Upravljanje razvojem rezilijentnih gradova: primer Obrenovca

Abstract

Koncept rezilijentnog sistema označava skup raspoloživih resursa i kapaciteta kao odgovor na poremećaje u vidu izrade/formulisanja i sprovođenja efikasnih strategija prilagođavanja/adaptacije koji omogućavaju sistemu da se izbori sa sadašnjim i budućim događajima. Jačanje rezilijentnosti urbanih sistema pre svega se odnosi na uspostavljanje efikasnog upravljanja rizicima od katastrofa. U opštem smislu URK podrazumeva sprovođenje aktivnosti pre, za vreme i nakon katastrofa radi izbegavanja ili ublažavanja posledica katastrofa. Savremeni koncepti URK-a promovišu promenu prirode donošenja odluka u cilju identifikovanja benefita koncepta samoodrživosti i fokusiranost na razvoj kapaciteta za prilagođavanje klimatskim promenama (UNISDR 2014). Iako suštinska odgovornost za efikasno URK leži na državnoj upravi, koncept rezilijentnosti počiva na kapacitetima zajednice. To podrazumeva integraciju aktivnosti društva i institucija, uz snažnu institucionalnu osnovu, koja se može obezbediti putem: izgradnje kapaciteta, adekvatnog upravljanja, promocije politika i legislative, informisanja i sprovođenja efikasnih mehanizama koordinacije. Smatra se da lokalni nivo uprave predstavlja prvu liniju odgovornosti i da je stepen zaštite od katastrofa direktno zavisan on njenih kapaciteta. Iako su preduslovi za uspešno URK odgovarajuće politike i institucionalni okvir, izgradnja rezilijentnih zajednica postaje jedan od glavnih zadataka lokalne uprave. Lokalne vlasti imaju institucionalnu i političku odgovornost da zaštite svoje građane i one su prvi nivo upravljanja koji preduzima mere za smanjenje rizika od katastrofa, priprema odgovore na buduće rizike i reaguje na katastrofe (UNISDR, 2012). Kako bi se postiglo jačanje rezilijentnosti gradova, pored lokalne samouprave, moraju biti angažovani svi relevantni stejkholderi: nacionalna uprava, međunarodne i regionalne organizacije, lokalna zajednica, civilno društvo, strukovna udruženja, privatni i korporativni sektor, donatori i akademska zajednica. Unapređenje upravljanja rizicima od katastrofa na lokalnom nivou predstavlja poseban problem u slučajevima zemalja u razvoju, gde su, osim ekonomskih problema, izraženi nedovoljna razvijenost stručnih kapaciteta na nivou lokalne uprave, odsustvo strateškog urbanog razvoja, nizak stepen kontrole izgradnje i pružanja usluga te odsustvo učešća građana u odlučivanju. U radu je dat pregled najnovijih pristupa za razradu politika upravljanja rezilijentnim gradovima koje se zasnivaju na stavu da rešavanje problemâ smanjenja rizika od katastrofa treba usmeriti ka jačanju rezilijentnosti sistema u smislu povećanja sposobnosti gradova i zajednica da se blagovremeno i na efikasan način odupru, apsorbuju, prilagode i oporave od posledica prirodnih ili stvorenih katastrofa, uz očuvanje i ponovno uspostavljanje bitnih osnovnih struktura i funkcija.

Climate change and issues of urban governance Climate change has in recent years become a key topic for policymakers globally, as well as an indispensable framework for governance instruments. The warnings issued by the scientific and professional community about the dangers of climate change (IPCC, 2007; IPCC, 2012) are no longer viewed with suspicion, given the increasingly frequent natural disasters that have been causing great loss of life, destruction and degradation of the environment, massive property damage, and economic losses. The impact of natural disasters on hundreds of millions of people worldwide has spurred policymakers to take urgent steps to address these issues appropriately (UNDP, 2012). The common position is that efforts to respond to climate change ought to be directed at enhancing resilience by improving the ability of cities and communities to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of a natural hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including the preservation and restoration of their essential basic structures and functions (UNISDR, 2011). The resilient system concept and disaster risk management (DRM) The resilient system concept denotes a set of available resources and capacities that can be deployed in response to disturbances and that involve the development/formulation and implementation of efficient adjustment/adaptation strategies to allow a system to deal with current and future events. Enhancing the resilience of urban systems primarily entails establishing efficient DRM. In general, DRM implies taking action before, during, and after disasters to avoid or mitigate their consequences. Modern DRM concepts promote changes of the nature of decision-making to ensure that benefits of sustainability are recognised, and capacity is developed, for adaptation to climate change (UNISDR 2014). Although the ultimate responsibility for efficient DRM rests with public administration, the concept of resilience is founded upon the capacities of the community itself. This implies integration between the activities of society and those of institutions, together with a robust institutional foundation that can be secured through capacity-building, appropriate governance, promotion of policies and legislation, provision of information, and implementation of efficient co-ordination mechanisms. DRM at the local level Local government is seen as the first line of response, and its capacity is thought to directly affect the degree of disaster protection available. Although appropriate policies and institutional framework are preconditions for successful DRM, the development of resilient communities is increasingly becoming a primary duty of local authorities. Local governments have the institutional and political responsibility for protecting their residents, and are the first level of government to take measures to reduce disaster risk, come up with answers to future risks, and respond to disasters (UNISDR, 2012). Apart from local authorities, all other relevant stakeholders must engage to make cities more resilient: these include national governments, international and regional organisations, local communities, the civil society, professional associations, private and corporate sectors, donors, and academia. Enhancing disaster risk management at the local level is particularly a problem for developing countries, where economic issues are compounded by the lack of professional capacity in local government, absence of strategic urban development, poor oversight of construction and service delivery, and exclusion of citizens from decision-making. The DRM model as applied in Obrenovac In May 2014, catastrophic floods struck Serbia and the broader region. This disaster caused the greatest damage to Obrenovac, a town within the metropolitan area of Belgrade, the Serbian capital. The floodwaters completely inundated Obrenovac after embankments had given way along two of the three rivers surrounding the settlement. The floods killed 17 people and forced 25,000 local inhabitants to temporarily evacuate their homes. The damage, as well as relief and recovery costs, ran into billions of euros. In both Obrenovac and other 24 affected communities in Serbia, the May 2014 flooding was the consequence of the interaction between natural and man-made factors. The primary natural cause was extreme precipitation, with 100-year recurrence for many river basins and even 1000-year recurrence for some. The most significant man-made aspects were the lack of communication between authorities concerning warnings of massive precipitation and forecasts indicating that rising water levels would trigger emergency measures; incomplete flood defence systems along riverbanks; and exceptionally poor maintenance of regulated riverbeds and defensive embankments. Systemic issues mainly involved the lack of investment into anti-erosion works and afforestation; inadequate spatial and urban planning and illicit construction close to urban watercourses; inadequate waste disposal arrangements that reduced stream flow and dramatically increased water pollution; etc. (Milosavljevic, 2014). The damage caused to the members of the public and the environment revealed the true state of the disaster management sector in Serbia’s towns. The experience with the floods drew attention to the need to construct a comprehensive risk management system and embrace the concept of resilience as a key framework for spatial planning and development. Although major advances have been made over the past decade to enhance DRM and incorporate disaster risk reduction into urban and spatial governance in Serbia (legislation, strategic documents, state of play reports), legislation remains insufficiently interlinked and mutually aligned, and governance instruments are still inadequate, as are the human capacities to implement them, especially at the local level. Development of a DRM model for Obrenovac ‘Disaster Risk Management at the Local Level’ was the title of a final project carried out by the students of the Integrated Urbanism master’s programme for the academic year 2014/15. Students’ master’s theses and designs were developed in collaboration with the GIZ-AMBERO project ‘Strengthening of Local Land Management in Serbia’, and focused on the issue of climate change and its impact on urban development in the context of the catastrophic flooding that affected Serbia in the spring of 2014. The project relied on How to Make Cities More Resilient, a handbook published by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISD, 2012), and the sub-topics highlighted in this document. The urban municipality of Obrenovac, which suffered most damage in the 2014 floods, was chosen as the test site for the designs. Work on students’ assignments was conceptually based on the five-step process identified in the UNISDR report: 1) Organising and preparing to incorporate the ‘ten essentials’ for resilient cities; 2) Diagnosis and assessment of the city’s risk; 3) Developing a safe and resilient city action plan; 4) Implementing the plan; and 5) Monitoring and follow-up. The students’ works involved the development of the first three steps. These ‘ten essentials’, as defined in the UNISDR handbook, formed the backbone of the students’ assignments: 1. institutional and administrative framework; 2. financing and resources; 3. multi-hazard risk assessment; 4. infrastructure protection, upgrading and resilience; 5. protect vital facilities: Education and health; 6. building regulations and land use planning; 7. training, education and public awareness; 8. environmental protection and strengthening of ecosystems; 9. effective preparedness, early warning and response; 10. recovery and rebuilding communities (UNISDR, 2012). Students’ final works represent a collection of integrated urban designs intended to manage flood risk in the territory of the Municipality of Obrenovac, and taken together constitute an outline of Safe and Resilient Action Plan that corresponds to the recommendations of the UNISDR handbook (Fokdal & Zehner, 2016; Maruna & Čolić, 2015; Maruna et al., 2015; Čolić et al, 2015).