Canterbury HIA Partnership 4 partners 2 years 1 kaupapa

Where do we come from?

History

The Partners …while recognising the integrity and policies of each other, agree to work together in a spirit of partnership towards supporting the HIA project officer position and promoting HIA within their organisations and the wider community” MOU 28 May 2009

Project purpose The role of the project officer will be to build the capacity of the partner organisations to undertake HIA’s within the overarching goal of supporting health promoting public policy. “Wanting to use a range of strategies to build organisational capacity in HIA and HiaP so that staff and decision makers embed a HiaP approach into their work List from Adelaide statement?

The obesity map-’wicked’ and complex. To address obesity, a key risk factor for hypertension, cardiovascular disease, Type two diabetes, several cancers and many other illness conditions we must ensure that other sectors understand the role they play in creating obesogenic environments, supporting health promoting decision making by individuals and groups. We discuss this topic at workshops – when we talk about health

This should be a screenshot of CPH HIA web page In the first year (photo shot of CPH website HIA page) HIA - Regional Land Transport Strategy HIA - Christchurch Transport Plan Health and Wellbeing Review - Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) Literature Reviews Wider Health and Wellbeing Impacts of Transport Planning Economic and social impact of patient versus clinician travel Quantifying the economic benefit of increasing physical activity Long term planning for recovery after disasters to incorporate health in all policies Capacity building activities designed specifically for each partner organisation and the steering group. e.g. staff meetings, short workshops, information, incl. above outputs. Resources – Integrated Recovery Guide, HPSTED Evaluation Report

A lot more was achieved in linking health outcomes into the CRPS than has ever been achieved via the submission process. The involvement of non-planning people gave insight into how the draft provisions could be interpreted Useful for analyzing the social and cultural benefits and costs of the provisions

Lessons learned Joint funding of project Regular steering group meetings, Formative evaluation of project “designer-made” capacity building and health analyses to suit situation HiaP can be more time efficient than HIA Dedicated worker Aligning work schedules between agencies Optimal points in policy development