!!

!!

Centre for Environmental Change and Human Resilience !!!!!!!!!!

Learning Lessons from Developing Community Resilience Plans in

Scotland !

!!!!!

Christopher Lyon and Ioan Fazey !!!

Centre for Environmental Change and Human Resilience University of Dundee

!!!!

Prepared for the Scottish Government Resilience Division

February 2015 !!!!!

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY !!!Developing widespread emergency resilience at the community level is a new policy and practice area with little precedent within Scotland and elsewhere. As such, there are valuable lessons to be learned from the recent experience of developing community resilience plans by Local Authorities (LAs). This study therefore aimed to learn lessons from three Council areas (Argyll and Bute, Stirling, and Scottish Borders) that have been particularly active in developing community based resilience plans. The study sought to answer four questions: !

1) How have local plans been developed and what strategies were used to develop them?

2) While developing plans and implementing strategies, what worked and did not work?

3) What are the future directions, opportunities, and recommendations for developing future localised community based resilience projects?

4) How have understandings of resilience by the Scottish Government (SG), LAs, and Community Councils (CCs) affected the implementation of plans?

!At the time of the study, projects were maturing in all LAs with many communities either having plans, or on track to developing them. Projects had been ongoing for 2- 5 years. The process of developing plans is therefore best understood as a multi- year process, requiring predictable and appropriate levels of staffing, funding, political, and technical support. The projects had resulted in three main successes: the development of plans in local communities, increased awareness within communities and LAs about resilience, and enhanced relationships, trust and collaboration between LAs, communities and Scottish Government. The report outlines the key principles and actions that generated these successes to help inform future resilience projects. !Frequent, consistent, enthusiastic and sustained face-to-face engagement with Community Councils by LA resilience staff was essential for maintaining community interest. This required maintaining open communication channels (e.g. meetings, workshops, forums, etc.). Providing robust and useful equipment, training, and financial support for Community Councils also increased interest and likelihood of delivery of localised plans. Promoting projects within and outside of LAs was also critical for continuity and resourcing of projects. Further, differences in the extent and timing of catalysing events (e.g. severe weather) resulted in differences in the initial resourcing and political support for the projects. This highlights the need for projects to capitalise on opportunities when they arise and for strategies that enable maintenance of political support in more benign times when crises are less frequent. !There were also significant challenges, some of which were very difficult to overcome. These included limits to the involvement of Community Councils which have limited remit, resources, and capacities (e.g. available time and age of members); complex internal social dynamics and politics in communities which are usually not visible to outsiders and present obstacles to developing resilience plans, and urban areas that had larger populations but less coherent social relations. Therefore, while developing resilience plans was a useful social hook for

encouraging engagement in many communities, other approaches are likely to be required in areas where it is difficult to initiate engagement. !Importantly, however, the value of the projects was not only through developing localised plans. There were many spin-offs from the extensive engagement activities conducted by project staff with CCs. Such work provided a foundation for changing the relationship between LAs and CCs in many areas, including enhancing trust and collaboration. Overall, when planning a similar project, it is therefore important to consider both the extent to which the project is primarily meant to be for delivering plans (i.e. viewing the project as a means to an end) and the extent to which the process itself is important for enhancing relations upon which future initiatives can be built (i.e. viewing the process as an end in itself). Resilience projects also need to be integrated much more fully in planning and development initiatives and policies that can address some of the underlying issues that affect the factors that underpin resilience, such as social cohesion and socio-economic conditions. !In terms of future directions, it is important to highlight that while many communities have plans, only two, at the time the data for this study was collected, had been activated in real emergencies. There is therefore a need to test plans in live or table- top exercises, and to learn from both exercises and most importantly, occasions when plans are activated. SG and LAs in this study therefore need to: (1) continue to work towards learning how to improve plans and responses by communities using live or table top exercises with communities and (2) develop guidance and support for communities to test plans themselves and consider how to involve communities in de-briefing to enhance learning and partnerships after emergencies. Finally, the many lessons learned through delivering the projects by LA staff were highly valuable for resilience and other projects more widely. To avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’, specific opportunities for sharing the lessons (e.g. a workshop on resilience projects involving those who have already delivered projects and others) would be valuable. The Community Resilience Unit in the SG Resilience Division is in a unique position to encourage such activities.

!

!!!!!!!

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS !This report was funded by the Scottish Government Resilience Division in collaboration with participating Local Authorities. The authors extend their thanks to active engagement of interviewees and other participants of this research,

Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1

2 Background and policy 2

3 Methods 5

4 How have local plans been developed and what strategies have been used to develop them? 5

5 What worked and what did not work when delivering the projects? 9

6 Future directions, threats, opportunities, and insights 14

7 How have understandings of resilience affected resilience projects? 16

8 Conclusions and recommendations 19

9 References 21

10 Appendices 22

Table of Acronyms !

!!

ABC Argyll and Bute Council CC Community Council IEM Integrated Emergency Management LA Local Authority LRP Local Resilience Partnership NHS National Health Service RRP Regional Resilience Partnership SC Stirling Council ScoRDS Scottish Resilience Development Service SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency SG Scottish Government

1 !

!!!

1 INTRODUCTION !1.1 This study, conducted between mid-2013 and late-2014, examines issues and

lessons learned from the development and implementation of community resilience plans1 at the community council (CC) and local authority (LA) levels. Community resilience plans are local level plans designed to provide communities with some capacity to respond to a range of emergencies in a way that complements but does not replace the role of statutory service providers (e.g. police, fire, and LAs) in the event of an emergency. Emergencies include events such as missing persons, floods and storms, and air or marine disasters. This approach represents a departure from traditional emergency management which in the past tended to understand communities as victims and centres response planning on service providers and emergency services.

!1.2 Learning from communities for resilience planning is important because

communities operate differently to specialised emergency responders with legally bound roles in that they are comprised of members of the general public without defined roles in an emergency. Community resilience planning recognises that community members and local organisations nonetheless possess skills, knowledge and capacities that can be organised and mobilised to help communities prepare for and respond to emergencies.

!1.3 The aim of the study is to learn lessons from three Council areas (Argyll and

Bute, Stirling, and Scottish Borders) that have been particularly active in developing community resilience plans. To address the aim, the study answers four questions:

!

Q1. How have local plans been developed and what strategies were used to develop them?

Q2. While developing plans and implementing strategies, what worked and did not work?

Q3. What are the future directions, opportunities, and recommendations for developing future localised community based resilience projects?

Q4. How have understandings of resilience by the Scottish Government (SG), LAs, and CCs affected the implementation of plans?

!1.4 The intended audiences for this study are: (1) Local Authorities (LAs) wanting

to develop strategies for community resilience plans; (2) divisions of the SG responsible for assisting LAs implementing and developing plans; and (3) divisions of SG and LAs responsible for identifying ways to engage with communities.

!1.5 This report presents lessons learned from project managers and community

councillors about the processes used to develop local community resilience !!

1 Local Authorities sometimes refer to ‘resilience plans’ as ‘emergency plans’. Scottish Borders intentionally refers to community resilience as resilient communities.

2 !

plans through projects initiated by LAs. It is not meant to be an evaluation of the success of these initiatives or assess what makes a ‘good plan’. Examples of plans and guidelines for producing them can be found at Readyscotland.org.

!

1.6 The report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 briefly outlines the origins of community resilience planning in Scotland, followed by Chapter 3 which describes the research methods. Chapters 4-7 outline the findings with respect to each of the four questions. Chapter 8 provides key conclusions and recommendations. Detailed descriptions of the study regions, types of participants, and results are provided in appendices.

!!2 BACKGROUND AND POLICY !2.1 This section summarises information from several SG policy documents

related to national and community level resilience policy and practice. The structures of Scottish resilience policy is sourced in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (UK Cabinet Office, 2004).

!Scottish resilience definitions and frameworks !2.2 Localised resilience plans have been developed through the work of different

LAs in Scotland. They are, however, part of a wider context of emergency resilience planning. This planning is centred on a conceptualisation of resilience which focuses on “maintaining the continuity of our way of life or returning to relative normality after an disruptive event” at the system, community and individual levels (Scottish Government, 2012, p. 03).

!2.3 Under this definition, the level of the “system” is understood to be the

“infrastructures, networks, and processes which sustain society”; community are the geographical locations and groups of shared interests; and the individual is the “man or woman on the street” (Scottish Government, 2012, p. 03). In other words, a person is part of one or more communities , and communities are sustained by complex systems of economic, ecological, and political relationships that provide it with resources such as income, energy and food (Berkes and Ross, 2013; Lyon and Parkins, 2013). Communities are thus both vulnerable to hazards and events (e.g. flooding) but can also contribute to resilience through preparation, including through building capacity to respond during crises and to work collaboratively with professional emergency responders (Prior and Eriksen, 2013; Scottish Government, 2013a).

!2.4 The development of resilience in Scotland is based on the doctrine of

Integrated Emergency Management (IEM). This is a flexible and adaptive multi-agency approach involving assessment, prevention, preparation, response, and recovery (Scottish Government, 2012).

!2.5 In this approach statutory Category 1 (LAs, Emergency Services, NHS,

SEPA, and others) and Category 2 (Energy and water suppliers, airport, harbour, and rail operators, and others) and certain third sector organisations

3 !

(e.g. mountain rescue groups, British Red Cross) work together to prepare for and respond to emergencies under a common philosophy and understanding of practice.

!2.6 The IEM approach used by the SG is considered an “all-risks” model, and

stems from the assumption that although “emergencies can be caused by a wide range of factors, the effects are similar” (Resilience Division, 2013, p. 4). The approach includes a distinct philosophy, principles, structures, and regulatory good practice guidance relating to diverse issues such as responding to emergencies, care for people, mass fatalities, business continuity, fuel disruption and guidance on conducting exercises2.

!2.7 In IEM, responses are organised at the strategic, tactical, and operational

levels of management (Scottish Government, 2013b). The strategic level focusses on the big picture, such as broader and longer-term impacts, response strategy, and communication, and the “framework, policy, and parameters” for the lower two levels of management. The tactical level management is responsible for efficiently and effectively coordinating resources toward an emergency. The operational level is the immediate work at the site of the emergency by first responders. In many cases, and especially within the more remote regions of Scotland, members of local communities are those first on the scene of an emergency and thus can play important roles in supporting operational levels (Scottish Government, 2013a, 2013b).

!2.8 For planning purposes, Scotland is geographically divided into three Regional

Resilience Partnerships (RRPs), which are in turn divided into Local Resilience Partnerships (LRPs) (Scottish Government, 2013b). These are multi-agency groupings that aim to facilitate better interagency coordination of planning and responses to emergencies.

!2.9 Together, these aspects form the overall operational policy of Scottish

emergency resilience plans. The next section explains how this policy applies at the community level.

!Community resilience planning !2.10 The Resilience Division of SG understands there are many perspectives on

community resilience, but for the purposes of doctrine, defines it as: !

“Communities and individuals harnessing resources and expertise to help themselves prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies, in a way that complements the work of emergency responders.” (Scottish Government, 2013a, 2012)

!!!

2 A full description of the organisation of the hub to this approach can be found in: Scottish Government, 2012. Preparing Scotland: Scottish guidance on resilience. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. This document, as well as additional guidance on each of these spokes may be found at http://www.readyscotland.org/ready-government/preparing-scotland/

4 !

2.11 While the SG, and Category 1 and 2 responders have statutory obligations to co-operate to prepare for and deal with emergencies, communities and voluntary CCs do not.

!2.12 Community resilience planning nonetheless focusses on the preparedness of

individuals, communities and organisations for emergencies (Scottish Government 2013a,b). It is based on the idea that investing in the development of community resilience can provide potentially high returns for responders with statutory obligations, as it “can unlock skills, knowledge and resources held by the entire community” (Scottish Government 2013a). It is also based on the idea that enhancing community resilience can bring individuals and groups together in ways that enhance, or build on social cohesion (Scottish Government 2013a).

!2.13 The SG recognises that communities are diverse and comprise an uneven

distribution of individuals and groups with capacities to respond to emergencies. Therefore, the SG stresses using “joined-up methods” for developing community resilience. This means involving groups and people with various expertise, such as social workers and roads departments in the preparedness and response process, particularly at the local authority level, so that communities understand the kinds of resources available to them (Scottish Government, 2013a).

!2.14 The approach to community resilience is also based on the concept of

community development, and involves providing knowledge and skills needed for individuals and organisations within local communities to effect change, through engagement, education, empowerment and encouragement (Scottish Government 2013a).

!2.15 In practice, this has meant that some LAs have been working closely with

CCs and other groups to develop community resilience plans. These plans are generally based on an understanding of the risks and capacities at community levels. They involve groups of individuals (e.g. CCs) reflecting on, considering, and developing contingency plans in ways that enhance their resilience to diverse hazards and events. They can range from relatively simple plans that identify key resources and contacts, to more sophisticated plans that are integrated with LA and emergency service activities.

!2.16 In addition to enabling communities to become more prepared for

emergencies, the process of developing a community resilience plan also helps to identify how communities can work more in partnership with agencies that have statutory obligations. Unlike structured organisations with clearly defined purposes such as LAs, police, and gas and electricity companies, communities themselves have no statutory or clearly defined roles and are subject to internal social dynamics that are invisible to outsiders, including local conflicts or mistrust of LAs or SG. This can make it difficult for responders to know what communities are able to do for themselves or the kinds of support they may require. Community resilience plans therefore help to overcome these challenges by training and equipping communities to take on predictable, pre-defined roles in an emergency. This may include tasks such as making tea and sandwiches for emergency victims and responders,

5 !

to more complex duties like populating volunteer search teams for missing persons or using defibrillators. Community resilience plans are therefore intended to offer communities a way to harness existing cohesion in a way that gives them greater autonomy in emergencies, and allows statutory responders to integrate community capacities into tactical and operational level planning.

!2.17 The level of involvement in development and sophistication of resilience plans

varies across Scottish LAs and communities, based on the staffing, funding, and other capacities within each group to develop resilience plans. While LAs have paid expert staff to develop and implement resilience planning and provided infrastructure (e.g. emergency communications systems), CCs and other organisations such as regional flood forums are voluntary and very limited. Community resilience planning in some LAs have attempted to offset these material limitations through education and encouragement aimed at cultural change facilitated by learning to help communities understand and more effectively respond to emergencies (Scottish Government, 2013a).

!!3 METHODS !3.1 This research focused on learning lessons from three case study LA areas.

Case studies involve a close examination of a particular social context, event, or phenomena from which specific and more general information can be obtained (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Hamel et al., 1993; Yin, 1994).

!3.2 The three case studies were Scottish Borders Council (SBC), Argyll and Bute

Council (ABC), and Stirling Council (SC). These were chosen as at the time of collecting data, they had relatively mature processes and projects for developing localised resilience plans in Scotland. Details of the different LAs can be found in Appendix 3.

!3.3 Three primary forms of data collection were used: (1) semi-structured

interviews with members of CCs, LAs, police, and the SG (total N = 45); (2) participant observation and associated field notes of community, area-level resilience meetings and SG workshops (e.g. table-top resilience exercises); and (3) Stakeholder workshops (August 2014) with each LA to elicit knowledge and insights about the strategies, actions and lessons learned by managers of community resilience initiatives over time; and (4) a final workshop (November 2014) with stakeholders from all three LAs to confirm the contents of the draft report and address any inaccuracies or shortcomings. These workshops also enabled participants to share learning and reflect on the process (Chambers, 2002). Appendix 2 lists the locations, events, interviews, and numbers of participants that comprise primary the data used for this study.

!3.4 Data was analysed through an iterative processes where key themes and

insights were identified and integrated, with results presented as a collated set of findings. Comments on final versions of the report were obtained from project staff in the LAs to ensure that their insights had been reported accurately.

6 !

4 HOW HAVE LOCAL PLANS BEEN DEVELOPED AND WHAT STRATEGIES WERE USED TO DEVELOP THEM?

!4.1 As there was no previous blueprint, the projects to develop local community

plans occurred through an evolving process, which relied on regular reviews and refinements activities and strategies. At the time of this study, the projects had generally been ongoing for 2-5 years in all three LAs.

!4.2 There were strong similarities in the kinds of activities undertaken by the

different LAs to deliver the projects. These process-oriented actions are described in Table 1, which provides an overview of the kinds of activities that need to be considered for projects to develop local plans. Full details of the activities undertaken by the different LAs are provided in Appendices 3.

!4.3 There were also many similarities in the way in which the projects unfolded

(Figure 1). Projects usually involved an initial year or so of developing ideas, gaining political support for resourcing and staffing and piloting work with local communities. This was followed by an additional year or two of intensifying engagement with communities, developing plan guidelines and templates, and conducting promotional activities such as presentations and road shows, conducting training and providing support. In the third or fourth year of the projects, responsibility for delivery in oneof the LAs was given back to existing resilience staff as key funding for dedicated project staff came to an end. In all cases, at the time of data collection, resilience related staff were trying to find new ways to maintain or increase activities (e.g. through galvanising the support of volunteers).

!4.4 There were, however some key differences in how the projects unfolded in the

different LAs. This was often due to the relationship between the catalysing events that led to the projects in the first place and the levels of resourcing projects received. Together these issues set certain trajectories in the kinds of resources made available to staff which affected the way in which projects were delivered. In ABC for example, the impact of a heavy snowfall and ice accumulation isolated and cut power from a number of communities provided a very strong incentive for finding ways to enhance local community resilience and increase the effectiveness of emergency response. This weather event led to the activation of community resilience plans in two locations. In this instance, the neighbouring CC activated their plan in order to help the impacted CC, showing that local plans may also facilitate aid to nearby locations. Ultimately, this led to significant investment in resources for employing additional staff to deliver the project on community resilience plans.

!4.5 Conversely, the SBC did not experience such extreme catalysing events, and

consequently needed to put more effort into gaining initial political support within and outside the LA to deliver the project. In SC, there was also no initial catalysing event, but greater engagement with CCs occurred after an extreme winter after the project had started. This then led to the development of reference groups that included community councillors as part of a dialogue to help re-organise public service delivery. The impetus for the projects,

7 !

combined with the differences in resourcing levels thus resulted in slightly different pathways through which projects were delivered.

!4.6 These differences in the way projects were instigated highlight that: (1) it is

important to make best use of the opportunities provided by catalysing events for enhancing capacity for resilience staff to implement resilience initiatives because they are more likely to get support from communities, LA senior managers, and SG; (2) these opportunities can emerge at any stage in the project cycle and be used in different ways with different effects; (3) project staff need to have a strategy to ensure that political support and resource allocation is maintained during more benign periods when catalysing events do not occur; and (4) where LAs do not currently feel that they have the resources to devote to such community resilience planning projects, it may therefore still be useful to develop a simple strategy to consider how they can make best use of catalysing events and the sudden increases in political support when they do occur.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Figure 1: Process stages. A generalised representation of the timing of different key process oriented activities during resilience planning projects. Darker shading represents more intensive activity for a particular action. Lighter shading indicates less activity, and no shading minimal or no activity. The shading under training for community councils indicates continuous moderate effort over the time period.

8 !

Table 1: The different activities involved in the resilience initiatives !

Process Oriented Activities

Description

Pilot projects for developing plans With selected communities

Involved selecting communities for developing community resilience plans in a given council area, usually in the first year or two of the initiative. Pilot projects were learning opportunities that helped both CCs and LAs understand how to begin to develop resilience plans and engage communities.

Community engagement by LAs with CCs

Included the efforts by LA to engage CCs to encourage or aid them in developing resilience plans. These efforts included face-to-face meetings, presentations, telephone calls, and other forms of communication or facilitation. Continued, frequent, persistent engagement was essential to ensure CC buy-in and development of plans.

Ensuring political support internally and externally

Promotion of community resilience initiatives to relevant departments and elected members within LA departments and beyond (e.g. SG). This was key to securing staffing, resources and funding for the initiatives. It included both informal processes and more formal ones, such as activities that showcased benefits of the plans and stimulated interest and motivation in resilience planning among elected members.

Testing/Exercising plans

Community resilience plans were tested through scenario-based activities such as tabletop and live mobilisations. Exercising tended to occur once robust plans have been developed by/for CCs, and equipment and training are provided to CCs, and the LA secures internal and external support. Further testing was intended by all LAs, and identified key lessons and plans to be adjusted.

Activation of plans At the time of collecting data, community resilience plans were activated on two occasions in ABC, both for weather related events (heavy snowfall and ice; storms). These events highlighted opportunities to enhance existing plans through improvisation and practice. For example, the improvisation to use postal delivery people to reach hard to find residents in one area was not part of the plan but proved to be very effective and was therefore incorporated into planning, post-event.

Training of CCs Practical skills training for CCs and volunteers including first aid, equipment use, and other skills. Providing training opportunities encouraged participation and buy-in from community members and CCs as well as enhancing local response capacities.

Provision of equipment to communities

Provision of equipment by the LA to CCs such as emergency kits, shovels, grit boxes and other items increased community interest and participation in the resilience planning and increased local capacity in emergencies.

Developing plans/guidance by LAs for CCs

Leaflets, guides, templates, examples and hands-on support were important for helping communities developing resilience plans. They enhanced the technical and conceptual details of resilience planning.

Financial management and support

Actions, mechanisms, and resources that provide financial means for LAs and CCs to develop resilience plans. Stable, predictable, robust financial support helps LAs understand their capacity to provide administrative, training, and equipment support to CCs.

9 !

!

Technical enabling an operational support

Infrastructure, technical, service reviews and other support for planning, such as communications systems, coordination facilities, and other specialised support not covered under other process items build community and area-wide capacities to anticipate and respond to emergencies. E.g. Scottish Borders emergency alert system.

Team management and service delivery

Effective team management ensures there is adequate staffing to maintain service delivery and support for community resilience planning from the beginning. In practice this required recruiting knowledgeable and enthusiastic people in LAs, with stable funding to maintain the continuity of positions.

!!

5 WHAT WORKED AND WHAT DID NOT WORK WHEN DELIVERING THE PROJECTS?

!What Worked and Why

!5.1 Projects were generally considered to be successful by project staff in

delivering three key outcomes: (1) development of locally based community resilience plans in and by a large number of CCs; (2) increased awareness in communities and LAs about the importance of, and involvement in enhancing, resilience in local communities; and (3) enhanced and new relationships between LAs, local communities, and other agencies that increased resilience and operability.

!5.2 These successes occurred through three key means: (1) Having a sufficiently

resourced project team, including provision of staffing, financial, political, and technical support; (2) enthusiastic, knowledgeable LA project teams for engaging communities, promoting resilience initiatives within LAs essential for programme continuity, and identifying partner opportunities and resources externally, such as from the SG; and (3) continued engagement with the communities throughout the projects. This required an open and inclusive partnership approach that built relationships and trust. In many cases, this required both LA staff and those within communities to alter their perspectives about ownership of and responsibility for resilience issues within communities.

!5.3 Overall, successes were achieved through applying 14 implicit and explicit

principles (Figure 2 and Table 2). While the principles are based on the lessons learned from projects that aimed to develop localised resilience plans, they are also relevant to a diversity of other resilience related community based initiatives. The principles are not meant to be prescriptive. Instead, they are intended to provide guidance to LAs about the kinds of approaches that are needed for community resilience initiatives to be successful.

10 !

!

!

Figure 2: Key principles for developing community based resilience plans and other community resilience initiatives.

!

!!Challenges !5.4 There were many challenges encountered during the projects. These ranged

from strategic issues such as securing political and budget support, to technical issues such as the initial quality of snow-shovels provided to CCs in one area (Table 3). Key to overcoming these challenges was the ability of enthusiastic and motivated staff to draw support from funders and be responsive to CCs as problems occurred. Again, continued engagement at all levels was critical to addressing the problems. Table 4 lists the main challenges and lessons that LAs and CCs encountered in developing these plans.

11 !

Table 3: Description of the key principles !!

Principle !

Description !

Promote !

Secure and maintain political support and buy-in both within a LA (e.g. across departments) and externally (e.g. SG, elected members);

!

Plan !

Develop a clear implementation plan and strategy and where necessary break down focal areas into more manageable groups of communities.

!

Clarity & Coherence

!

Keep aims and objectives clear and continuously communicate them.

!

Engage !

Engage with stakeholders from the start, continuously, and through every possible means. Make actions and projects relevant, respect communities, be aware of local context (each community and their needs and capacities are different), always sell the benefits (e.g. local training, equipment), link business and individual resilience, and develop relationships.

!

Work in Partnership

!

Work with multi-agencies for effectiveness (e.g. using planning partnerships). Communities appreciate this.

!

Communicate !

Through regular dialogue, listening, openness, honesty, and continuous explanation of what has been done and what is happening. Use regular forums or collective meetings to informally encourage discussion in a ‘safe space’ conducive to sharing experiences and learning.

!

Resource & Sustain

!

Allocate appropriate and realistic human resources and funding. A full time person is usually required, plus administration, development, corporate support and operational costs. Initiatives need to be viewed as a long term process and need to be sustained.

!

Enthuse !

Build on and use enthusiasm: conduct activities with drive and identify, engage with, and support other enthusiastic individuals from communities and different organisations.

!

Review !

Regularly review, adapt, provide feedback, conduct exercises and apply what is learnt.

!

Support !

Support community activities such as through providing insurance. This is a critical issue that community members need to be able to engage with resilience activities.

!

Train !

Develop and implement plans for training (e.g. first aid, using defibrillators, communication, exercising, handbooks). However, while training is important, lack of resources for training does not need to hinder the unlocking of existing skills, knowledge and motivation in communities.

!

Empower !

Empower communities through collaboration and participation in ways that enhance autonomy, motivation, build capacity and community cohesion. This also requires reflection by SG, LAs and other professional organisations about how their approach to engaging with communities enhances or hinders empowerment of communities.

!

Capitalise !

Make use of the engagement, relationships and trust built through the process, such as ‘piggy-backing’ other projects on resilience initiatives.

!

Build Legacy !

Create a long-lasting legacy by embedding resilience in day to day initiatives and through continued promotion so that it becomes business as usual. Link community activities with other LA activities and use relationships to create two way dialogues about what is happening.

12 !

!

Table 4: Key challenges and solutions used to address them !!

Challenge !

Solution !

Setting up the community resilience initiative within the LA.

!

In the first year, the LA benefits from an enthusiastic, capable and knowledgeable resilience team, and provide them with the appropriate terms of reference as well as financial and technical support. The terms of reference and guidelines for the resilience team should be broad or flexible enough to allow for room to meaningfully address challenges as they emerge.

!

Maintaining multi-year financial and technical support to LA resilience.

!

Resilience development is a multi-year project and requires stable, multi-year support. Set-up, including securing resources, engaging communities, and beginning pilot projects reasonably occupies the first two years and requires sustained effort at all levels. Widespread uptake begins in year two at the earliest and will likely continue beyond the four or five year mark to subscribe all CCs within a council area.

!

Ensuring community volunteers are covered by insurance

!

Insurance coverage uncertainty emerged as key concern for LA and CCs. LA have addressed this by working with their insurers or other companies to develop new or expand and clarify existing coverage for CC members and volunteers during emergencies.

!

Resistance from other staff and elected members at LA

!

Remedies to this is included producing a Memorandum of Understanding for staff that clearly outlined staff and department roles and strategic direction. In addition internal promotion through face-to-face meetings demonstrated usefulness and results in order to change mind-sets. Completed community resilience plans proved to be good show-case materials for LA staff and elected members.

!

Lack of interest, scepticism, or confusion from CCs

!

Trust and support from CCs was earned by the LA through continual face-to-face engagement in communities, using every opportunity to communicate with communities, stress benefits, provide equipment and training, inject humour, and produce tailored plans and material. Support by respected local figures (e.g. police officer or elected representative) was also very useful in gaining CC support.

!

Financial support for resilience planning by CCs

!

Building a knowledge base of available funding opportunities (e.g. SG, other partners), explore partnerships, gaining buy-in from elected members helped to secure financial and budget support for community resilience plans. Changes to legislation and regulations to allow CCs to independently raise funds for resilience planning was also suggested as a possible remedy.

!

Political sensitivity and exposure due to challenging existing ways of doing things

!

Promote the success of others' plans and initiatives, gaining broad- based support from CCs and partners through careful negotiation, communication, outcome focussed meetings and strategies helped overcome political sensitivities and exposure and achieve buy-in.

!

Effective inter- organisational teamwork

!

Regular communication and coordination through meetings, catch- ups, and reporting meant that internal LA teams, and coordination with external partners (e.g. SG) worked smoothly and effectively.

!

Poor quality equipment and storage, timely delivery

!

Investing in high quality equipment (e.g. snow shovels) from the beginning, liaise with CCs on storage facilities and locations, bespoke community needs, and delivery issues mitigated these

13 !

!

! kinds of logistical issues.

!

Lack of youth interest and participation (e.g. not “cool”)

!

Promotion of resilience in schools, working with Education Scotland for curriculum inclusion, making it relevant and attractive to youth (e.g. video project) helped stimulated youth interest.

!

CC limitations (e.g. voluntary, unpaid, working/retired members)

!

Funding for paid positions in CCs, recognition and management of the capacities of CC members, frequent face-to-face communication, providing further support and resources helped to overcome some of these limitations. Issues still remain regarding the dynamics within councils and communities as well the statutory limitations of CCs.

!

Setting a practical quality standard for community plans

!A key challenge highlighted by ABC involved setting a good and realistic quality standard for plans. Plans in some cases evolved to be poorly conceived with very little detail, whilst in other areas they are impractically too detailed or catered to emergencies in which the community has little or no practical role given its specific nature and/or statutory conditions (e.g. nuclear, biological, or chemical disasters). The plans from many Island based communities in in ABC were mostly considered to be good benchmarks in terms of a practical standard for others being, well structured, with achievable goals/expectations, and good partnership with the LA.

!

Disinterest and resistance in urban settings with higher populations

!

Urban settings contain larger populations and less personal social cohesion than smaller communities as well as a different array of services and infrastructure and associated risks. Challenges remain regarding the most effective way of developing resilience plans in these areas, including the most appropriate scale. More individual resilience approaches in the form of household kits and or personal training may help address these issues.

14 !

6 FUTURE DIRECTIONS, THREATS, OPPORTUNITIES AND INSIGHTS

!6.1 By August 2014, all three councils had reached a point where delivery of the

initial projects had come to an end, high ratios completed plans by CCs was achieved, and were now entering a new phase of work to build on and maintain community engagement. In some LAs, work was being devolved back to immediate resilience staff as part of a suite of other existing duties. While such work will continue and will build on previous successes, changes in resourcing in some of the councils may limit the extent to which future work can be accomplished.

!6.2 Nevertheless, in all councils, a strong motivation to continue the work

remained. Examples of intended future actions included: Developing an e- learning package for developing localised plans, continued development of plans with CCs, encouraging CCs to work with schools, strategically working to sustain initiatives, improving resource allocation, setting new targets, conducting exercises with communities, conducting road shows, linking business resilience with community resilience at the level of LAs, keeping plans up to date, developing an integrated future resilience strategy for Community Planning Partnerships, disseminating plans and lessons more widely, further engaging with multi-agency partners, continuing to conduct training, and developing more effective communication plans.

!6.3 These future and intended actions and the existing success are, however,

vulnerable to a number of threats. The most important threats identified included: Changes in staff in LAs or CCs, lack of dedicated resources, challenges in managing insurance, greater LA cutbacks, potential political refocus, loss of budgets, lack of regular contact and communication with CCs, keeping communities and partners interested (e.g. in the absence of a catalysing hazard event), complacency in resilience planning, and an aging CC membership that has different levels of enthusiasm and capacity. While these threats are not presented in any particular order, maintaining appropriate levels of resourcing was a key concern for staff in all LAs.

!6.4 Whilst beyond current levels of resourcing in most of the councils, those

managing resilience projects also identified potential for more ambitious actions. These included: getting all communities ‘live’ and exercising and testing plans, embedding resilience into school curricula, providing greater rewards and incentives for coordinators and volunteers, conducting further training, developing ability for volunteers to take greater control in organising activities, potential for subcontracting some tasks to resilient communities, assisting other LAs to roll out plans, gaining financial commitments from the private sector, developing a dedicated resilience unit in LAs, establishing community ‘hubs’ with direct communications links between LA, emergency services, utilities, CCs, and SG, widening partnerships at community levels with other organisations (e.g. SEPA, Scottish Water), considering other long- term issues like climate change and food security, and further embedding resilience in diverse activities and remits.

15 !

6.5 There were also wider insights relevant to LAs and SG. Resilience staff in LAs generally welcomed direction from SG when it enhanced their capacity to deliver resilience initiatives. In this regard, SG was considered important in helping overcome obstacles across LAs (e.g. insurance issues). Further assistance on such issues is needed and would be appreciated by LAs.

!6.6 Further, while expectations of the SG need to reflect the resources in local

government available to deliver resilience initiatives at a time of budget pressures and financial uncertainty, there are significant opportunities to embed resilience into the community planning agenda. The challenge in doing so will be to maintain a focus on resilience activities within the larger and more strategic community planning agenda, which focuses on the delivery of the Single Outcome Agreement. There is an increased risk that resilience is overlooked and considered as a separate issue for delivery by blue lights and councils. To move forward successfully this risk needs to be addressed by both the SG and community planning.

!6.7 Project managers also indicated that the process of implementing resilience

plans had led to multiple spin-offs. In some instances, the process helped build relationships between LAs and CCs that generated outcomes well beyond immediate resilience activities. In Stirling Council, for example, engagement during the cold winters of 2009/10 and 2010/11 provided opportunities for dialogue between the LA and communities, which led to a reorganisation of, and more effective, public services. Thus, the approaches to enhance the building of plans in all three councils were considered to be important in bringing people together, enhancing community cohesion and “embedding community spirit”. It aided engagement of LAs with communities, increased the feeling in communities that they “matter to their LA”, enhanced relationships between council and communities, and resulted in mutual benefits (e.g. increased and efficiency and effectiveness of responses and the delivery of other public services). Therefore while many challenges remain (e.g. for community councillors in urban areas to gain support for resilience in their councils or communities), there was much potential for other activities to “piggy back” on existing resilience initiatives and efforts. There is therefore considerable potential to use resilience initiatives as a social hook to begin engagement with communities from which other initiatives can be developed and implemented.

16 !

7 HOW HAVE UNDERSTANDINGS OF RESILIENCE AFFECTED RESILIENCE PROJECTS?

!7.1 While understandings of resilience are continuously changing and differ

between individuals, the understandings of staff in SG and LAs were generally found to be different to those of individuals within CCs. This has important implications for the focus and conceptualisation of community resilience projects.

!Differences in perspectives of resilience !7.2 Conceptualisations of resilience by SG and LAs were primarily focused on

resilience in relation to emergencies. This is unsurprising, given that LAs and other Category 1 and 2 responders have statutory obligations and that projects were specifically set-up to address issues arising from past emergencies and to prepare for future ones. The focus on emergencies then leads to a focus on interagency familiarisation and training (e.g., through ScoRDS), so that Category 1, 2, and other kinds of responders know enough of each other’s roles, capabilities, and needs to work most effectively in the face of different kinds of emergencies. The obvious way forward for enhancing resilience at community levels is then a technical or operational question of how to develop emergency plans. Yet because of past traditions in emergency management, local communities are still often viewed primarily as the recipients of help during an emergency, and not as partners. The relatively narrow focus of enhancing resilience in relation to emergencies also leads to a focus on the consequences of an emergency rather than the underlying systemic issues that are important for enhancing resilience in a community before an emergency occurs.

!7.3 Community councillors, regardless of area, were virtually uniform in the way

they understood resilience. They perceived resilience to be derived from the ability of a community to work together to meet its needs. In this perspective, resilience in a community was viewed as a product of the extent of social cohesion in communities which in turn are affected by levels of deprivation, planning and development, and the capacity to mobilise individuals within communities in the face of challenges (e.g. perceived apathy, limited interest, or the limited time available by community members to engage in community activities). Projects that are narrowly focused on producing emergency plans that do not take into account other community needs, local contexts, and a wider range of factors that affect social cohesion may therefore be perceived as having limited relevance or usefulness. Plans then less likely to be developed unless the initiative is driven by experienced individuals within communities who understand the role and culture of emergency services (e.g. retired emergency responders). In this respect resilience is not simply a matter of awareness about emergencies or the need for technical skills and capacity within a community for developing plans or emergency management. It also requires addressing the kinds of issues that motivate individuals within CCs, including wider the aspects of community development.

17 !

7.4 The differences in perspectives explained some of the challenges faced by project staff. For example, there was limited success in delivering plans in urban areas because of lack of interest and limited localised place-based social cohesion. At the other extreme, resilience plans were sometimes not perceived to be useful in very tightly knit isolated rural communities because they already had strong social networks and were disposed to helping each other. In these cases it was often the opportunity for closer relationships through a partnership approach between communities and Category 1 and 2 responders that the members of local communities valued rather than the plans themselves.

!Implications of the different understandings of resilience !7.5 The differences have a number of implications. First, they highlight that while

plans are useful in many cases, they clearly need to be customised to meet specific needs in communities. Perhaps most importantly, however, developing a ‘plan’ may not always be the only way to engage communities in discussions about resilience, and other approaches may be viewed in some communities as being more relevant or useful. Community resilience initiatives led by LAs may therefore need to consider how they can work with communities not only to produce customised plans, but also to produce customised localised projects that encourage communities to think about how they can build resilience in more general ways.

!7.6 Second, the differences highlight that emergency resilience is potentially

different from community resilience, with the latter requiring an approach that considers the underlying factors that affect the degree to which a community is resilient beyond simply technical and operational capacities (Moran, 2013a, 2013b). This requires greater integration of resilience thinking within planning and development initiatives and with work being extending work beyond simply enhancing preparedness to more coherently embedding community resilience in development and climate change adaptation agendas. That is, much greater attention is needed on the context in which an emergency occurs which affects how a crisis plays out, such as who is most acutely affected and why. This includes understanding social and economic causes of vulnerability, such as groups that are most likely to be climate disadvantaged (Lindley and O’Neill, 2013). Such thinking is more in line with current academic understanding about vulnerability, where the way in which societies and communities are organised are the primary sources of resilience (Fazey et al., 2011; O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000; Townshend et al., 2014).

!7.7 Third, resilience in SG and LAs needs to be viewed more widely to

encompass systemic aspects relating to resilience. This is already occurring in some areas of the SG Resilience Division, such as Critical National Infrastructure that aims to understand the interdependencies of different assets in Scotland. Many lessons were learned by project staff about systemic relationships and interdependencies through the resilience projects, such as developing ways to keep schools running during poor weather by having staff report to their nearest school, which then enabled parents to continue to go to work and ensuring the ‘system’ as a whole has continuity. Such initiatives emerged through greater consultation with local communities, in part because

18 !

of the resilience planning projects, but also because of increasing awareness and willingness by project staff and the LAs to think in systemic ways. Nevertheless, it highlights that ‘resilience thinking’, which reflects a deeper, holistic systems thinking approach needs to be encouraged (Moran, 2013a) more widely across LAs and SG.

!7.8 Finally, measures to build community emergency resilience must include

consideration of the way community cohesion is developed. Community cohesion relates very closely to levels of community social and economic participation and development. For example, community resilience development programmes like the European Union’s LEADER initiative operate in Scotland through the SG to promote this kind of participation in community life and build cohesion (Steiner and Markantoni, 2013) that may be harnessed by community resilience planners. LAs may do this through strategically integrating emergency resilience planning with community development schemes that build community cohesion. A vibrant and cohesive community is likely to more willing and more able to engage in substantive community resilience planning with LAs.

19 !

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS !8.1 The delivery of the resilience projects by the LAs had clearly resulted in

significant and beneficial outcomes, including the establishment of resilience plans in a large number of community councils, improved relationships and trust, and increased awareness of the importance of resilience and partnerships between communities and other responders. Information provided in this report will therefore assist other LAs engaging in similar projects to develop their own projects and help avoid the need to ‘re-invent the wheel’.

!8.2 A the time of data collection , however, very few of the community plans have

been tested in real emergencies and there has been no formal evaluation of the extent to which the projects actually enhance community resilience in the 3 areas considered. It is therefore important for SG and LAs in this study and others to: (1) continue to work towards learning how to improve plans and responses by communities using live or table top exercises with communities and (2) develop guidance and support for communities to test plans themselves and consider how to involve communities in de-briefing to enhance learning and partnerships after emergencies. This latter issue poses significant challenges in creating a ‘safe-space’ in which all parties can learn outwith the constraints on hierarchical organisational structures but also has considerable opportunities to continue to build relationships, understanding and trust, which are essential components of effective emergency responses.

!8.3 Nevertheless, the value of the projects was not only about developing

localised plans. There were many spin-offs from the extensive engagement activities conducted by project staff with CCs. Such work has provided a foundation for changing the relationship between LAs and CCs in many areas, including enhancing trust and collaboration. Overall, when planning a similar project, it is therefore important to consider the extent to which the project is primarily meant to be for delivering plans (i.e. viewing the project as a means to an end) or the extent to which the process itself is important for enhancing relations upon which future initiatives can be built (i.e. the process being an end in itself). By having at least some focus on the latter in future projects, there will be longer lasting legacies, stronger positive relations, and greater opportunities for capitalising on and linking the resilience projects with other initiatives.

!8.4 While there were many challenges encountered by project staff, the most

consistent and significant challenge was maintaining the level of resources necessary to conduct the projects effectively. Developing relations and engagement with communities over wide areas takes substantial amount of time and effort, especially when projects are in their initial phases. Expectations therefore need to be realistic and projects need to be appropriately resourced. To ensure a return in investment, projects need to be viewed as a long term issue and linked with others that also need community engagement so that the benefits of initial engagement can be built upon and enhanced. Given constraints on funding, other opportunities, such as working with industry (e.g. energy or water companies) needs to be explored.

20 !

8.5 A key finding was that community resilience is more than simply emergency resilience, and originates from the extent of social cohesion in communities, which in turn is affected by a range of social and economic conditions. Resilience approaches therefore need to be embedded much more deeply in planning and development initiatives that can address some of the underlying issues that decrease the resilience of some communities or vulnerable groups within them. Taking a wider approach to resilience than just responding to emergencies , such as viewing crises and responses as wider a systemic problem may help overcome some of the challenges of engaging certain types of communities (e.g. in urban areas).

!8.6 A particular challenge highlighted in the study was engaging with communities

that had limited place based social cohesion, such as in urban areas. Conducting a survey and analysis of the level of community cohesion across Scotland would help to identify ‘quick wins’ for targeting activities that enhance resilience and areas that require more deeper and wider approaches for engaging communities in thinking about resilience. SBC is currently exploring approaches for engaging with urban areas, including breaking them down into smaller resilience units. Building expertise about such work was identified as a key priority by the participants and there are opportunities for SG to provide greater support for these endeavours.

!8.7 Finally, the many lessons learned through delivering the projects by LA staff

were highly valuable for resilience and other projects more widely. To avoid ‘reinventing the wheel’, specific opportunities for sharing the lessons (e.g. a workshop on resilience projects involving those who have already delivered projects) would be valuable. The Community Resilience Unit in the SG Resilience Division is in a unique position to encourage such activities.

21 !

9 REFERENCES !

!!Berkes, F., Ross, H., 2013. Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach.

Soc. Nat. Resour. 26, 5–20. doi:10.1080/08941920.2012.736605 Chambers, R., 2002. Participatory workshops: a sourcebook of 21 sets of ideas and

activities. Earthscan Publications, London!; Sterling, VA. Fazey, I., Pettorelli, N., Kenter, J., Wagatora, D., Schuett, D., 2011. Maladaptive

trajectories of change in Makira, Solomon Islands. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1275–1289. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.07.006

Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12, 219–245.

Hamel, J., Dufour, S., Fortin, D., 1993. Case study methods, Qualitative research methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park.

Lindley, S., O’Neill, J., 2013. Flood disadvantage in Scotland: mapping the potential losses in well-being. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

Lyon, C., Parkins, J.R., 2013. Toward a Social Theory of Resilience: Social Systems, Cultural Systems, and Collective Action in Transitioning Forest-Based Communities: Social Systems and Cultural Systems. Rural Sociol. 78, 528– 549. doi:10.1111/ruso.12018

Moran, C., 2013a. Implementing resilience through governance in UK emergency management, in: PAC Conference. Presented at the PAC Conference, Edinburgh.

Moran, C., 2013b. What Is The Role Of The Third Sector In Implementing Resilience? A Case Study Of Scottish Emergency Management 2008-10 (PhD). University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

O’Brien, K.L., Leichenko, R.M., 2000. Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Glob. Environ. Change 10, 221–232. doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00021-2

Prior, T., Eriksen, C., 2013. Wildfire preparedness, community cohesion and social– ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1575–1586. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.016

Resilience Division, 2013. Are we ready? Guidance for Scotland’s Regional Resilience Partnerships (RRPs) on Risk and Preparedness Assessments (RRPs). Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

Scottish Government, 2012. Preparing Scotland: Scottish guidance on resilience. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

Scottish Government, 2013a. Building community resilience Scottish guidance on community resilience. Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

Scottish Government, 2013b. Preparing Scotland: Responding to emergencies in Scotland (Interim guidance, November 2013). Scottish Government, Edinburgh.

Steiner, A., Markantoni, M., 2013. Unpacking community resilience through Capacity for Change. Community Dev. J. doi:10.1093/cdj/bst042

Townshend, I., Awosoga, O., Kulig, J., Fan, H., 2014. Social cohesion and resilience across communities that have experienced a disaster. Nat. Hazards 1–26. doi:10.1007/s11069-014-1526-4

UK Cabinet Office, 2004. Civil Contingencies Act. Yin, R.K., 1994. Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Beverly Hills.

22 !

!10 APPENDICES

!!!APPENDIX 1: Case-study areas !10.1 There were three case study areas. Details of these case studies are provided

in Table 2. !10.2 Area A is a council area of approximately 90 000 people spread over just over

50 localities represented by CCs. This council area consists of urban, rural, coastal, island, and inland regions. Resilience plans were developed through community partnership agreements in which communities were supported in taking the lead in developing their plans. The LA in partnership with other agencies such as Police Scotland, plays a key role in the creation of these plans and has as of early 2014 achieved a success rate of 70 per cent of communities either completed or intending to complete resilience plans. Most plans involved CCs, but in areas where the CC was not able to participate in community resilience planning, this authority was open to partnering with other suitable organisations. Area provides a basic template for CCs to develop their resilience plans, with assistance from the LA. They also have a substantive handbook, produced in consultation with 11 agencies on resilience including the LA, NHS, Police Scotland, HM Coastguard, and others. This authority has also provided emergency kits and other materials to each community with plans.

!10.3 Area B is has a similar population to A, with approximately 90 000 people,

dispersed between just over 40 CC localities. This is an inland area with highland, urban, and rural locations. Community resilience planning here is less sophisticated when compared with Areas A and C, taking a LA-driven approach (i.e. less partnership based) that leaned largely toward severe weather emergencies. Although the staff member responsible for community resilience was highly informed and motivated, resilience planning was only one part of their remit. As such, without the same level of staffing and resources as areas A and C, it had a somewhat less involved resilience planning development system in place. Within these limitations, this area’s LA has taken a staged approach to resilience planning that began a single contact phone number for an appointed person who would give a situation report in the case of an emergency, to more substantial arrangements including the provision of shovels, high-visibility vests, and other equipment based on the LA’s resources and local capacities. More sophisticated plans also included roles for local organisations such as the Scouts in community resilience plans. Despite these relative drawbacks, this LA had done considerable background research regarding range of risks present in its area and their frequency over time, and was able to identify apparent changes in the local risk environment toward more weather related events.

!10.4 Area C has a population of over 110 000 spread between approximately 75

CCs located in inland, lowland and coastal areas. Emergency Management Officers at the LA took the lead in developing and implementing community

23 !

resilience plans. These officers were former senior members of police and fire services, with considerable experience in command and control during emergencies. Planning was centralised with the LA serving as a command, control, and communications hub. Community resilience followed a standardised template set by the authority, which would then assist communities in populating with their own information, community geography, maps, risk assessments, skills and asset lists, and contact protocols during an emergency. Notable in this area was the stated goal and concerted effort from the emergency management officers to achieve 100 per cent subscription to community resilience plans by CCs. Like Area A, at the time of writing this figure stood at 70 per cent of CCs with either completed or developing plans.

24 !

APPENDIX 2: Sources of data for the report !!!!!

Primary Data !

Location !

Type of interview, workshop or event, numbers of participants*

!

ScoRDS Workshop !

Edinburgh !

- Workshop for Community Councillors and Category 1 and 2 responders

!

Adaptation Scotland Conference

!

Edinburgh !

- Large conference for academics, community and local councils, voluntary sector, NGOs, etc. with sessions touching on key adaptation themes, including resilience

!

ScoRDS Meeting !

Dundee !

- Meeting with members of ScoRDS about resilience in Scotland

!

Argyll and Bute Council Area (various dates (2013-14)

!

Pop. ~90 000, >50 community councils

!

5 x Community Councils, Local Authority

!

- 12 Semi-structured interviews, focus groups, phone interviews with local authority and emergency management staff (N = 13) - Stakeholder workshop with Local Authority resilience planning team and partners ( N = 5)

!

Stirling Council Area (various dates (2013- 14)

!Pop. ~90 000, >40 community councils

!

4 x Community Councils

!

Local Authority

!

- 5 Semi-structured interviews with Local Authority and Community Council staff (N = 5) - Stakeholder workshop with Local Authority resilience planning team and Community Council members (N = 5)

!

Scottish Borders Council Area (various dates 2013-14)

!

Pop. ~114 000, >75 community councils

!

4 x Community Councils

!

Local Authority

- 11 Semi-structured interviews or focus groups with Community Council members (N = 11) - Ready for Winter ( x 2) presentations - Flood management field-trip to two communities impacted by flooding - Meeting with Sniffer on climate adaptation - Stakeholder workshop with Local Authority resilience planning team (N = 9)

!

Community Resilience Exercise

!

1 x Community Council

- Presentation by fire service - Table-top community resilience exercise in the afternoon

!

ESRC Festival of Social Science workshop “Community Resilience under Public service reform

!

Edinburgh !

- Day long workshop examining issues are shifts in the public sector and service distribution and their impacts on community resilience

!

Scottish Government Resilience Division

! !

- Semi-structured telephone interview with 1 x senior civil servant (N = 1)

!

* Total N = 45 participants. A slight discrepency exists between the total number of participants and the aggregate total from each of the events due to the attendance at more than one event by three participants.

25 !

APPENDIX 3: Detailed descriptions of events and actions undertaken by LAs to deliver projects

!Argyll and Bute Process Oriented Actions

!Events and actions 2012 2013 2014

Establish context: - Small villages in smaller areas engaged in planning - Area resilience teams working but gaps are appearing

!!

X

! !

Council undergoing considerable strategic change toward more centralised model due to budget pressure

!

X ! !

Area resilience teams created X ! !Staff shortages X ! !Resilience not a main priority X ! !Bute storm, 3 Jan 2012, severe weather impact X ! !Resilience moves up in priority due to storm X ! !Head of Service summoned to Scottish Affairs select committee, Islay community member attended

!

X ! !

Project initiation Document approved June 2012; project team established (Project manager 90%/1.5y; Project assistant 100%/2ys; 2 contingency officers 50%; Communications person June-Sept)

!!

X

! !

! ! ! !Project budget set by Council in one LA (Feb. 2012) X ! !Benefits realisation – community buy-in contributes to the resilience of our areas

!

X ! !

Meetings with partners July 2012 X ! !Service Level Agreement (SLA) with Argyll Voluntary Action X ! !Handbook developed with multi-agency partners X ! !Handbook ‘pack’ distributed to communities X ! !Website materials created and published - December X ! !Winter Ready Leaflet, 25000 copies, adapted from SG materials distributed

!

X ! !

ABC featured case study at SG Resilience conference September 2012 [put ABC on nat. map, resulted in road shows, helped internal recognition)

!!

X

! !

!Strategic Risk Group reporting, ABC, senior management team, internal reporting

!X

!X

!

Quarterly multi-agency meetings starting from Oct 2012 X ! !ABC attendance at Community Council meetings where possible – late 2012

!

X ! !

Road shows with communities and partners – Nov 2012, Summer 2013 following Kintyre and incl. Scottish and Southern Energy

!

X !

X !

X

Handbook useful but best is direct engagement, F2F, telephone X ! !

26 !

!

never miss an opportunity ! ! !Reports to area communities, Council, community planning partnerships: Led to encouragement of Elected members to support communities by introducing competitive performance measures

!!

X

! !

Handbook introduced to Council members ! X !Dunbeg CC first to produce plan and go ‘viral’ across A&B – very late 2012 - Dunbeg unofficial plan template

!X

! !

Quarterly performance measures for pyramid-area committees 2013

! !

X !

Kintyre winter severe weather March 2013 ! X !Taynuilt plan shared with other CCs ! X !End of project report to Council – 1 day before Kintyre storms - number of CCs committed to plans - ~10 plans completed - plans bigger than communities, outcomes complete for power, communications, engaged CCs to continue to work

! !

!!

X

!

Kintyre storm, community liaison officer post created for the response (Morag)

! !

X !

Lessons from Kintyre re-energised project – April/May 2013 ! X !Debrief with CCs about Kintyre - Summer 2013 ! X !Money from SG for resilience activities -, money spent on emergency kits given out in receipt of a plan

! !

X !

Elected Council members present Emergency Kits ! X !

Civil contingencies review; new plan for civil contingencies – Sept 2013

! !

X !

Flood risk management group links to CC plans ! X X MSc research report influenced practice ! X !Southend (Kintyre) video shown at RABS conference ! X !Ready Dots on Ready Scotland map when plans completed ! X !Community Council Elections – packs of handbook, example plans passed out at inaugural meetings

! !

X !

More attendance at CCs – continued F2F meetings ! X !Attendance at four area committee meetings - more F2F - recognition helped overcome CC politicise and negativity, police were important to have on board

! !X

!

Formalised Liaison with communities during emergencies ! X !Presentation created on project ! ! X Mock-up (Exercise) scenario, Taynuilt – January 2014 ! ! X COSLA Film – Feb 2014 ! ! X COSLA Silver Excellence Award – March 2014 ! ! X Police Scotland use resilience film on Facebook page May 2014 ! ! X Bute and Cowal, Oban, Lorne, Isles areas 100% on board – March/April 2014

! ! !

X

ScoRDS Civil Contingencies training for senior LA management ! ! X Community Resilience handed over to Civil Contingencies ! ! X

27 !

!

Community resilience meetings continue X X X Six community exercises ! ! X Four area events (Road show) ! ! X Education involvement with Community Resilience (high school) ! ! X ABC Community Risk evaluation and Register developed with SG guidance

! ! !

X

Single outcome agreement – all outcomes reported through SOA, community planners in SG

! ! !

X

Community awareness of resilience through media and events, e.g. website, papers

! ! !

X

28 !

Scottish Borders Process Oriented Actions !

!!! 2011 2012 2013 2014

Liaison with Scottish Government (SG) X X X X Internal (Council level) meetings with CEO, SBC departments X X X X Secure internal financial & resource support (First point of failure!) X X X X Secure internal political support X X X X Identify internal partners (e.g. asset manager, emergency planning)

!

X ! ! !

Identify enthusiastic lead person(s)/department within council X ! ! !Identify and resolve insurance issues X ! ! !Identify resource/support constraints X ! ! !Identify and resolve legislation issues X ! ! !Secure external support (Resilience Division, Education, local partners and stakeholders) - Money and other support from SG through years.

!X

!X

!X

!X

Community engagement! SBC consistently meet with CCs to explain community resilience & develop plans (builds trust and overcomes criticisms, e.g. LA is just off-loading responsibility to CCs)

!!

X

!!

X

!!

X

!!

X

Collect and maintain community databases incl. demographics, contacts, other relevant information

!

X !

X !

X !

X

Develop and trial bespoke CR plan with a selected community X ! ! !Introduce bespoke plans to more communities X X X X Set realistic goals for signed up plans (e.g. 33 CCs in 3 years); “smash goals”

!

X ! ! !

Procure equipment for communities X X X X Manage community expectations (e.g. salt bin provision and distribution, resource constraints)

!

X !

X !

X !

X

Curriculum for Excellence/Resilient Education Project launch (from meetings with Education Scotland) – concern Ed not doing enough

! !

X !

X !

X

Youth involvement: Recruit school pupils to form group to promote involvement with Resilient Communities; created DVD, social media presence, leaflets - Difficulty as youth see it as ‘not cool’ to volunteer; lack of staff in schools (e.g. Yetholm schools) - Eyemouth success, SG Environment Minister's son at school, raised at parliament

! !!!!

X

!!!!

X

!

Funding bid for Resilient Communities schools coordinator ! ! ! X British Red Cross First Aid training to CCs (big incentive!) ! X ! !Online health and safety training for communities ! ! ! X Local volunteer recruitment to assist council in an emergency, leaflet created (everyone has a role, tea-serving to snow shovelling)

! !X

! !

Communities required to show enough volunteers (e.g. 50 in Ancrum 2014)

! ! X !

X

29 !

!

Plans reviewed, evaluated, tweaked ! ! X !Identify and replace failed (cheap!) equipment from previous year: ! ! ! !Community Envy: resistant communities changed minds when learning of communities with plans

! ! ! !

Lack of mobile phone coverage IDs ! X ! !Successfully engaged Utilities (Scottish Power) after identifying landline vulnerability

! !

X ! !

Resilient communities have younger demographics that CCs ! ! ! !Winter Awareness week - Pre-winter seminars/meetings

! !

X !

X !

Development of Resilient Community Teams Handbook (delay to due temporary loss of key staff member)

! ! !

X !

X

Plan templates created, can be shared ! ! X !SBC review of winter services ! ! X !194 Community presentations ! ! X !30 CR plans live ! ! X !Identify need for training to allow communities to act independent of SBC

! ! !

X !

Several community Exercises (Identify early communications fail) ! ! X X SBC begins acquiring Alert system (2013), operational “Borders Alert” (1 July 2014)

! ! !

X !

X

Community Equipment stores upgraded (new sheds, better quality equipment)

! ! !

X !

Identify financially inequality in CCs, cash rich CCs can buy own gritters

! ! !

X !

Communities want to do more on their own; SBC ‘sea change’ in approach, allows communities to do more for themselves

! ! !

X !

50 presentations ! ! ! X Knowledge sharing hub for communities ! ! ! X Identify need to regularly test community resilience plans ! ! ! X Considering how to reward or pay volunteers ! ! ! X ID staffing shortage at SBC ! ! ! X

30 !

Stirling Council Process Oriented Actions !

!!

Action 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Stirling Council (SC) responded to Scottish Government (SG) promotion of resilience, thought it could be valuable as community planning and resilience fell in line with existing joint Community Planning Partnership work with police

!

!!

X

! ! ! !

Engagement: Awareness/plan support raising meetings with community councils (developing plans seen as partnership)

!X

!X

!X

!X

!X

Community resilience pilots (x2, 1 urban, 1 rural) developed by emergency planning and CPPs; communities developed plans

!X

! ! ! !

Table top exercise with pilot communities !

X ! ! ! !

Strong agreement between SC and CCs about what was wrong and could be improved

!

X ! ! ! !

Severe winter meant services shut-down, not all communities able to get services

! !

X ! ! !

Feedback request on severe weather response from council, reported back to Community Council Forum

! !

X ! ! !

Templates for community resilience plans developed ! X ! ! !

Sent community resilience plan packs to CCs ! X ! ! !

Additional CC feedback forum meeting ! X ! ! !

LA met with interested CCs ! X ! ! !

New severe winter weather management plan developed by LA with specific actions for services and integrated services

! !X

! ! !

Packs/equipment to CCs including shovels ! X ! ! !

Strathblane CC volunteered subject to the LA paying travel expenses to attend working group every 2- weeks: CC must be listened to and LA depts. must work together; agree to pilot resilience template

! !!

X

! ! !

CC found it difficult to get some community members interested due to lack of pay (e.g. unemployed men)

! !X

! ! !

Some communities did not interact due to geography, hard to get buy-in

! !

X ! ! !

Slow communication and action from LA to CCs ! X ! ! !

Flood risk mapping across area: prioritised risk/mitigation areas, assessed impact on LA services (education, rubbish collection)

! ! !X

! !

Requested equipment from LA sometimes not provided to CC: limited capacity at LA to do ‘simple things’

! ! !

X ! !

Age issues are concern at CC member level (none under 64 yrs.!)

! ! !

X ! !

Internal promotion of resilience plans begins ! ! ! X X Adaptation Scotland (Sniffer), Community resilience forum conference presentations (David Bright)

! ! ! !

X !

31 !

!

Member Officer Group (MOG) formed ! X ! ! !

Sent reminders of annual plan updates to CCs ! ! ! X !

Scottish Ambulance and Mountain Rescue start First Aid training for CC members, Red Cross joins in 2014

! ! ! !

X !

X

Defibrillators for communities ! ! ! X !

Issue of managing CC dynamics due to turn-over: new members meant new plans - Lack of engagement and negativity at CC level a problem

! ! ! !!

X

!

SG Resilience Division funds to provide emergency packs (First Aid kit, 2-way radios, torches, space blankets)

! ! ! ! !X

Fire, Flood Risk Action Group (FLAG) meetings for severe weather resources: e.g. equipment pods for joining up services, ID risk areas and relevant infrastructure, LA response

! ! ! ! !!

X

ID of limitations of volunteer CCs and community volunteers; much work, few people, more engagement with community needed

! ! ! ! !X

Community Resilience Exercise: Scenario based table top exercise in 15 CCs, leaflets and packs from Scottish Power, gaps identified, more communities became interested in developing plans

! ! ! ! !!

X

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Centre for Environmental Change and Human Resilience Research Report 2015-1 University of Dundee Dundee DD1 4HN, UK Tel: +44 (0)1382 388692 Email: cechr@dundee.ac.uk Web: http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cechr/

!!