Planning for Sustainability

I found two articles that are great for this week's assignment. The first one presents how planning, as done in the states of America, affects all of us. The second one presents the dilemma local public employees face.


Copyright & Photo Credits © ICLEI 1995-2008. All rights reserved.

http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3759&tx_ttnews[backPid]=983&cHash=b3d08ea505

Lessons from floods in Fargo; April 09, 2009

Rebecca Carter, PhD, ICLEI USA Adaptation Manager analyzed the events that lead for the need for the residents of Fargo, ND, to be called to worked together to save their city from the floodwaters of the Red River. Their efforts seem to have paid off and the river appears to have crested below the level of the sandbag levees they constructed. It must be noted that things could have resulted badly, and events could have resulted as bad as what occurred in 1997.

Lessons learned from 1997.

Grand Forks of 2009 had infrastructure to protect it, and Fargo of 1997 did not.
“After incurring $1.5 billion in losses to hundreds of homes and businesses in 1997, Grand Forks was able to raise $409 million, half of it in federal funds, for a floodwall and water-diversion system to permanently protect it from the recurrent flooding that had plagued the city since it was founded. [1]“ According to Mrs. Carter, in 2007, FEMA certified that Grand Forks’ new levee system was complete and ready to protect the city from floods of up to 60 feet—nine feet higher than the crest during the 1997 flood, and well below this year’s [2].

What does this say of national planning?

The idea that nothing gets done until some catastrophic event happens if of great personal concern. The article read states that we should consider a 2008 study from the University of Maryland found that although global climate models predict that “North Dakota will become drier in the future and subject to more intense droughts, it is also expected to experience more intense storms. Given the Red River’s history of flooding, land use changes such as expanding agriculture into wetlands that once might have absorbed flood waters, and more severe weather predictions, there is little doubt that Fargo will face a similar—or worse—flood threat in the years to come [3].” Other communities also face increasing vulnerabilities to climate change as sea levels begin to rise, wildfires become more frequent and intense, and new public health risks such as extreme heat events increase.

What this illustrates is the need for a “more proactive approach to funding infrastructure to reduce community vulnerabilities due to climate change. Local governments can’t wait until the impacts descend on them—they must anticipate them, plan accordingly, and obtain buy-in from their community members for bold actions. There is, of course, a rush of stimulus spending on infrastructure projects nationwide, but how much allocation is happening with local climate resiliency in mind? [4]” As stated by Wheeler when a study was made on the general plans or other local planning documents, “sustainability planning is in its early stages, and that consensus or political backing has not yet emerged for the most meaningful changes.” (Wheeler; pg. 179)

We are still in the reactive (not proactive) mode.

Note: ICLEI USA’s Climate Resilient Communities™ Program will assist local governments in enhancing their resiliency to the impacts and costs associated with projected climate change. When this program launches later in 2009, it will provide local governments with the guidance, tools, and resources to assess vulnerabilities, establish targets and goals, and plan and take action.

References:

[1] http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3759&tx_ttnews[backPid]=983&cHash=b3d08ea505

[2] [4] Rebecca Carter, PhD, ICLEI USA Adaptation Manager

[3] University of Maryland 2008 study on North Dakota’s Red River


http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=1487&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3710&tx_ttnews[backPid]=983&cHash=080efd3eef

Cities commit to reducing their carbon footprint by consuming sustainably

The seventh EcoProcura Conference which occurred in Reykjavik (Iceland) from the 25-27 March 2009 was a conference held for public authority delegates from 41 nations who pledged to use their economic purchasing power to help fight climate change. The desire is to boost the market for climate friendly products and services. EcoProcura participating nations also concluded in their closing arguments for all national governments to put on the national/international agenda: global climate. Global climate is to be the central discussion of the Copenhagen conference, scheduled to happen later this year.

The end results of this conference are listed below:

• Using sustainable purchasing as a sound basis for a sound future: renewed commitment to more responsible purchasing practices will make it easier for its public authorities and businesses to tap into the opportunities offered from increased savings, not only of greenhouse gas emissions, but also from savings in local energy bills from reduced consumption

• Over 220 representatives from local governments, national governments and other public sector bodies discussed for three days how sustainable public purchasing practices can make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation

• Official signing of a new Icelandic Sustainable Procurement National Action Plan by the Ministers of the Environment and Finance
Delegates were called to “think globally and act locally”, which, according to Iceland’s Environment Minister, Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, “is the mantra that will lead us to a more sustainable society”.

One of the challenges that may not allow for all the issues discussed in EcoProcura occur is that the “[C]hanging the way procurement is practiced by public bodies poses a challenge particularly because the bottom line for any city is to save money “– this is only one of the key issues debated extensively in Reykjavik. This last sentence represents an item discussed by Wheeler “[A]lthough the challenges of sustainable development seem overwhelming at times,,,,, it is indeed possible to plan for a better future” (Wheeler; pg. 235). The desire to implement a better way of purchasing public resources shows the need to “[A]t least some of these structural conditions (social norms and the power of economic institutions) will need to change for social and political values to change. Or perhaps, if we are lucky, both inner and outer changes will happen at the same time, in response to stimuli that we can as yet only dimly see.” (Wheeler; pg. 235)

Tools for Sustainability Planning

Article #1.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070424180848.htm

The first article discusses the slash and burn practices that farmers in Western Borneo utilize. The slash and burn farming is the traditional method used by the Iban, indigenous population in northwestern Borneo in Southeast Asia. The slash and burn method, or the swidden method, involves cutting down forested areas, burning the vegetation to produce fertile ash and then farming that land for a period of time. Sometimes the Iban used old growth forest, while at other times this was done with secondary forest (forest that had been more recently farmed and then left fallow, which is most common today).

Rice farming remains essential to the Iban, both economically and spiritually.

This method of farming, according to Dutch studies, was considered in the past to be the proper way of farming, for it was safer and less time consuming for the Iban because the dense forest cover prevented the growth of many weeds, which had to be removed for good harvests. On the other hand, the weeding process was lengthy for swidden plots of secondary forest, and during the weeding period, men had to guard the women and children in the fields from possible attack by raiders. If old growth forest was slashed and burned, weeding time was greatly reduced.

Some sustainability critics state that the slash and burn method of farming is un-sustainable. "For decades, swidden cultivation and tropical deforestation have been linked in national and international governmental discourse. Colonial and national governments have sought to outlaw it, while scientists have variously vilified, apologized for, and tried to contextualize swidden," Wadley said (Dutch researcher). On the other hand, others state that the Iban's traditional swidden farming techniques do not produce such environmental degradation as many believe, since the Iban have farmed the same areas for a long period of time with adequate fallow and little loss of plot fertility. Wadley argues, "My research argues that tropical agriculture is a historically contingent phenomenon, and farmers have always adjusted and responded to conditions in front of them, both positively and negatively."

This article highlights what is discussed by Stephen Wheeler (Chapter 7) when he states “[I]nternational development agencies such as the World Bank have typically promoted western models of development as well, including freeways and other large infrastructure. The result currently is that unsustainable development models are spreading across the Third World in a twenty-first-century form of cultural imperialism.” (Wheeler; pg. 103)

Are we quantifying and qualifying an ancient farming and CULTURAL/SPIRITUAL methodology with imperialistic ideas? It has been suggested that this method of farming can be improved to address some sustainability concerns. It is neither evil nor saint-like. The method, as suggested when adapting the Dutch national Environmental Plan “Towards Sustainability" (Wheeler; pg. 105) can modify this practice by combining regulatory, voluntary and market approaches that allow the Iban to remain being rice farmers, be a viable economic community, and improve their rice production.

Reference:

1. University of Missouri-Columbia (2007, April 26). Slash-and-burn Farming Method In Western

2. Wheeler, Stephen. (2006). Planning for Sustainability: Creating livable, equitable, and ecological communities

Article #2

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219105322.htm

Tropical forests hold more living biomass than any other terrestrial ecosystem. A new report in the journal Nature by Lewis shows that not only do trees in intact African tropical forests hold a lot of carbon, they hold more carbon now than they did 40 years ago--a hopeful sign that tropical forests could help to mitigate global warming [1].

According to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, growing trees absorb carbon while dead, decomposing trees release carbon. Researchers expect growth and death to approximately balance each other out in mature, undisturbed forests, and thus for total tree carbon stocks, the carbon held by the trees, to remain approximately constant.

The reality is that on average each hectare (100 x 100 meters, or 2.2 acres) of apparently mature, undisturbed African forest was increasing in tree carbon stocks by an amount equal to the weight of a small car each year. Previous studies have shown that Amazonian forests also take up carbon, although at somewhat lower rates. This means that by aggregating the growth and death of the African and Amazon forest, there is more absorption of carbon than release.

"If you assume that these forests should be in equilibrium, then the best way to explain why trees are growing bigger is anthropogenic global change – the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could essentially be acting as fertilizer." says Muller-Landau, "But it's also possible that tropical forests are still growing back following past clearing or fire or other disturbance. Given increasing evidence that tropical forests have a long history of human occupation, recovery from past disturbance is almost certainly part of the reason these forests are taking up carbon today."…. "While we still can't explain exactly what is behind this carbon sink, one thing we know for sure is that it can't be a sink forever. Trees and forests just can't keep getting bigger. Tropical forests are buying us a bit more time right now, but we can't count on them to continue to offset our carbon emissions in the future." [2]

This article references some sustainability indicators used by researchers to both quantify the current sustainability level of forests, as well as predict future levels. These indicators, as noted by Wheeler (Chapter 6) involve complex systems and these same indicators may not be clear cut as the citizens, policy makers or politicians would want. All must be educated to realize the “old standards must now be reviewed and changed” (Wheeler; pg. 94) for societal and technological conditions change. Science also improves. The challenge is that “[d]espite the huge benefits that standards have in terms of spreading sustainable design practices……..standards are often be too rigid, and have difficulty keeping up with changing technology and innovation.” (Wheeler; pg. 94)

Reference:

1. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (2009, March 2). Cleaning The Atmosphere Of Carbon: African Forests Out Of Balance. ScienceDaily.

2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219105322.htm

3. Wheeler, Stephen. (2006). Planning for Sustainability: Creating livable, equitable, and ecological communities

Sustainability and Public policy goal

How should sustainability be defined in policy-making? What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal? How do you include the public or experts (and which) into a policy framework that includes sustainability? How would this framework look like? How would you take a long term view to include sustainability, if politicians and voters look for short term results?


As stated by Goodland in “The Concept of Environmental Sustainability”, when developing a public policy the term sustainability should be broadly defined to include 3 components, these are social, economical and environmental sustainability. Defining each component of sustainability may help organize “the action required approaching global sustainability in real life.” It must be noted also, that environmental sustainability is “a prerequisite for social sustainability” (Redclift); the only realistic way of attaining a policy goal of sustainable development is that poverty has to be reduced before tackling the problem of environmental quality.

It is believed that defining sustainability with these 3 components, a triangle of actions is fostered so that one or all are tackled according to the community’s existing conditions. For example, social sustainability may be achieved by exhibiting behaviors such as tolerance and diversity acceptance. Economic sustainability must be a goal of all members of the community, independently of their race or gender. This component of sustainability may be achieved by accepting that different groups of diverse members of the community may be allocated, depending on their needs, different resources, however the net consumption of the community is zero in relation to principal; which results in achieving environmental sustainability.

The problem in defining sustainability in such a way, is that by integrating social, environmental and economic sustainability, and wanting to achieve sustainable development without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Solow, 1991), the policy may be valuing “future” in a depreciative manner. Policy goals may want to correct an existing problem, but having a futuristic view of it, may be impossible to grasp or define.

By utilizing the Mountain Association for Community Development (MACED) definition of sustainability we involve public choice. Public choice is included, according to MACED, for sustainability involves the capacity to make developmental choices which respect the relationship between economy, ecology and equity. Citizens, therefore, have a choice in defining how to utilize their community’s resources and the timing and output desired. It must be recognized that the public, by stating their choice, are taking a long-term cultural, economic and environmental health view, which translates into a long term approach that requires a participatory process requiring consensus on the “best” use of resources. This is stated as long-term for most of the development actions must “live” for more than 10 years to be successful.

I would include experts that may be able to define indicators that measure the use and output of the community’s resources, and that are able to provide insight in the 3 components of sustainability. The framework that defines such a policy decision would look as a platform that includes actions of in all three sustainability areas (social, economical and environmental) with performance measurements tied to all three. The framework would also define short term achievable target measures, and long term indicators. By framing the policy in such a way, you provide short term visible measures that may indicate success to politicians and voters (in the short term perspective they need), as well as provide actions that allow for sustained sustainability (long term view).