthecurrentstudyandinformedbytheworkofotheractorsinthefieldofresilienceresearchshallalsobeconducted.Eitherway,theproofthatresilientandsustainableinfrastructureisafirstchoiceandadecisivesteptoachievingoverallresiliencefortheentiresociety–intimesofdisruptionsandtimeswithoutdisruptions–willbedecisivetounlockthefi-nancialflowsneededtoachievethisgoal.
10ICLEI,C40,R20,CCFLA,GlobalGreenGrowthForum(3GF)
Page71of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
7 Conclusion
This study has tested the hypothesis that resiliencemeasures in infrastructure projects pay off. The pay-offstemmingfromresiliencemeasurestakenandmaterializingirrespectiveofadisastercanbereferredtoastheResilienceDividend.By applyingGIB’smethodology– a combinationof apractical one-point in timeassess-mentservingasbenchmarkforthefollowingapplicationofinfrastructure-specificindicatorsovertime–tofourconcreteinfrastructureprojectsindifferentcitiesaroundtheworld,thisstudyhasindeedrevealedthatahigh-erresilience levelgivesrisetomanybenefitsofdifferentkinds.Someof thesebenefitsarerevealedwhenadisasteroccurs,whileothersmaterializeevenintimesofnodisruption.Insomeprojects,thebenefitsareob-vious and have been revealed by disasters that have taken place since project realization. In others, as inMathbariaandpartiallyinPort-au-Prince,thebenefitshavetobeestimatedbecauseeithertheprojecthasnotyetbeencompletely realizedorhasnotyetexperienceddisasters– the result in suchcases isan ‘expected’ResilienceDividend.
ApplyingthepracticalSuReSmartScantoassesstheresiliencelevelatacertainpointintimeandrelatingittotheresultingbenefitsviaanindicator-basedmeasurementincluding,amongothers,theSRBA,hasprovedtobeausefulandpromisingapproach.BesidestheResilienceDividenditself,thisstudyhasfoundadditionalinsightsfor futureprojectdevelopmentaswellas for futureresearch.Theprojectsexaminedhaverevealedthatanyinfrastructureprojectfacestrade-offswithrespecttoresilienceandsustainability.Forexample,theremaybeatrade-offbetweeneconomicbenefitsintheformofincreasedemploymentandtheadditionalconsumptionofgreenfieldareascausedbytheproject.Here,theSuReSmartScanhelpstojudgeandoptimizethetrade-offs,thatis,tominimizenegativeimpactswhilemaximizingthebenefits.
Resilienceisamultidimensionalissue.Itcontains,amongothers,manydifferentfinancial,socialandenviron-mentalaspects.Bytakingaccountofresilienceinallitsdimensions,itisnotpossibleforsuchastudytoprovideafinalresultintheformofasinglemonetaryvalue.Measurementresultsremainmultidimensionaljustliketherealworldwelivein.Giventhatoursuggestedapproachsimplifies,quantifiesandallowsforcomparability,wedefenditsmultidimensionalcharacter.Itmaynotbethesimplestapproach,butitislikelytobetheonlywaytogetatrueanddeepideaofresilience.
Themain lesson learned from this study is thatmuchmore resilience research is needed. This contributionshouldnotbeseenasfinal,butratherasthestartingpointforfurtheranddeeperresilienceresearch.Missingdatawillbethemostsignificantobstacleinthisregard.WhiletheSuReSmartScancanbeappliedinpracticalprojectdevelopment,furtherstepsareneededinordertodeepenresearchandsupportfutureinfrastructureresilienceplanning:capacitybuildingtofosterresilienceawareness,technicalassistanceonthegroundtohelpimplementresilience–especially inareaswithlimitedknowledge–aswellasaneasy-to-usetoolcomprisingadviceonwhattolookatwhenthinkingaboutresilienceandprovideabenchmarkagainstwhichtocompare,andindicatorswithwhichtomeasurewillhelptoensureamoreresilientworldforeveryone.Thedatacollect-edduring thesestepsshould feed intoacomprehensive registry thatwillyieldmoreknowledgeandhelp tomakeresilience,togetherwithsustainability,amust-haveforinfrastructureinvestors,projectdevelopersandpolicymakers.
Page72of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
References
ARUP, RPA & Siemens. (2013). Toolkit for Resilient Cities. Retrieved January 22, 2017, fromhttp://w3.siemens.com/topics/global/en/sustainable-cities/resilience/Documents/pdf/Toolkit_for_Resilient_Cities_Summary.pdf
AsianDevelopmentBank(2010).PuttingthePhilippinesintheFastLane.RetrievedNovember26,2016,from:https://www.adb.org/results/putting-philippines-fast-lane
AsianDevelopmentBank(2011).Philippines:NorthLuzonExpresswayRehabilitationandExpansion.RetrievedNovember26,2016,from:https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/evaluation-document/35911/files/pper-2011-phi20mntc-15may12.pdf
Barbier, E. B. (2014). A global strategy for protecting vulnerable coastal populations: short-term emergencyresponseandlong-runinvestmentsareneeded.Science,345,1250–1251.
Basu,M.(2010,December31).CholeradeathtollinHaitirisestomorethan3,000.CNN.RetrievedJanuary5,2017,fromhttp://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/12/31/haiti.cholera/index.html?hpt=T2
Boquet,Y.(2015).MetroManila’sChallenges:Flooding,HousingandMobility, inSingh,R.B.(ed.),UrbanDe-velopmentChallenges,RisksandResilienceinAsianMegaCities,447–468.
BreakingTravelNews. (2016).Quito seeksquick returnafter Ecuador’s earthquake. RetrievedNovember15,2016,fromhttp://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/quito-seeks-quick-return-following-ecuador-earthquake/
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). (2017). International Disaster Database. Re-trievedFebruary20,2017,fromhttp://www.emdat.be/
Chakrabarti,P.G.D.(2013).DevelopingIndicatorsforMeasuringProgressofDisasterRiskReduction.UNISDRandGARInputPaper.
Chalk,C.&Beane,D.(2014).NewQuitoAirport,Ecuador:high-flyingsuccessviacollaboration. InstitutionforCivilEngineersPublishing,168,105–115.
Charoenkit, Sasima and Kumar, S. (2014). Environmental sustainability assessment tools for low carbon andclimateresilientlowincomehousingsettlements.RenewableandSustainableEnergyReviews,38,509-525.
CIA (2017). TheWorld Factbook. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2021.html
CNN Library. (2016). Haiti Earthquake Fast Facts. Retrieved January 5, 2017, from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/12/world/haiti-earthquake-fast-facts/index.html
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (2017). The Philippines – Economy. Retrieved from:http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/world/philippines-the-economy.html
DENR (2011).DENR, Partners Plant 6,000 Seedlings along South Luzon Expressway. RetrievedDecember 15,2016, from: http://www.denr.gov.ph/news-and-features/latest-news/395--denr-partners-plant-6000-seedlings-along-south-luzon-expressway.html
Dhaka Tribune. (2015, September 14). People at risk due to insufficient cyclone shelters in Pirojpur.DhakaTribune. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://archive.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2015/sep/14/people-risk-due-insufficient-cyclone-shelters-pirojpur
DisasterEmergencyCommittee.(2010).Impactofthe12JanuaryEarthquake.RetrievedJanuary5,2017,fromhttps://www.dec.org.uk/articles/haiti-earthquake-facts-and-figures
Edwards,C.L.(2012).HaitiMW7.0Earthquakeof12January2010:LifelinePerformance.AmericanSocietyofCivilEngineers,MonographNo.35.
Page73of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Elgot, J.,Watts, J.,Varas,E.&Ribadeneira,M. (2016,April18).Ecuadorearthquake:at least272killedwithmany still trapped. The Guardian. Retrieved January 22, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/17/ecuador-earthquake-230-killed-magnitude-seven-point-eight
Gallego-Lopez, c. and Essex, J. (2016).Designing for InfrastructureResilience. EvidenceonDemand, London.RetrievedNovember22,2016,from:http://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/50247
GHKConsultingLimited.(2013).Bangladesh:CoastalTownsInfrastructureImprovementProject.ADBBangla-desh Assistance Consultant’s Report.RetrievedNovember 28, 2016, from https://www.adb.org/projects/documents/preparing-coastal-towns-infrastructure-improvement-project-final-report
GIZ.(2014).RepositoryofAdaptationIndicators:RealcaseexamplesfromnationalMonitoringandEvaluationSystems.RetrievedJanuary22,2017,fromhttps://gc21.giz.de/ibt/var/app/wp342P/1522?lang=en
GoneNativeLLC.(2015).LafitoGlobal–Port,IndustrialFreeZone,andPowerPlant.EnvironmentalandSocialImpact Assessment. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://disclosures.ifc.org/#/projectDetailESRS/1203
GovernmentofBangladesh,(2013a),BAN:CoastalTownsInfrastructureImprovementProjects–MathbariaTown.ResettlementPlan.RetrievedNovember28,2016,fromhttps://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/project-document/79000/44212-013-ban-rp-03.pdf
GovernmentofBangladesh.(2013b).BAN:CoastalTownsInfrastructureImprovementProject–MathbariaWa-terSupply.RetrievedNovember28,2016,fromhttps://www.adb.org/projects/documents/coastal-towns-infrastructure-improfdfasdfvement-project-mathbaria-iee
GovernmentofBangladesh.(2013c).Bangladesh:CoastalTownsEnvironmentalInfrastructureProject–Math-bariaCyclone Shelter Subproject. Initial Environmental Examination. RetrievedNovember28, 2016, fromhttps://www.adb.org/projects/documents/coastal-towns-environmental-infrastructure-project-mathbaria-cyclone-shelter-0
Grafakos, S., Gianoli, A.& Tsatsou, A. (2016). Towards theDevelopment of an Integrated Sustainability andResilienceBenefitsAssessmentFrameworkofUrbanGreenGrowthInterventions.MDPISustainability,8,1–33.
Green,R.A.etal.(2011).GeotechnicalAspectsofFailuresatPort-au-PrinceSeaportduringthe12January2010HaitiEarthquake.EarthquakeSpectra,27(S1),S43–S65.
Gupta,P.(2016,March12).LifeunderanactivevolcanoinEcuador.Aljazeera.RetrievedNovember16,2016,from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/11/life-active-volcano-ecuador-151118101849350.html
Haiti libre. (2015, February 23). Port Lafito, a historic first. Retrieved December 13, 2016, fromhttp://www.haitilibre.com/en/news-13242-haiti-economy-port-lafito-a-historic-first.html
Georgoulias,A.,Vidaurre-Roche,A.-M.&Rodrigruez, J. (2014).Sustainable Infrastructure in LatinAmerica–Infrastructure360°Awards.RetrievedNovember22,2016, from:http://research.gsd.harvard.edu/infrastructure360/listing/new-quito-international-airport-ecuador/
INFORM. (2017). INFORM country risk profiles for 191 countries. Retrieved March 2, 2017, fromhttp://www.inform-index.org/Countries/Country-profiles
InternationalFinanceCorporation(IFC).(2016).HowtoMakeInfrastructureClimateResilient.RetrievedJanu-ary12,2017,fromwww.ifc.org/thoughtleadership
InternationalFinanceCorporation.(2011).IntegratedEconomicZonesinHaiti:MarketAnalysis.RetrievedDe-cember 14, 2016, from https://www.monroecollege.edu/uploadedFiles/_Site_Assets/PDF/IEZs-in-Haiti-Market-Analysis-English-1.pdf
Page74of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
InvestigationTeamofJapanSocietyofCivilEngineering.(2008).InvestigationReportontheStormSurgeDisas-terbyCycloneSIDRin2007,Bangladesh.RetrievedNovember30,2016,fromhttp://www.jsce.or.jp/report/46/files/Bangladesh_Investigation.pdf
Jean, A. (2015). Ecuador during Volcanic Alert.Not Your Average American, Retrieved November 13, 2016,fromhttp://www.notyouraverageamerican.com/2015/08/28/ecuador-during-volcanic-alert/
JICA,NEDA,&ALMECCorporation(2014).RoadmapforTransport InfrastructureDevelopmentforMetroMa-nilaanditsSurroundingAreas.RetrievedonNovember12,2016,fromhttp://www.neda.gov.ph/roadmap-transport-infrastructure-development-metro-manila-surrounding-areas-region-iii-region-iv/
KInternational.(2016).Port-au-Prince,Haiti.RetrievedonDecember10,2016,fromhttp://www.kinternational.com/ports-of-call/port-au-prince-haiti/
Komex. (2003).NewQuito International Airport Environmental Impact Assessment. RetrievedNovember 15,2016,fromhttp://www.iadb.org/en/projects/project-description-title,1303.html?id=EC-L1005
Laumhauge,N.,Lanzi,E.&Agrawala,S.(2012).MonitoringandEvaluationforAdaptation:LessonsfromDevel-opmentCo-operationAgencies.OECDEnvironmentWorkingPapers,No.38,OECDPublishing,Paris.
Leeuw,F.&Vaessen,J. (2009). ImpactEvaluationsandDevelopment.NONIEGuidanceon ImpactEvaluation.NONIE-TheNetworkofNetworksonImpactEvaluation,Washington,US.
Liu,W.(2014).Theapplicationofresilienceassessment—resilienceofwhat,towhat,withwhat?AcasestudybasedonCaledon,Ontario,Canada.EcologyandSociety,19(4).
Lloyd’s.(2015).Lloyd’sCityRiskIndex.RetrievedFebruary16,2017,fromhttp://www.lloyds.com/cityriskindex/
Mahapatra, T. et al. (2014).CholeraOutbreaks in SoutheastAsia:DescriptiveAnalysis, 2003-2012. Japanesejournalofinfectiousdiseases67(3),145–56.
MinistryofDisasterManagementandRelief.(2013).CycloneMahasenUpdate.RetrievedNovember29,2016,from https://www.sheltercluster.org/sites/default/files/docs/Mahasen%20Update%2001%20-%2020%20May%202013.pdf
MinistryofFoodandDisasterManagement.(2007).BangladeshSuperCyclone‘Sidr’2007.RetrievedNovember28, 2016, from http://www.lcgbangladesh.org/DERweb/cyclone/docs/Sidr-12-12-07/2007-12-12_Bangladesh%20Super%20Cyclone%20%27SIDR%27%202007_MoFDM.pdf
MinistryofFoodandDisasterManagement.(2013).SummaryofCyclonicStorm«Aila».RetrievedNovember28, 2016, from http://www.lcgbangladesh.org/news/newsclip/20090526_(MoFDM%20DMIC)%20Cyclone%20Aila%20SitRep.pdf
National Geographic. (2010). Bangladesh, India Most Threatened by Climate Change, Risk Study Finds. Re-trieved February 28, 2017, from http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/10/20/bangladesh_india_at_risk_from_climate_change/
NationalResearchCouncil. (2009).SustainableCritical InfrastructureSystems:AFrameworkforMeeting21stCenturyImperatives.TheNationalAcademiesPress.
Nirapad. (2015). Disaster Incidences in Bangladesh in June, 2015. Retrieved November 28, 2016, fromhttp://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Monthly_Disaster%20Incidence%20_June%202015.pdf
OECD(2014).Guidelinesforresiliencesystemsanalysis.OECDPublishing.RetrievedDecember15,2016,fromhttp://www.oecd.org/dac/Resilience%20Systems%20Analysis%20FINAL.pdf
OECD.(2017).Ecuador.RetrievedFebruary7,2017,from:http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/ecu/
Oxfam. (2015).ACompanionGuide toResilience. Retrieved January 22, 2017, fromhttps://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/file_attachments/ml-companion-guide-resilience-040216-en_0.pdf
Page75of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
PanamericanWorld. (2016).Quito,Ecuador isOfficiallySouthAmerica’sLeadingTravelDestination for2016.Retrieved November 24, 2016, from http://www.panamericanworld.com/en/article/quito-ecuador-officially-south-americas-leading-travel-destination-2016
Pavement interactive. (2012).Natural Disasters and Highway Infrastructure. Retrieved November 16, 2016,fromhttp://www.pavementinteractive.org/2012/03/12/natural-disasters-and-highway-infrastructure/
Porio, E. (2012). Enhancingadaptation to climate changeby integrating climate risk into long termdevelop-ment plans and disaster management: The case of Manila, Philippines. Asia-Pacific Network for GlobalChange Research (APN). Retrieved from: https://www.apn-gcr.org/resources/files/original/06516ed9ac5850386cdd0d5d73f7033f.pdf
Port Strategy. (2015). Haiti aims for Carribean Hub Status. Retrieved January 14, 2017, fromhttp://www.portstrategy.com/news101/world/south-america/haiti-aiming-for-caribbean-hub-status
Pringle,P.(2011).AdaptME:Adaptationmonitoringandevaluation.UKCIP.Oxford,UK.
Quinlan, A.E., Berbés-Blázquez, M., Haider, L.J., Peterson, G.D. and Allen, C. (2015). Measuring and assessingresilience:broadeningunderstandingthroughmultipledisciplinaryperspectives.JournalofAppliedEcology,53,677–687.
Quiport. (2016c).RescuedBirdsofPreyareRehabilitatedatQuitoAirport. Retrieved January23,2017, fromhttp://www.aeropuertoquito.aero/en/news/274-rescued-birds-of-prey-are-rehabilitated-at-quito-airport.html
Rahman,S.&Rahman,M.A.(2015).ClimateextremesandchallengestoinfrastructuredevelopmentincoastalcitiesinBangladesh.WeatherandClimateExtremes,7,96–108.
Reuters. (2010). Haiti reconstruction cost may near $14 billion: IADB. Retrieved December 20, 2016, fromhttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-quake-haiti-cost-idUSTRE61F43Z20100216
Rodin, J. (2015).TheResilienceDividend:managingdisruption,avoidingdisaster,andgrowingstronger inanunpredictableworld.ProfileBooksLtd:London.
Rodrigue, J.-P. (2016). Transportation and Disasters. Retrieved November 22, 2016, fromhttps://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch9en/conc9en/ch9c5en.html
Rydge,J.,Jacobs,M.andGranoff, I. (2015).EnsuringNewInfrastructureisClimate-Smart.ContributingpaperforSeizingtheGlobalOpportunity:PartnershipsforBetterGrowthandaBetterClimate.NewClimateEcon-omy,LondonandWashington,DC.
Sanahuja,H.E.(2011).Trackingprogressforeffectiveaction:Aframeworkformonitoringandevaluatingadapta-tion to climate change, report.Global Environment Facility EvaluationOffice (GEF-EO). RetrievedMarch 15,2017 from https://www.climate-eval.org/sites/default/files/studies/Climate-Eval%20Framework%20for%20Monitoring%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Adaptation%20to%20Climate%20Change.pdf
Santos,L.,Samura,T.,Salvador,N.&Soriano,N.(2009).NorthLuzonExpressway(CEE491).RetrievedDecem-ber10,2016,from:http://www4.eng.hawaii.edu/~panos/444_09_2_2.pdf
Schipper, L. & Langston, L. (2016). A comparative overview of resilience measurement frameworks: analysingindicatorsandapproaches.OverseasDevelopmentDepartement(ODI),Workinganddiscussionpapers.
Sellberg,M.M., C.Wilkinson andG. D. Peterson. (2015). Resilience assessment: a useful approach to navigateurbansustainabilitychallenges.EcologyandSociety,20(1).
ShafqatAkanda,A.etal.(2012).WaterSecurityandPublicHealth:ImplicationsforBengalDelta.TuftsSchoolofEngineering. RetrievedNovember 28, 2016, fromhttps://issuu.com/christinadianparmionova/docs/regional_water_security_and_public_health_implicat
Page76of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
SMIC. (2006).PotentialDisasterRiskReduction StrategyElements for Ecuador. FinalDocumentpresented toInter-AmericanDevelopmentBank. Retrieved February 7, 2017, https://issuu.com/idb_publications/docs/working_en_23858
Tanner,T.M.,Surminski,S.,Wilkinson,E.,Reid,R.,Rentschler,J.E.,andRajput,S.(2015).TheTripleDividendofResilience:Realisingdevelopmentgoalsthroughthemultiplebenefitsofdisasterriskmanagement.GlobalFacilityforDisasterReductionandRecovery(GFDRR)attheWorldBank&OverseasDevelopmentInstitute(ODI),London.
teleSUR.(2016,September4).EarthquakeHitsEcuador’sCapitalofQuito.RetrievedNovember15,2016,fromhttp://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Another-Earthquake-Hits-Ecuadors-Capital-Quito-20160904-0019.html
Thomas,F.(2016,November10).Haiti–FreihandelstattHilfe.LeMondediplomatique.
Tyler,S.,Nugraha,E.,Nguyen,H.K.etal.(2014).Developingindicatorsofurbanclimateresilience.ClimateRe-silienceWorkingPaperNo.2.Boulder,CO:InstituteforSocialandEnvironmentalTransition-International.
UNISDR.(2008).Indicatorsofprogress:GuidanceonMeasuringtheReductionofDisasterRisksandtheImple-mentationoftheHyogoFrameworkforAction.InternationalStrategyforDisasterRiskReduction.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming OurWorld: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. RetrievedFebruary9,2017,fromsustainabledevelopment.un.org
WorldBank.(2005).Philippines:MeetingInfrastructureChallenges.Washington:WorldBank.
WorldBank.(2011).Philippines–TyphoonsOndoyandPepeng:postdisasterneedsassessment(MainReport).Washington,DC:WorldBank.
Page77of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
Appendix
SuReStandardCommitteeMembers
Name Organisation StakeholderGroup
PeterBoswellInternationalFederationofConsultingEn-gineers(FIDIC) ProjectDevelopers
LoaBuchli FederalOfficefortheEnvironment(FOEN) PublicSectorAlejandroEder FundaciónparaelDesarrolloIntegraldel
Pacífico(FDI-GIP)NGO
(CaicedoPérez,Mariana)HervéGuez
Mirova Finance(EmmanuelleOstiari)
ZoranJelic CommunityRealizationEuropeanAidMas-terplan(C.R.E.A.M)Europe
Others
StefanieLindenberg EuropeanInvestmentBank(EIB) FinanceAnaMarques ICLEI-LocalGovernmentsforSustainability NGOBrittaRendlen WWFSwitzerland NGO
PalashSrivastava InfrastructureDevelopmentFinanceCom-pany(IDFC)
Finance
DavideStronati MottMacDonald OthersRainerZah QuantisZürich Others
RuijieZhang ChinaAssociationofPlantEngineeringConsultants(CAPEC)
ProjectDevelopers
MadeleineVarkay AsiaPacificFinancialForum FinanceMarie-LuceGodinot BouyguesConstruction ProjectDevelopersKatharinaSchneider-Roos GIB SuRe®Secretariat
Page78of78
ValuingtheResilienceDividend
SuReStakeholderCouncilMembers
Name Organization CategorizationAlexandrinoDiogenes CityofFortaleza PublicSectorAnneMaassen WorldResourcesInstitute(WIR)RossCentre CivilSociety
ArchanaHingorani InfrastructureandLeasing&FinancialServices(IL&FS)
Developers&Con-tractors
BlakeRobinson SustainabilityInstitute Academia
CamilleMaclet EnvironmentalResourcesManagement(ERM) Certifiers&Consult-ants
CarolineHuwilerInstituteforDevelopment,EnvironmentandEnergy(IDE-E) CivilSociety
CedricGrant CityofNewOrleans PublicSector
DarioLiguti GeneralElectric Developers&Con-tractors
DeanAlborough AfricanInfrastructureInvestorsManagers(AIIM) FinancialServicesDorahNteo CityofTshwane(SouthAfrica) PublicSector
DorothéeAllain-DupreOrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevel-opment(OECD) Others
EnricoVinkInternationalFederationofConsultingEngineers(FIDIC)
Developers&Con-tractors
IngaBeie GIZ(GesellschaftfürInternationaleZusammenarbeit) OthersJasonZhengrongLu GlobalInfrastructureFacility(WB) FinancialServicesJean-PierreMéan MCELegalAvocats CivilSociety
JörgRüedi PöyrySwitzerlandDevelopersandCon-tractors
KatrinHauser Climate-KICSwitzerland CivilSocietyLindaKrueger TheNatureConservancy CivilSociety
MischaLentzEuropeanBankforReconstructionandDevelopment(EBRD) FinancialServices
NikolajGilbert UnitedNationsOfficeforProjectServices CivilSocietyOliverGreenfield GreenEconomyCoalition CivilSociety
Dr.RenardSiew SimeDarby DevelopersandCon-tractors
RobertKehew UNHabitat OthersProf.ShuaibLwasa MakerereUniversity(Uganda) AcademiaSuhailHajee ArqaamCapital FinancialServices
SilvioLeonardi True&fair.expert CertifiersandCon-sultants
TravisSheehan CityofBoston PublicSectorTimothyGeer WWFInternational CivilSocietyVanessaOtto-Mentz Santam FinancialServicesXiaomeiTan GlobalEnvironmentalFacility(GEF) FinancialServices