Amy Blyth >>

Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrated Regional Water Management in Los Angeles

To meet the demand for water in the Greater Los Angeles Area, the federal, state, and local government agencies have worked to develop a large system of infrastructure that brings water from all across the western part of the US to Southern California.

In the early 1900s, when the population of Los Angeles began to outgrow the water provided by the Los Angeles River, William Mulholland, Supervisor of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power at the time, was commissioned to find a new source of water in order to supply the growing community. Between 1908 and 1913, the Los Angeles Aqueduct was constructed to bring water from Owens Valley to Los Angeles – a distance of 233 miles. Later projects commissioned by Mulholland would bring water form Mono Basin (338 miles away) and the Colorado River. These sources are all still currently supplying the majority of the water demanded within the Los Angeles area today.

With these projects, the Greater Los Angeles Area has been reliant for a majority of its water supply on far away water sources for nearly a century. This system poses huge risks on the city for the future; the population in the area is continuing to grow while these water sources will become continually less reliable due to issues like climate variation, water scarcity and even drought across the Western portion of the US. In addition, the local sources of water in Southern California are also threatened by environmental degradation, causing the quantity and quality of the water to be at risk.

To combat these issues, the State of California has created a state-wide water plan, which sets some major strategic goals for the State in terms of water management. Since the 2005 California Water Plan, the State has emphasized the importance of regional collaboration on the issue of water management. It has stressed the importance of hydro geological areas working in collaboration in order to create Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plans that provide a unified strategy for water management within the region. The IRWM region is meant to create a set of strategic goals that they will then use as a guide when approving water management projects and infrastructure. The State of California believes that the IRWM program “incorporates the physical, environmental, societal, economic, legal, and jurisdictional aspects of water management into regional solutions through open and collaborative stakeholder processes to promote sustainable water use.”

 

Since the passing of the IRWM Planning Act in 2002, the State of California has approved 48 IRWM Regions covering 87% of the state’s geographic area and 99% of the state’s population. The State of California is currently working on creating a state-wide strategy for all of the IRWM regions in order to build on the current and past successes of IRWM; further enable, empower, and support regional water management groups; better align state and federal programs to support IRWM; develop a shared vision for funding priorities and financing mechanisms; and inform and influence future water management policies and investments for California.

As mentioned in a previous post, the Greater Los Angeles Area has created an IRWM Region that covers roughly 10.2 million people, portions of 4 counties, and 92 cities. The region accounts for 28% of the population of California. Within the Los Angeles IRWM region, the area is divided into 5 sub-regions (as illustrated in the image below). The Los Angeles IRWM approved their first Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) in 2006 “following a multi-year effort among water retailers, wastewater agencies, stormwater and flood managers, watershed groups, the business community, tribes, agriculture, and non-profit stakeholders to improve water resources planning in the Los Angeles Basin.” Currently, the Los Angeles IRWM region is going through a process of stakeholder engagement and consultation in order to evaluate and revise this strategy by the end of the year.

According to the Greater Los Angeles IRWMP:

The purpose of this Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP or Plan) is to define a clear vision and direction for the sustainable management of water resources in the Greater Los Angeles County Region (Region) for the next 20 years, present the basic information regarding possible solutions and the costs and benefits of those solutions, and to inspire the Region and potential funding partners outside this Region. Moreover, it is to adopt solutions that make sense, are good for the community, and are economically feasible.

Within the IRWMP, the plan provides information regarding the governance process of the association; the stakeholders involved and the types of engagement used; and data about the physical characteristics of the region including the geographical characteristics, population and governance information, water supply, demand, and quality characteristics, and social trends and concerns for the region. The plan also includes a description of the objectives and their related targets that form the Greater Los Angeles’ IRWM strategy. These objectives and targets are listed under 5 main categories:

Strategic Assessment?

Although the Greater Los Angeles IRWM has created a plan that explains in detail the needs and opportunities for water management in the region, it is not evident that a strategic environmental assessment was implemented during the strategic planning of the objectives and targets, nor were used to determine the criteria for the selection of projects that will be implemented in order to reach these objectives.

Strategic Planning of Objectives and Targets:

According the IRWMP, in order to decide on the Plan’s objectives and targets, “An initial list of objectives was revised by a subcommittee of the Leadership Committee and then circulated for comment to the five Steering Committees, five Subregional stakeholder workshops, and one Regional stakeholder workshop. Stakeholder comments were reviewed and incorporated as appropriate into the objectives, which were then finalized by the Leadership Committee.” There is no mention of a strategic environmental assessment made in order to assess the impacts that may come from the different objective options. These goals were decided by stakeholder engagement and committee meetings, yet did not involve an assessment of the impacts associated with the possible objectives available.

Assessment of Potential Projects?:

The Plan discusses the process undertaken for a “call for proposals” in which the region requested that all stakeholders submit their proposals for projects and project concepts for consideration by the region in order to reach the Plan’s objectives. According to the IRWMP, stakeholders had identified 1,500 projects during this process. The report explains the efforts and analysis undertaken by the organization in order to find ways to integrate these projects, either geographically or strategically, and also discussed how these projects helped to develop the “vision for each subregion”. Additionally, the report identified new regional projects that could help “bridge the gap” between the proposed projects and the targets set within the IRWMP.

However, in terms of impact assessment of these proposed projects, the report states:

Although some conclusions may be possible from an analysis of the stated benefits provided for the projects and project concepts in the database, given the uncertain accuracy of the benefit information provided, an assessment of cumulative benefits of the stakeholder-identified projects and a comparison of the cumulative benefits to the planning targets was ultimately not included in this Plan.

In other words, given that the proposals lacked information regarding benefits and impacts of their projects, the IRWMP did not include this assessment within their plan.

What about an Impact Assessment of the IRWM Plan?

One of the chapters within the report does discuss the benefits and impacts involved in the implementation of the finished IRWM Strategy. While this chapter offers a rather in depth description of the benefits of implementing the plan, it does not provide significant information as to what the potential environmental impacts of implementing this strategy may entail. The report states:

Consistent with Section 15262 of the CEQA Guidelines, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration but does require consideration of environmental factors.

Therefore, given the fact that it is a strategy, and not a project, a full environmental impact assessment (in California, this assessment is called the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines) was not done.

The report goes on to say that:

To consider potential environmental effects that could result from IRWMP implementation, the CEQA Initial Study Checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (OPR, 2003) was reviewed to identify whether the implementation of the Plan, which might include those project concepts identified in the Regional Planning Tools, could result in adverse affects.

The report states a “summary of potentially adverse project-specific and/or cumulative affects that could result” from the implementation of the plan. The list includes impacts such as visual impacts from the new installations, air and noise pollution during construction, soil erosion, and land change issues.  As a disclaimer to their analysis, the report states that “this review is not intended to replace or supplant detailed review of potential environmental impacts (at such time as specific projects are proposed)”.

The impact analysis of the IRWM Plan concludes by stating:

Any decision to implement any individual project or program identified in this plan would be subject to CEQA compliance at such time as any agency commits to fund or implement the project. It is assumed that the approving entity would comply with CEQA and identify appropriate mitigation measures to the extent that any significant impacts would result.

In other words, the plan was not given a full environmental impact assessment; however, if any portion of the plan were to be implemented through a specific project, that project would need to go through a proper environmental impact assessment.

Conclusion:

While the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Greater Los Angeles Area does consider the needs, opportunities, and potential benefits of the strategy within their report, there is little evidence that the potential environmental impacts were considered during the planning of the strategy. The brief impact assessment that was performed was done once the strategy had already been created.

Additionally, the IRWMP did not attempt to assess the cumulative impacts of the proposed projects that were submitted during the “call for proposals”, nor did they do a strategic environmental assessment based on the possible project opportunities.  The report simply states that once a given project has been chosen for implementation, the project will go through the standard Environmental Impact Assessment process required by the State of California in order to assess the impacts of the individual project.

Although the Los Angeles IRWM has examined the needs and opportunities of the region in detail and has succeeded in including their stakeholders within the creation of the plan, the process lacks the use of a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as part of the strategic planning process. If the Los Angeles IRWM would have incorporated a SEA within their strategic planning, they would have had a better understand the impacts associated with the possible opportunities and solutions that they were considering for the final strategy.

Enviar comentario / 20 May 2013 por Amy Blyth
IMSD /

Veronica Recanati >>

Social Entrepreneurship: SOCIAL IMPACT not INCOME

I am going to write my final Master project on Social Entrepreneurship and I am interviewing professors, social entrepreneurs and social innovators about this interesting topic.

I am collecting many different definitions even though terms like impact, mission, value and innovation are always present in the answers I am getting and in the articles I am reading.

J. Gregory Dees, Professor of the Practice of Social Entrepreneurship and co-founder of the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, define social entrepreneurship as “the process of recognizing and resourcefully pursuing opportunities to create social value” and gives the best definition I found of social entrepreneurs: “Social entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs with a mission”.

During our last class on Social Entrepreneurship Maria Zapata, International Operations Director at Ashoka, shared different social entrepreneurship experiences, explaining us that in most of the case the projects are connected to the personal story of the entrepreneur or driven by a specific event that signed or changed his life.

I agree and I am living this experience on my skin: a trip to Tanzania in 2010 changed my perception of the world and pushed me to quit a very good job in sales in the multinational Cisco, brought me here in Madrid for a Master on Sustainable Development and motivated me to use my experience in order to do something meaningful. I am launching indeed my social entrepreneurship project aimed to improve the collaboration between the private business and the third sector: Bridge For Good.

The driver behind social entrepreneurship therefore is the impact related to a mission and not the wealth creation, meaning a shift from the traditional business drivers and the traditional way of seeing opportunities.

 

Despite the personal skills or the hearth of those people committed to change the world and to dedicate their life to achieve their mission, I believe education plays an important role in terms of motivating students to create “socially conscious startups”. Many Universities are offering Masters and Post Graduate Courses on Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship even though the traditional education system (especially in Europe) is still far from being a strong contributor and enhancer of such a new way of doing and perceiving business and a better collaboration with the social enterprise world could improve the current system.

Ashoka is one of the organizations trying to promote innovation in higher education and in 2008 launched AshokaU, a project aimed to create campus environments where students collaborate to solve social issues in creative and innovative ways.

Here Ashoka’s Theory of change aimed to develop a generation of changemakers:

 

 

It could be very useful to apply and scale this methodology in the European schools and universities and motivate young students to solve global challenges through social innovation starting from their campus/school environment.

I believe such an innovative education model could shift the students’ perception of what should drive their ambition and actions bringing the social impact at the center and not their future income.

As I wrote in my previous post, I believe Social Entrepreneurship gives us the opportunity to change some ineffective processes, to overcome the current financial and social crisis and the chance to create a new way of  thinking and doing business, based on social return, social innovation and impact… and I JUST GO FOR IT!

 

“What business entrepreneurs are to the economy, social entrepreneurs are to social change. They are the driven, creative individuals who question the status quo, exploit new opportunities, refuse to give up, and remake the world for the better.” (David Bornstein), How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Idea.

 

Enviar comentario / 19 May 2013 por Veronica Recanati
IMSD /

Amy Blyth >>

Social Entrepreneurship: The New “Hybrid” Organization

Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation are the new “buzz words” when it comes to both the business and non-profit sectors.  Many people believe social enterprises to be a mix of both worlds, incorporating the social impact focus of non-profits, with the financial stability, or financial returns, of a business. Some are even calling these emerging social enterprises the beginning of a new fourth sector.

Fourth Sector?

Historically, we have seen three types of organizations in society: business, government, and non-profits.  These organizations have provided society with the products and services that make up the quality of life that that many people know today.

Yet, with all of the benefits that we have received from these three organizations, they have come with many costs. Our natural environment has suffered greatly for our economic benefit; its natural resources are now being consumed at the rate of 1.5 times the natural re-growth of the planet.  We face the threat of climate change.  Social capital has also suffered as economic globalization has brought wealth to few, yet has kept the majority of the world’s population in poverty.  The economic crisis we are living today has given us a glimpse into how “short-termism, corruption and greed threaten the security of our economic systems and the viability of our civic institutions”.

According to a paper, written by the Fourth Sector Network:

There is a growing recognition that these and other complex systemic problems are rooted in structural failures at the organizational level. Solving these problems requires new ways of thinking and acting on the part of individuals, along with new organizational designs that encourage stakeholder actions consistent with the long term welfare of our ecological, economic, and social systems.

In other words, the organizational models we have today are not properly serving the long term needs of the people and the planet. While the corporation may provide short term wealth to some (in terms of increased stock prices, quarterly gains, etc.) these benefits are coming at the long terms costs of society and the environment. Non-profits have been working to help “fill the gaps” left behind by corporations; yet their work, in many cases, often only fulfills the immediate needs of society. The non-profit sector and government are having a hard time efficiently tackling the systemic problems inherent in this three-sector organizational system.

There is a need for new types of organizations that better fit both the short and long term needs of the economy, society, and environment.  These organizations will give a larger priority to providing positive social and environmental impact, while still maintaining an income generating structure:

Social Entrepreneurship falls into this new category of organizations. According to Ashoka, “social entrepreneurs are individuals with innovative solutions to society’s most pressing social problems.” They understand a social problem, and find an innovative solution to solve that problem.  For social entrepreneurs, financial income is just the means to the end.  The end itself is creating a sustainable solution to the social problem. Therefore, social enterprises do not measure their success in terms of profits or economic growth.  They measure their success in terms of the positive social impact that they have made on society.

While a business entrepreneur might create entirely new industries, a social entrepreneur comes up with new solutions to social problems and then implements them on a large scale.

Sounds great, right?  So how do these social enterprises function in the real world, if they are not using the same indicators that society and financial markets use to measure success?

Part of the territory that comes with a systems change is that it often takes time for the current system to recognize and understand the new paradigms being developed.

In many countries, these “hybrid” organizations do not yet have a complete supportive ecosystem – including regulatory frameworks, accounting systems, capital markets etc. – that promote their operation. Given that these enterprises are a mix between a fully for-profit and non-profit organization, current legal frameworks in may countries do not have the capacity to allow these organizations to act like both types of organizations. As the Skoll Foundation writes, “on the one hand a part of their activities often sit squarely in the public domain, while on the other, their commercial activities (by definition) would best be served by a more commercial format”. As an example, it may be hard for a social enterprise to be able to sell their innovative products or services to certain communities (like a for-profit enterprise), and receive donations or grants in order to provide these products and services to others who cannot afford them.

There is, however, some variance within the three historic organizations, and we have seen many companies move within this “wiggle room”. Many non-profits have started for-profit ventures in order to carry out their missions. Take for example, Story Pirates which has set up both a non-profit and for-profit under the same name in order to provide after-school writing and drama programs to under served schools and produce stage shows – for financial income – for the public. Additionally, many businesses have also created partnerships in order to promote positive social impact. For example, Danone and the Grameen Group have partnered together in order to work to provide nutrition to the largest amount of people as possible in Bangladesh. 

However, as these enterprises evolve, they are seeing a need for a more supportive ecosystem of frameworks and systems that are better tailored to their lines of work.

The UK government has been the leader in pioneering a framework tailored to for-benefit-businesses. The Community Interest Company (CIC) was introduced by the UK government in 2005 as a special type of legal company whose financial “profits” are principally re-invested in the business or in the community, rather that given to shareholders or owners. In the legislation, these companies must “create an ‘asset lock’- a legal promise stating that the company’s assets will only be used for its social objectives, and setting limits to the money it can pay to shareholders”.  With this framework, the “success” of these companies is measured by the social impact that they create, rather than the economic returns that they give to their shareholders.

In the arena of Social Entrepreneurship, we are seeing remarkable growth and significant interest by people from all sectors. Some of the biggest business schools have even begun to incorporate social entrepreneurship into their coursework. It will be interesting to see where, in the next decade, these new types of “hybrid” enterprises go, and how they will change the existing systems that we understand today.

Enviar comentario / 19 May 2013 por Amy Blyth
IMSD /

Veronica Recanati >>

Sustainable Urban Planning: my hometown Fermo, a city of tomorrow?

According to the European Commission report The Cities of Tomorrow, a city of tomorrow “is one in which all dimensions of sustainable urban development are taken into account in an integrated way”.

Such a city should be a platform for democracy, social progress, dialogue and diversity, should be a green and eco-efficient place where technology is used for urban governance, innovation, economic growth, education, health, safety and security.

According to the UNFPA report  State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth, more than 50% of the world’s population lives in cities and around 70% of the European population lives in urban agglomerations of more than 5000 inhabitants.

Cities, therefore, play a key role in the social and economic development, being a concentration of businesses, workers, consumers and institutions, but are affected by serious challenges, like:

- population growth, causing high pressure on the city infrastructures like transportation, housing, water, energy efficiency and other city services and high capital expenditure necessary for maintenance and redesign;

- diverged economic growth: according to the McKinsey research Urban World: Cities and the Rise of the Consuming Class, the 600 largest global cities will contribute 65% of global GDP growth from 2010 to 2025;

- greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGs): the fast increasing level of GHGs emissions is bringing sustainability at the center of the cities’ development agenda, pushing governments and other institutions to plan a long term strategy where water management, transportation, energy efficiency, urban planning and green buildings represent the main priorities;

- lack of funds: the current financial crisis is affecting the cities budget and their ability to respond to these challenges.

These concerns regard small and medium sized cities too. According to the EU report “Small and medium-sized cities often play a pivotal role within regional economies. They constitute the building blocks of urban regions and lend character and distinctiveness to their regional landscapes (….). Small and medium-sized cities are, therefore, essential for avoiding rural depopulation and urban drift, and are indispensable for the balanced regional development, cohesion and sustainability of the European territory.”

Fermo, is my hometown, a small city of 38000 inhabitants in Marche region, on the east coast of the center of Italy.

Despite its dimension Fermo plays an important role within the local economy, but can we talk about a city of tomorrow?

The local government has recently increased the investment and its efforts in order to solve some of the urgent issues that were affecting the sustainability of Fermo: waste management, water management and sanitary sewer. Let’s see these initiatives.

Waste Management

In 2002 the local government found ASITE, a multiservice organization focused on waste management, environment, energy and ICT.

ASITE implemented several initiative aimed to make Fermo a greener city, here some of the most successful ones:

- mandatory organic waste collection

- door-to door waste pick up service (different day for different type of waste collection)

- extension of the waste door to door pick up to other areas

- bandiera blu 2013:  the Foundation for Environmental Education has awarded Fermo with the blue flag, symbol of a green and clean city.

Water management and sanitary sewer

The water management system is coordinated by CIIP, a public company managing 1277 km of drainage system and offering sanitary sewer and depuration services to almost 500.000 inhabitants.

The quality and efficiency of the infrastructure is ensuring a water dispersion and waste of just 10-15%, respecting the internationaI IWA standars (International Water Association).

My sister, Virginia Recanati (CIIP engineer working in the water management sector since more than 10 years) worked during the last three years in one of the most successful project related to the sanitary sewer: a 4 millions euro high-tech purification plant able to serve 20.000 people and aimed to improve the drainage system (an urgent issue that was undermining the local government due to an imminent European fine).

As a conclusion I believe we can refer to Fermo as a potential city of tomorrow. This historical town on the green Marche hills is taking small actions that could be scaled and replicated to the other proximate communities, being a good example of sustainable urban planning development.

 

Enviar comentario / 18 May 2013 por Veronica Recanati
IMSD /

Andrea Mara Hanai >>

Sustainable Urban Planning: Non Ducor, Duco

 

Created in 1916, São Paulo city’s coat of arms holds the Latin expression “Non ducor, duco” which can be translated into English by “I’m not led; I lead”. The Portuguese translation, though, (“Não sou conduzido; conduzo”) may also mean “No one drives me; I drive”. This really seems to be the motto in São Paulo, a city with a population of 11.3 million people, a fleet of 7 million cars (4,500 per km2), and which traffic is considered the third most congested in the world (after Beijing and Tokyo).

According to the European Commission report The Cities of Tomorrow, “congestion is resource-inefficient; it consumes energy and creates unnecessary pollution, it is time consuming and it consumes space. It decreases the attractiveness and quality of the life of a place”. In fact, the Rede Nossa São Paulo (Our São Paulo Network) performs an annual survey in order to measure the level of satisfaction and welfare of São Paulo’s population, and for many years mobility and security have been featuring as main reasons for dissatisfaction.

The public sector has been trying to deal with this major issue, so billions and billions of Reais (and US dollars, and Euros) have been spent in many different solutions, influenced by success cases all over the world. More metro lines, exclusive lanes for buses, traffic restriction, road widening, intelligent traffic light system, exclusive lanes for cars with more than one person, parking restriction in central areas, bike rental, etc. Next step seems to be the London-inspired congestion charge (or urban toll).

Paulistanos (people from São Paulo), however, suffer more than ever wasting, on average, almost 3 hours a day stuck in traffic jams. And many people argue that the key reason behind the ineffectiveness of these measures is the insufficient scale and speed in which they have been implemented.

Established in 1974, the metro network has now 70.5 km in extension and transports an average of 3.7 million passengers each business day. Comparing to other metropolises, London’s metro total route length is over 400 km, Madrid has 291 km of metro lines, and Mexico City has around 200 km.

São Paulo has 130 km of lanes or street corridors that are exclusive to buses for a total urban area of 1,500 km2. In Curitiba, which is ¼ the size of São Paulo, the BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) has 81 km of exclusive lanes and street corridors for buses.

Implemented in 2012, the bikesharing program (Bike Sampa) has now almost 100 lending stations with 1,000 available bicycles. The program aims to achieve 300 stations and 3,000 available bicycles in the next 2 years. Barcelona Bicing program, for example, has a fleet of 2,000 bikes, available in 200 stations, and Paris Vélib’ program counts on 20,000 bikes and 1,800 bike stations.

 

So, in fact metro, exclusive lanes for buses and bicycles are not sufficient, especially considering the size of São Paulo. On the other hand, this should not be seen as the most important limitation regarding historic public investments on mobility. The central problem is that those investments were not managed in a strategic context. They are not part of an integrated approach to urban development.

On the word of The Cities of Tomorrow, “to meet the challenges of tomorrow, cities need to adopt an integrated approach to planning and development, integrating the social, economic, environmental and territorial dimensions of urban development.” As a consequence, “a dialogue must be fostered between actors in charge of different sectoral policies, such as environment, housing, transport, energy, and those who are in charge of social, cultural and economic development.”

Jaime Lerner, former mayor of Curitiba and architect of the BRT model, makes the following diagnosis on São Paulo’s mobility problems based on the integrated approach to urban development: “It is not sustainable for a city with the magnitude of São Paulo to have its population living in a certain region, working in other region, and enjoying leisure time in a third one.”

In order to tackle this issue, he suggests the renovation of the city center, in which are located most of the companies, services, and jobs. It involves restoring historical buildings and transforming them into attractive residential options to the population. A very interesting initiative related to this alternative was implemented in Santiago de Compostela (Spain). Évora (Portugal) is another amazing example of success in promoting the rehabilitation of its historical city center. New York City also performed a great revitalization of its inner-city neighborhoods.

The world has many other cases of best practices from cities that are willing to share their experiences. Maybe São Paulo should take advantage of this global spirit of inter-city cooperation and temporarily change its motto to Ducor, non Nuco (I’m led; I don’t lead).

Enviar comentario / 17 May 2013 por Andrea Mara Hanai
IMSD /

Kelly Elizabeth Behrend >>

Environmental Impact Assessment: Mountaintop Removal in West Virginia

One of the most under-researched and under-publicized areas of environmental health in the United States is the systematic depletion, degradation, and destruction of the Appalachian Mountain Range since the early 1970s through “mountaintop removal” — a form of rapid surface mining that involves the removal of the summit or ridge of a mountain top using explosives and extractives. This approach is considerably cheaper and faster than conventional mining methods, meaning that its economic benefits to the corporation most often outweigh the clear environmental and social impacts it has on surrounding communities.

Before entering into a conversation on the adverse economic, environmental, and social effects of this practice across the Appalachian region and consequently 13 American States, it may be worthwhile to review some of the key facts about the destructive scope of this practice since its inception:

- ž502 peaks have been removed (1)
- 1.2 million acres of land has been affected (2)
- ž3.14 million tons of carbon dioxide sequestration is destroyed annually (3)
- 2,000 total miles of streams have been lost (4)
- ž3 million pounds of dynamite detonated daily in West Virginia (5)
- ž750 million cubic yards of waste is produced per mine (twice the amount of materials to build the Great Wall of China) (6)

Enviar comentario / 16 May 2013 por Kelly Elizabeth Behrend
IMSD /

Carlos Omar Garcia Pascual >>

Sustainable Urban Planing, When a change is needed: Caracas

This post will be in the context of the learning’s related to the sessions of Sustainability Urban Planning who i had on recent weeks.  The idea of this post will aimed to develop three major sustainable problems of my hometown and how improve the situation.

As some of you may know, Caracas is the capital of Venezuela, and is a city that as the years have passed has become in the backbone of the Venezuelan economy, as well as the main window of opportunities for Venezuelan citizens, also for the called Caraqueños (adjective used for those born in Caracas). Broadly speaking, it is important to note that in the last 20 years the city has received several impacts, that zhave deteriorated considerably quality of life in the city. I will describe three ideas to describe it along.

Population Growth and their effects

Caracas has 6.3 million of inhabitants in the big area of the city, and shares in common with many Latin American cities: densely populated and with limited space being surrounded by mountains. Because of this, the city has grown vertically. One aspect that i want to remark stands out is the number of people living in slum erected on the hillsides surrounding the city. These buildings are known as “Ranchos” (Aprox. 3,5 million of people lives under these conditions only in Caracas) built on the fly, without any formal planning, with deficiencies and inappropriate materials.

Additionally, Caracas is surrounded by other small towns where people live and commutes to the city, this effect has very important consequences, which are related to increase of  levels of traffic congestion, increase the of CO2 emissions from vehicles use to transportation coupled to traffic already generated within the city by its own inhabitants. Other aspect will be the deficit in the transportation system (Our rush hours can be the whole day). Based on this, the first conclusion i had, is that even taking into account the large investments on infrastructure made in recent years on subways, metrocables, transportation initiatives and massive sales of motorcycles, the measures taken does not meet the real needs of the city.

Tap Water?

Another aspect to consider is related to drinking water used by city inhabitants. Nowadays, a huge amount of inhabitants of Caracas do not have access to potable water service in their homes, and the tap water does not have the proper health conditions to be drinkable by people, due to high risk that could lead to ingestion.

This situation has two very powerful consequences, the first is the high consumption of bottled water (for those who has the economic feasibility to buy it), and the effect of increasing the levels of rubbish in Caracas (Waste Management Issues). Additionally of the increase in the amount of diseases as a result of unsafe drinking water by inhabitants, all this issues might  lead the population to a increase of mortality rates.

But the main concern for the city is the lack of policies and actions related to make sure that consumption of tap water becomes a reality.

Security Problems and their effects

The security problems that currently owns Caracas are well-known for their inhabitants, however many people does not know the size of the problem and its effect over the  life of its inhabitants. The 5,687 violent deaths recorded in the year 2012 (national record) positioned Caracas as the fifth city in the world with highest homicide rate in the world, , this situation leave us a grim picture if we consider the following statistics:

Weekly 113 homicides occur, Every day 16 homicides occur, Every 90 minutes a homicide. 

All this happens in Caracas, however this is not a timely phenomenon, because in the last year the total number of homicides in Venezuela reach 22,000 in 2012. In conclusion we could say that the security issue could be likened to a warfare, one that even taking into account their nature do not generate the number of deaths that the situation mentioned above.

The reasons for this situation are diverse, lack of education, social inequality, 15 million of illegal guns on streets, and sustained growth of organized gangs, drive us to do not have a vision of what to do to remediate the situation.

Change is needed and demanded

For all the above is important to note that Caracas needs change, certainly a radical change, one that can help improve the current traffic problems and their environmental effects, others related to the equality of all citizens, bringing a inequalities reduction among them, and allows them to have decent housing with health conditions that let access to potable water, waste dumps. And finally Caracas needs to put a stop to the violence that reigns in the city.

Cities of Tomorrow?  We have a bigger problem to solve…

After the end of the sessions Sustainability Urban Planning, I was reviewing a document that was develop by the European Union as a policy, for city development purposes Cities Of Tomorrow where you can enjoy a variety of items to European reality are quite achievable, however for the specific case to which I refer in this post (Caracas) seem pretty distant. The reason that leads me to this reflection has to do with the structure, and their tangible and intangible elements.

European cities have chord structure levels in most cases with the populations they have, as well as also with policies and programs that are carried out under strict control to ensure compliance with the goals, in the case Caracas it is not, and apparently will not be so until such time that the city planification is not this linked to a personal, political or individual goal or interest.

Enviar comentario / 16 May 2013 por Carlos Omar Garcia Pascual
IMSD /

Paloma Andres Urrutia >>

Sustainable Urban Planning.- What if Madrid and Managua had a coffee together? Learning lessons from the Old Continent or How to avoid the same mistakes that humans have already made…

There is an old saying that states that “a man is the only animal that trips twice over the same stone”. We all know that it takes a few mistakes to learn how to do things right, and even if we listen to social scientists when they explain the different human learning processes, one of the most important methodologies used is called “trial and error”. Sometimes it may seem like we humans, as specie, will be repeating the same mistakes over and over again, and somehow when I think of urban planning, this idea comes to my mind. Are we repeating old mistakes when developing new cities in our world? Is human kind condemned to it?

The answer is NO. There are many ways to learn new behaviors, and yes, trial and error is one of them, but we also learn, as known by psychologist, by observing models. A model can give us ideas of how we want or don´t want things to happen, we can learn from other people and in fact, this is one of the most powerful tools human have. So, in order to create cities that are sustainable and friendly for its inhabitants, it is very important to identify the problems that the cities of today are having, so they are not replicated in the cities of tomorrow. Knowing what doesn´t work today will give us the key to develop better cities. How to use the experience of the past to perform better tomorrow. In this field, Europe, with some of the oldest cities of the planet has a lot to say. Because, and using again an old saying from Spain “the devil has more knowledge because he is old, than because he is the devil” (“Más sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo”).

I have been very lucky in the past and had the opportunity to live in some very different cities or the world. One of them is Madrid, were I was born, a city located in” the old continent” that has evolved for centuries in a country with a long history and a good economic performance when compared to more than half of the countries on earth. I have also lived in Managua, the Nicaraguan capital city, a city that has been destroyed by earthquakes over and over again, having to rise from its ashes many times and evolving in a very chaotic way without real planning behind. At the same time, Managua is part of one of the poorest countries of the American continent, with very difficult life conditions for most of its inhabitants even today. The differences between these two cities are enormous, and it is very difficult to establish a comparison among them, but there are for sure some “learned lessons” that Madrid could share with Managua, helping the development of the city by creating today the things that will be needed tomorrow.

One of the sources that can really help to create sustainable cities in the future is the European report, “Cities of Tomorrow”. It is a document prepared by the European Union about the challenges that European cities are facing in the present days, a very good analysis of the problems that cities are facing, combined with the problems that will affect them in the future. The report is very clear when addressing the issue of the threats that cities in Europe are having today, providing very useful information for the development of new cities. In my opinion, it is one of the most sincere documents I have read from a politic institution in a long time.

So, according to the threats identified in the report, personalizing the cities, and thinking about the things one can learn from the other: what would Madrid say to Managua if they could have a coffee together?

1.- Be careful with the economic growth, it might be gone one day and facing debts is not an easy task…: Madrid, and the whole Spanish country is facing now a brutal economic recession that is jeopardizing many of the efforts put in the past. In the other hand Managua is today witnessing a very important growth in terms of economy, something that is common to most of the countries of Latin America. Madrid would warn Managua: “spend the money in important infrastructure, don´t acquire debts based only in the actual growth and make sure everything you spend is to cover actual needs of the population”

2.- Investing in a vibrant society will bring rewards in the future: Managua is today facing a cultural revolution that could be similar to the one that Madrid experimented during the late 80’s and early 90’s. The result of an important cultural investment in those days transformed the city into what is today, with a vibrant cultural life that makes it attractive for tourists and visitors. Managua needs to make sure that the actual cultural movement keeps moving, that the city embraces the new trends and uses it for the future. In the actual days, the tourists and visitors that go to Nicaragua run away from the city since it doesn´t have important attractions. Madrid, that somehow faced the same problem with the begginig of tourism when all the visitors went directly to the beaches of Spain, would definitely say to Managua that in order to create wealth for the city in the future, the culture and people need to be taken into account.

3.- Transport is a key issue, but make sure you understand the needs of the population before you create public transport systems and roads: Madrid has made major investments in the past to create a mobility plan, but it is such a big investment that the economic maintenance of the actual infrastructures is too high for the city. Managua is in a very important process of growth. New roads and streets are being built, and most of them are developed thinking in the car as the most important transportation system. Managua needs better public transport, and most of the low income inhabitants would benefit from this, helping the economy of the city and the life conditions of its population. The needs for transport today in Managua need to benefit a high percentage of the population, and a car is not affordable for at least half of it. Madrid would recommend Managua to create a system for the people that today need to move around the city without a car, creating better conditions for those who need it most, and avoiding problems in the future with the maintenance of a system that will be only used by a small percentage. The metro system, that would have to be built thinking about the possibility of earthquakes, could be a very good solution for Managua, considering that it is still a small city (2 million inhabitants aprox.) where most of its population need to move in order to find employment opportunities.

4.- Integrate in the city the migrants from rural areas and avoid ghettos for low income and high income communities: Madrid had an important rate of migration in the past with people moving from the rural areas into the city. Most of these migrants were placed in the surroundings of the city, creating neighborhoods that have faced many problems of discrimination, lack of services, drugs and lack of security. Madrid had to learn the lesson the hard way, having to deal with some areas, like San Blas or Vallecas, where the sociological problems where causing important human drama and making this neighborhoods very hard to deal with for the council. Managua is going towards the same direction, not only because the new inhabitants build their houses in the same areas developing neighborhoods with very bad conditions for people, but also because the high income community is building their houses in closed areas with a fence around them, to prevent robbery and violence. The city is creating a system where two different societies coexist without interaction. Madrid would tell Managua to change this system and help rural migrants integrate in the city, because creating ghettos  will bring problems in the future.

5.- Create spaces where people can WALK: Managua is a city where people don´t move around walking. There are two reasons for this: one is the lack of security in the streets, not only because there is not enough police but also because the sidewalks are inexistent in many areas of the city. In the other hand, Managua that was completely destroyed after the earthquake in 1972, has grown without a center. There is not an area that can be considered the center of the city, a place where commercial locals grow and life is shared by the inhabitants. This is the reason why all restaurants, shops, cafeterias and other commercial activities are scattered all over the city, with no walking distance between them. Madrid, with a vibrant city center, would for sure recommend Managua to identify a city center and work to build it, not only because It would make the city more attractive, but also because it would allow citizens to identify a place for reunion, creating the needed “face to face” encounters that have been described by urban experts as an important factor for the success of a city. Enhancing areas with possibilities for integration between inhabitants is the key to the growth of democracy, a key issue for the future.

If Madrid and Managua could have a coffee together one could learn from the other, helping a process of learning that is key for human development. Cities can’t meet, but humans can. In order to create real sustainable development, we need to create systems that enhance the dialog between “young” cities to learn from the “old” cities. And let´s leave “trial and error” methodologies only to create new things that have not been yet invented.

Enviar comentario / 15 May 2013 por Paloma Andres Urrutia
IMSD /

Kelly Elizabeth Behrend >>

Sustainable Urban Planning: Big Lights in Little Rock

If I were to tell you that a LED lighting project in the medium sized American city of North Little Rock, Arkansas would light the way for global change in clean technology deployment in the developing world, would you believe it?

I had the unique opportunity to participate in the P80 Group Foundation-Club de Madrid conference in Little Rock, Arkansas last December and was witness to how such a lighting project was a critical influence in bringing together immense resources, innovative ideas, and essential solutions for investing nearly $3 trillion USD in clean energy technology in the developing world. But how? In this post I will discuss the urban landscape of North Little Rock, its small-scale but powerful vision for the future, the outcomes of the recent P80 Group Foundation-Club de Madrid Conference that took place there, and ultimately the ways in which cities like Little Rock are paving the way for a sustainable future.

As the European Union Regional Policy division defines, a visionary and sustainable city should be:

• “a place with advanced social progress with a high degree of social cohesion, socially-balanced housing as well as social, health, and ‘education for all’ services;
• a platform for democracy, cultural dialogue, and diversity;
• a place with green, ecological, or environmental regeneration; and,
• a place of attraction and an engine of economic growth”. (1)

Although North Little Rock is only one half of the Little Rock Metropolitan area (which also includes Little Rock proper), it certainly has a vision for a sustainable city. The city, founded in 1821, ranks number 75 out of 381 US Metropolitan areas by population, ranking in at about 717,000 inhabitants. The Little Rock Metropolitan area is one of the most historic cities in America, home to some of the most impressive environmental, social, and economically liberal policies in the traditionally conservative American South. Arkansas is the birthplace of many major global corporations including Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods, J.B. Hunt, and Axiom, and is therefore an important hub for economic development in the region and the country. Little Rock also has many museums and cultural attractions, including a 33-acre public park and 14 miles of trails that support a vibrant green city. Arkansas has an impressive history of important figures in business and the arts, including Maya Angelou, Al Greene, William Fulbright, Winthrop Rockefeller, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. As such, the city features the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and the Clinton School for Public Service (the first university to offer a Master of Public Service), as well as leading global nonprofits such as Heifer International and Winrock International, both of which have particular focus on sustainable urban and rural development.

To learn more about this historic American city and how it is situating itself for the future, I encourage you to watch this fantastic video, which debuted at the opening of the Club de Madrid conference:

As the video above demonstrates, Little Rock indeed has a vision for a sustainable city. Under the impassioned, 24-year leadership of Mayor Patrick Henry Hays (who just retired in January 2013), Little Rock was witness to significant sustainable urban transformation in terms of increased green space, expanded trails systems for recreation and public health, revitalized city center, preserved historic sites, and an expansive LED lighting project across city roadways, parks, and public spaces.

Hays’ involvement in initiatives such as the LED lighting project led him to serve as Chair of the Board of Directors for ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), which is considered one of the foremost international associations for urban engagement in environmental and sustainable planning. ICLEI has long led the movement for city leadership on the global scale in terms of social and environmental sustainability, and Mayor Pat Hays provided visionary guidance and action during his time as mayor of North Little Rock. In this sense, the city served as a key pulse-point for Mayor Hays’ global activity and advocacy, deeply connecting the local activity of North Little Rock with the global leadership of ICLEI and vice versa. In fact, the US Green Building Council (which manages the LEED certification scheme) cites North Little Rock and Patrick Hays’ work as a program model in its “12 Steps to a Greener Community” guidelines — demonstrating how this medium-sized city has proved to be a local, national, and international model for sustainable urban planning. (2)

Given the Mayor Hays’ leadership, North Little Rock’s deep connection with ICLEI, and the presence of Bill Clinton’s presidential library and university, the city was a perfect setting for the 11th annual Club de Madrid Conference, which focused on installing clean energy technology in the developing world. To do so, the Club de Madrid (an association of 90+ former Heads of State putting democracy into action for development) had invited the P80 Group Foundation (a nonprofit organization with the mission to catalyze $3 trillion USD in pension funds and sovereign wealth investments toward climate solutions), ICLEI (for its sustainable urban planning experise) and nonprofits like Peacework (for their sustainable rural planning expertise). Together, the Little Rock Accord was signed, which formalized a partnership for the financing and deployment of clean energy technology in the developing world, using urban centers as models and catalysts for change. As the photo shows below, I was lucky enough to participate in the signing of the Accord, alongside sustainability professionals and practitioners as well as 90+ former Heads of State represented by the Club de Madrid:

Although it took many actors and influences to bring together this unique group of people, this case demonstrates how cities themselves can take steps forward to achieving the sustainable solutions that we envision for a better global future. Despite the important role of international treaties and agreements (i.e. Kyoto Protocol, UN Global Compact), such soft law frameworks have critical challenges than can delay implementation and innovation.

Cities and their leadership, however, have always been innovating to face the rapidly changing demographics and needs of urban centers, thereby providing critical outlets for more immediate sustainable solutions than perhaps any other avenue can provide. The case of Little Rock demonstrates how cities — even medium or small sized cities — can pilot innovative climate solutions, scale it up through international networks, and spark widespread change. Other medium sized American cities (such as Salt Lake City, Richmond, and Tallahassee) and world cities (such as Vancouver, Canada; Kingston, Jamaica; and Lisbon, Portugal) can learn a lot from the leadership of Little Rock.

It is with this enthusiasm and experience that I look toward the “Cities of Tomorrow” as ideal sites for the innovative solutions that we desperately need to provide a prosperous future for our people and our planet.

 

———————————–

(1) Regional Policy, European Union (October 2011). Executive Summary. Cities of Tomorrow: Challenges, Visions, Ways Forward. <<http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/citiesoftomorrow/citiesoftomorrow_summary_en.pdf>> Accessed 14 May 2013.

(2) US Green Building Council. 12 Steps to a Greener Community. Archived Resources. <<http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs7584.pdf>>. Accessed 14 May 2013.

Enviar comentario / 14 May 2013 por Kelly Elizabeth Behrend
IMSD /

Amy Blyth >>

Best Practices in Water Management: A look at LA

The city of Los Angeles is home to 3.8 million people living in 469 square miles. It is the second largest city in the US, behind New York City (which has a population of 8.2 million people that miraculously live in 302 square miles of land).

During the last few decades, the City of Los Angeles has been working diligently, and has seen significant results, in the area of water conservation. According to data collected in March 2012, Los Angeles uses less water today than 40 years ago, despite a population increase of over 1 million people:

That’s a rather significant achievement.

So, how has LA done it?

Water use in the City of Los Angeles peaked in 1986. The following five years saw severe drought, and therefore water shortages throughout the city. In 1990, the city passed The Emergency Water Conservation Plan Ordinance which established a list of water conservation actions that the city would enact depending on the severity of water scarcity at a given time. This ordinance was later amended in 2008 to make some of the measures mandatory at all times of the year – regardless of the current water situation – and expanded certain practices to the general public. The Emergency Water Conservation Plan Ordinance places restrictions on specific actions including using water for landscaping purposes (watering lawns, trees, flowers, etc.), cleaning sidewalks with water, and serving water to customers in restaurants unless asked. The ordinance also prohibits residents to leave water leaks unattended.

Additionally, since the mid 1980s the city has been investing a significant amount of money in rebate programs to help ease the costs related to installing water efficient appliances, such as low-flow toilets and shower heads. According to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), as of March 2012 over 3.5 million indoor water efficient devices had been installed under rebate programs.

In 2008, Mayor Villaraigosa launched a long term strategy for water conservation. The strategy, titled “Securing LA’s Water Supply”, aimed to meet 100% of new water demand by 2030. The plan implemented strict enforcement of The Emergency Water Conservation Plan Ordinance, which had not been strongly enforced since 1992. This required a large awareness raising campaign in order to inform residents, restaurant owners and businesses about the conservation requirements listed within the ordinance. The Mayor’s strategy also included goals to increase the amount of recycled water “6-fold” within the city by 2019 and to implement storm water capture projects. Additionally, the San Fernando Aquifer would be cleaned up in order to better utilize the groundwater. According to the city, the “Securing LA’s Water Supply” strategy would reduce water imports by nearly 30% and would produce enough water to supply nearly half a million people by 2020.

According to a study conducted by the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Water Committee, in 2011 Los Angeles was rated one of five “model cities” within Los Angeles and Orange Counties regarding water conservation programs. These five cities, which also included Burbank, La Palma, La Verne, and Mission Viejo, were considered to have “the best number of water conservation measures” out of all the cities within the two counties.

Is this success transferable to other cities?

The Sierra Club Angeles Chapter Water Committee stated within their report that the programs enacted by Los Angeles City “provide a roadmap for the remaining cities in Los Angeles County and Orange County to more effectively conserve local and imported urban water resources for the future.” Given the relative success of Los Angeles City’s water conservation efforts within the last few decades, these programs and policies could be considered a best practice for other large cities that also face water scarcity and drought.

Other “dry” cities around the world should be looking into the inititatives implemented by Los Angeles to see what “best practices” could also be used within their own cities and specific contexts.

Water Conservation in the Future?

Although Los Angeles City is considered one of the best cities in the LA and Orange County region in terms of water conservation efforts, the city still has room for improvement.

The water conservation strategy enacted by Mayor Villaraigosa was considered “reasonable and achievable” by Mark Gold, president of the non profit organization Heal the Bay. Yet, since the plan’s inauguration in March of 2008, critics have noted that only a portion of the initiatives have actually been implemented. In a 2011 article written for the Los Angeles Times, Mark Gold states:

The city has made some major strides on conservation, in large part thanks to restrictions on yard watering and economic incentives for water-efficient appliances and machinery. But we haven’t really begun to implement major components of the plan because [Los Angeles Department of Water and Power] leadership hasn’t made them a high priority.

In 2011, the LADWP had not yet invested in the installment of the reclamation plants required to increase the amount of recycled water used in LA City “six-fold”, nor had they invested in the storm water capture programs layed out in Villaraigosa’s plan. The LADWP described these programs as “extras”; they stated that since they were not essential, “the City Council should decide whether to fund them.”

This lack of political will has meant that much of the opportunity for significant reduction in water demand in Los Angeles City has not been realized. With the estimated increase in population and possible drought problems due to climate change in the future, LA needs to re-think the importance of these initiatives and explain the long term benefits of these programs to citizens. These investments will create a more reliable water supply in LA and will help stabilize pricing. The water management legislation and rebate programs implemented so far have shown great improvements in conservation; however, the city should be more proactive in implementing the remaining portions of Villaraigosa’s strategy.

Los Angeles City vs. The Greater Los Angeles Area

When we talk about Los Angeles, we tend to think about the LA Metropolitan Region as a whole. Citizens of the region often live within one city, yet work in another city within the Los Angeles Area. Therefore, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area behaves more like a de facto city, rather than a de jure city.

De Facto and De Jure Cities in Urban Planning:

According to the publication Cities of Tomorrow, the de jure city is considered the “administrative city” that is limited to the activities within the clear, historic city borders. This contrasts the de facto city, which is defined as “physical or socio-economic realities which have been approached through either a morphological or a functional definition”.

In other words, de jure refers to the actual city of Los Angeles, whereas de facto refers to the entire “functioning city” of Los Angeles – regardless of the technical city jurisdiction that the area falls under.  The de facto Los Angeles, in terms of the functioning, morphological city unit, can be defined as (what Los Angelinos know as) the “Greater Los Angeles Area”:

The Greater Los Angeles Area includes parts of Ventura, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties. It is home to roughly 21 million people, living in 34,135 square miles.

With this in mind, it is important to think about the issues of water conservation as a de facto, rather than a du jure, issue. Given that the groundwater and aquifer sources for the region are the same, the problem should be managed by the region as a whole rather than simply considering the de jure boundary of Los Angeles City.  According to Cities of Tomorrow, “such inter-municipal cooperation is the basis for the creation of the new, more flexible functional urban area governance entities”.

To create this inter-municipal cooperation, the Greater Los Angeles County region has begun to collaborate in order to “develop an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) that focuses on water resource management while creating a platform for future funding”.  The initiative encompasses several programs including initiatives to optimize local water resources, improve the quality of water sources, properly manage aquatic natural reserves, and reduce the region’s flood risk.

Initiatives such as the IRWMP are important in managing certain issues in the de facto Los Angeles. The IRWMP will help to ensure the water security of the entire region by guaranteeing that all municipalities are actively involved in water conservation and water quality measures. One de jure city in the Los Angeles region can not solve the problem alone.

With programs like the IRWMP, and the political will to back its initiatives, the Greater Los Angeles Area can make sure that the water resources in Southern California are properly managed and sustainable in the future.

Enviar comentario / 14 May 2013 por Amy Blyth
IMSD /