Social entrepreneurship spin?

Today, thousands of people around the world base their work, their aspirations or their studies around Social Entrepreneurship. It is a term that has strengthened and has gained popularity, to describe positively a person or business (the entrepreneur) who aspires to address a social issue, in a way that is financially sustainable.

Certainly it is an attractive term that from the hand of an original idea may generate a great success in the market. Proof of this, is the use given to the term in the digital community, while not representing the majority of the world’s population, is a good indicator of the business world and of young idealists that day by day try to do something “out of the box”.

For example, a search on Google, one of the most popular search engines, yields 89.9 million results that contain the term social entrepreneurship. In the news section, the same search engine throws as a result 29,200 notes and articles published in media around the world. Of course, Wikipedia, the largest collaborative platform also has an entry that defines and elaborates a bit on its history and practices.

As for social networks, on Twitter more than a hundred people and organizations are defined as @SocialEnrepreneurs and online conversations around the topic are constant. Facebook is also a major source of business groups defined under this term.

The network is then flooded with the topic of Social Entrepreneurship. In a first moment, it is possible to think of this as a positive sign, because it means more people are willing to create business models that include innovation and society in its center. Likewise, the conversation generated between people enriches the discourse in this area and contributes to the achievement of best practices.

However, as happened in other areas of sustainable development, there is a fine line between true social action by an entrepreneur, and people or businesses that use the term to exalt and promote themselves within the market. Something like the “greenwashing”.

A real and true social entrepreneur is someone who has the ultimate goal to generate systemic change in society, and does so through the creation of an innovative idea that leads to a business model, which is characterized by being replicable and scalable. It is this change in focus and project characteristics that separate truly #SocialEntrpreneurs from the rest.

It is therefore misleading and dishonest to some extent, to use the term simply for trend or with the intention to obtain a competitive advantage because in some way or another it damages the terminology and contrary to the first impression, impoverish the discourse and action.

Moreover, and as with the greenwashing, based on the cover with green or ecological actions or bluewashing, which refers to dressing up with actions related to the United Nations, conversion of social entrepreneurship to a term that masks actions, is a barrier to the achievement of sustainable development.

Therefore, it is necessary not to abuse the term by understanding it, being honest and using it to categorize people that according to Bill Drayton, CEO and founder of Ashoka, are defined as “[persons that] are not content just to give a fish, or teach how to fish. They will not rest until they have revolutionized the fishing industry.”

 

Comments Off on Social entrepreneurship spin? / 24 May 2013 por Monica Ducoing
IMSD /

Urban Planning: A general overview of Lisbon’s current urban planning and its possible improvements.

Lisbon’s general traits.

Lisbon city is the capital of Portugal and considered as one of the largest cities in the country. It is the 11^th most populated city  (547,631 within its administrative limits)  in the European Union, lieying  the Atlantic sea and the Tagus river.

Considered as one of the oldest cities in western world, it’s existence dates back to the Phoenician Empire (1200 BC), was the capital of the Portuguese Empire and it has been considered the capital of the  Lusophone world ( Portuguese speaking countries).

Due to all these factors, the city has been challenged to an ongoing process of adaptation, oftenly affecting the conservation of its historical heritage and its habitant’s quality of life.

However, the city still maintain some of the characteristics  prized by the nowadays urban planning specialists, namely its compacted model , which facilitates transport improvement and held high population density.

 

Its current urban challenges

In contrast to most capitals, Lisbon appears as a special case of population loss. In fact, the city within its administrative limits had lost around 10% of its population compared to the 90’s. Some of the pointed explanations for this phenomenon are the expansion of peripheral urbanization and dislocation of population to some of the small surrounding towns that tend to have good public transportation connecting the capital and have houses and apartments at a lower price.

This is also the reason why the historical city center has a higher number of vacant buildings very dilapidated and, in turn, an aging population that affects the dynamics of the city.

In opposition to this trend, some policies, especially during the 90′s and the first decade of the xxi century has promoted the arrival of companies’ offices to some of the vacant buildings in order to recover them. However, this has been the on the main reason for the raising house prices, which makes young couples seek for their new homes in the periphery.

As consequence, the nowadays center of the capital   during the day is full of people who works in the offices and during the night is almost empty.

One other challenge is the soil sealing. The challenging is huge since soil sealing is an almost irreversible process, putting biodiversity at risk, increasing water scarcity and   increasing the risk of flooding. This last aspect is extremely serious for Lisbon. The city that sprawled in a range of hills characterized by their large number of streams that flowed into the Tagus River saw them converted into under the ground piped streams with the function of draining the wastewater and rain.

Quite rottenly the city, especially along the river, is affected by flooding’s. Making the population ate risk of losing their material property (houses, furniture, cars, etc…) and sometimes their own life.

Soil sealing also made the city lose their green spaces or had a policy of not increasing them. In fact, if we take into consideration that most of the green parks and gardens of European cities were created during the xix century to mitigate the impacts of pollution during the industrial revolution, and that in Lisbon industrialized had never been a major problem, we can understand why if we have this current situation. However, some of the gardens are of an incredible value due to its diversity of species (some endangered) brought during the colonial period. This means that they are extremely important to preserve.

Also, the city as a locked forest park surrounded by high urbanized neighborhoods, named Parque Florestal de Monsanto. Although it isn’t a natural forest, but a human made one, the park apart of mitigating potential floodings due to water rentention and regulate the city’s microclimate, it also maintains some of the rarest animals  and plants at national level. As well as a leisure area for most citizens that want to have contact with a natural environment.

Nevertheless, the park has been reduced to building construction and is regularly used as illegal waste disposal area, making its biodiversity and special role in the city at risk.

Not least, it is important to make a reference to the stringent policies of the last century of destruction of the tram transportation. Such policies were especially made after the country European Union entry.

Lisbon used to have a well-developed tram system since the xix century that covered the main regions of the city, including streets that due to its size were not suitable to car use. However, during the late 80’s the country had a policy of promoting the acquisition of private vehicles?

As consequence, some of the most characteristic neighborhoods of Lisbon, with its narrow, hilly streets, lost its population.

 

A new Lisbon’s urban planning policy will require considering the following:

Recovery of vacant buildings. The recovery of these buildings should be made ​​taking into account other aspects of urban planning. In fact, many of these buildings are located in areas with excellent transport infrastructure and other services. The main question is about the political options, vision of the historical center. So far, the preference has been to convert them into offices.

But surely that a policy of incentives that of rejuvenating the existing population, through the conservation of floors for the use of families, as well as tax benefits for young couples, creating student residences or artificially low prices in certain areas (such as apartments in the center of the castle ) would bring benefits.

Hand in Hand with such policies is the one of recovering the tram system, as well as creating bike paths.

As mentioned-before, the tram system due to its characteristics is suitable to some streets that are narrow and hilly. Also, the transport doesn’t have any type of greenhouse gas emissions (especially if we consider that even the electricity in the country is coming from river dams and wind mills).

The tram system is essential as a whole, but especially in these types of streets. The ageing population in Portugal is increasing (but it is already one of the most aged population in the European Union), creating a need of efficient public transportation that allows displacement in neighborhoods that present more obstacles for the elderly.

In the case of bike paths, they are a perfect transport to develop alongside the river Tagus, making possible the displacement from the East side to the west side of the city fatly and easily. Also, some areas in Lisbon are completely flat and suitable for the bicycle use. This is the reason why there is no excuse at high levels to implement this transport in the city.

Due to its good public transportation infrastructure, not including these two transports in the city system makes me conclude that it because of a poor policymaker vision of a lack of willingness.

Regarding the green parks and gardens of the city, it is essential to see them has an important asset in the city due to its natural services, historical heritage and potential to make the population closer to fauna and flora naturally present in the countryside.

Some measures had been taken in the recent years in order to create green corridors that allow the connection of fauna and flora between the countryside and the locked forest park within the city region. Actually, Ribeiro Telles, awarded as with the most important prize “Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe” in the Landscape Architecture field in Auckland, introduced the concept of a natural looking landscape that seeks for “an intimate relationship between culture and nature” in the country. By the use of native plants and creation of gardens that more resemble some of the Portuguese natural ecosystems, this architect had created recreational spaces that benefit the population of Lisbon and mitigate impacts such as floods and water infiltration in the soil (i.e.; Jardins da  Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian).

 

Brief Conclusions

The city of Lisbon presents a reality sometimes different from other European cities. The loss of population and great potential to become a city as a pioneer in urban urbanization model for twenty-first century has been ignored.

Policies that benefit the population  and that takes into  account the city as an ecosystem that requires balance and that is dynamic in its evolution  is essential.

Preserving the historical heritage, both human and natural, is also important to maintain the city’s identity and promote economic activities such as tourism and human sciences.

Recognize and acknowledge those who make the city better or attempt to inspire a vision of a better place should also been taken into consideration. This, hand in hand with a public participation, where groups of disadvantaged people are heard (such as the elderly) will make Lisbon a better place to live and adapted to the xxi century challenges.

 

 

Bibliography

Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, [Online], Available: http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/viver/seguranca/protecao-civil-e-socorro/riscos-da-cidade [22 May 2013].

Gomes, J.C.B. (2009) A mobilidad e a teoria da cidade compacta; caso estudo: a cidad de Lisboa, November, [Online], Available:https://dspace.ist.utl.pt/bitstream/2295/578137/1/dissertacao%20Joana%20Gomes.pdf [22 May 2013].

Lisboa-cidade História da Cidade de Lisboa, [Online], Available: http://www.lisboa-cidade.com/lx/index99pt.asp?pa=ptihist.htm [21 May 2013].

Rosa, M.J.V. (2000) Notas sobre a população:- Lisboa:Área metropolitana e cidade (pg. 1045-1055), [Online],Available: http://analisesocial.ics.ul.pt/documentos/1218801670B0mER1ku7Ji94SZ3.pdf [21 May 2013].

 

 

Comments Off on Urban Planning: A general overview of Lisbon’s current urban planning and its possible improvements. / 24 May 2013 por Pedro Vicente
IMSD /

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.

Comments Off on Strategic Environmental Assessment: Integrated Regional Water Management in Los Angeles / 20 May 2013 por Amy Blyth
IMSD /

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.

 

Comments Off on Social Entrepreneurship: SOCIAL IMPACT not INCOME / 19 May 2013 por Veronica Recanati
IMSD /

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.

Comments Off on Social Entrepreneurship: The New “Hybrid” Organization / 19 May 2013 por Amy Blyth
IMSD /

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.

 

Comments Off on Sustainable Urban Planning: my hometown Fermo, a city of tomorrow? / 18 May 2013 por Veronica Recanati
IMSD /

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).

Comments Off on Sustainable Urban Planning: Non Ducor, Duco / 17 May 2013 por Andrea Mara Hanai
IMSD /

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)

5 comentarios / 16 May 2013 por Kelly Elizabeth Behrend
IMSD /

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.

Comments Off on Sustainable Urban Planing, When a change is needed: Caracas / 16 May 2013 por Carlos Omar Garcia Pascual
IMSD /

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.

Comments Off on 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… / 15 May 2013 por Paloma Andres Urrutia
IMSD /