Synopsis ECOCITY 2013 - EN

Preliminary Synopsis of ecocity 2013 Nantes 27 September 2013 Pierre Calame, General Rapporteur of ECOCITY 2013 A summary of this paper was presented at the closing plenary 1. A collective intelligence challenge Dear participants, it is now that you will discover what you actually said in the workshops! This is a joke of course, but perhaps only partly, as many references made during the sessions, apparently specific, sometimes anecdotal, appear to have a different scope when compared to topics in the same vein.

Just a word about the approach we adopted to produce this summary in «real time.» Many sessions focused on the process of collective creativity based on new policies. The organizers wanted the Summit to be consistent with these beliefs to become, in itself, a process of collective creativity. Hence they took the risk of this «no safety net» exercise in the production of a realtime synopsis for a very large number of sessions. This would seem an impossible challenge, if only because of the inability of the rapporteur to attend a number of workshops taking place at the same time. To resolve this contradiction, we adopted a rigorous procedure combining audacity and rigour.

Taking the risk to summarise each session in real time is a bold move. We have opted for a rigorous approach, on the one hand, by adopting a unified note-taking template for each session and on the other hand, by not pretending to cover all the issues that were discussed, but focusing on a key topic that is common to all: what are the changes being undertaken or what are the changes necessary to effectively lead the transition towards sustainable societies.

Real time note-taking was made possible thanks to the mobilization of a large number of students who attended each session and looked at the most significant elements raised by the speakers or during the discussions, with a specific focus on the issue of necessary changes. We decided to put our trust on young people. They did a great job. Please applaud them.

But I also hope that this ‘preliminary’ summary, fully enriched by the students who did not have personal, professional experience on the topics you covered, will be the be all and end all, just as this real time summary can only be the starting point for a truly collective synopsis of the Summit which has allowed, by the diversity of angles of approach, to «fix» a point in time: where what appears more and more clearly is a vast collective change process without centralized guidance.

We need to go further and the most difficult part still lies ahead, that is to start a second, post-summit phase of work. It is the most difficult one because everyone, after this important event, has returned to their everyday activities. In this second phase, each of the participants will enrich the collective material by feeding into the collective thinking, the way the students did it and with the same tools, but this time starting from their own experience, ie what are the changes underway and what changes are necessary.

What are the scope and the legitimacy of what I am presenting to you tonight? This preliminary summary benefits from what I call a procedural legitimacy: it derives from the process it came from. To benefit from this legitimacy, the synopsis must be both controllable and refutable, like scientific research.

Why controllable? You saw in the main hall a display of the “desmograms” (conceptual maps) reflecting what the students retained of your discussions. All of them are already on a website. You can therefore check what has been selected from your comments, and you can also modify and add to it.

Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

1

And why refutable? For obvious reasons, I have only been able to write from the analysis of 62 out of the 90 sessions that have been summarized as concept maps. You now have the reports for the 90 sessions, so you have the same materials as I do to develop in turn your own synopsis. Although it is true that, no matter how rigorous it is, a synopsis requires, if only to sort abundant materials internally, a filter, the general reading framework, implicit or explicit, of the person doing it. It is this tension between the objectivity of materials, rigorous construction of general ideas from specific session contributions and the subjectivity of the rapporteur which adds value to the process.​​ For the organizers, the challenge which also reflects the dynamics present in the society, of which this conference is the reflection, started from a proliferation of initiatives, a fragmentation of topics, as reflected in the 100 work sessions, betting that guidelines for a transition towards sustainable societies would emerge. The organisers’ approach is consistent with a belief expressed in many sessions: change does not result from a «top down» approach, from doctrine to action, from global to local, from the State to individuals, but rather from a constant back and forth pattern between action and reflection, between a local and global approach, between the rulers and the ruled, between experience and knowledge building.

This new dialectic is also found, as demonstrated during the workshop on University, in the production of knowledge. Whenever we approach reality as a complex system rather than as the result of cutting this reality in «chunks» separable from each other and liable to reveal a laboratory approach, the approach to reality, the scientific modus operandi is itself transformed. To borrow a phrase that I often use and found implicitly in many sessions: we think about complexity with our feet, starting from concrete realities, always specific. Invariants gradually emerge but they are found more in the way to approach reality rather than in the set of universal laws. And this new approach leads to thoroughly reconsider the slogan popularized after the Earth Summit 1992: «Think globally, Act locally.» In fact, throughout the sessions, we see thoughts turned into action, feeding each other. One must both think and act locally and globally.

I cannot report here on the whole building process of the general perspectives from the contributions of the different sessions.

I will confine myself to highlight these perspectives and, starting with a few examples, illustrate the link between the input of each session and these general perspectives.

2. ECOCITY 2013: A historic moment The many sessions represent a large number of points of view on a global movement. They act like a kaleidoscope: combined together, these different perspectives provide a sense of movement. It is this sense of movement that I have tried to understand by placing it in a long narrative. By saying that Ecocity is a historic moment, I do not pretend that it is, by itself, a historical event. I mean that it is part of a long narrative, a particular moment because it enhances a double fracture: in the relationship between cities and States and in the status of research and experiments that are conducted by the cities.

The fracture in the relationship between cities and States is very visible in the discussion on cities and global environmental management. The cities networks have historically been constituted to have «a public voice» in global intergovernmental bodies. But today, the ambition is quite different.

Throughout the decade, and especially during international conferences such as Copenhagen in 2009 and Rio +20 in 2012, States have declared their inability to agree to manage the common good. The Rio +20 outcome implies that States literally hand over the keys of the planet to local authorities whose role and responsibility are outlined throughout the document. Of course, this transfer is the result, above all, of diplomatic failure, the inadequacy of traditional methods of negotiation, which consist of defining national interests before comparing them to each other, when it comes to addressing radically new issues for humanity, such as climate change or biodiversity loss, issues for which the definition of a common good should prevail over traditional trading methods.

But various Ecocity sessions brought forward another assumption, more positive: cities and regions are better suited than States to conduct future changes. Firstly, because they represent coherent areas in the economic, social and environmental fields, their connections being very concrete. Secondly, and we found this out at Ecocity, because State procedures are poorly adapted to the new challenges that require action on “territory-based systems», such as neighbourhoods or networks or local community apprenticeship programmes and not on isolated items, such as buildings, land plots, households or individuals. Thus, in the words of the great lawyer Mireille Delmas Marty, networks of cities and territories prove to be among the most important players in the effort to Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

2

«humanize globalization”.

To this fracture in the relations among states, we should add another one which was much visible during a large number of Ecocity sessions and on which I will come back to, the fracture in the relationship between «rulers» and «ruled». The latter no longer wait for the first ones to take the initiative and set the course. Access to new media, a growing global civil society, the awareness that conventional political approaches are inadequate to respond to the challenges, all this gives citizens a new stamina and makes them somehow equal to public institutions.

But Ecocity also reveals a second fracture and this one relates to the status of research and experimentation in progress. The session «Beyond Agenda 21» hints at this in its title. In 1992, «Local Agenda 21» aimed at completing the States’ initiatives. And it is true that States were relatively timid, and sometimes were satisfied with just making the existing policies “greener” with no real questioning. This timidity is no longer appropriate, firstly, because of the proliferation of initiatives and ideas in the entire world, because of the extent of their ambition, and finally because of the lessons which can now be drawn for the benefit of cities and territories.

This ambition and magnitude are the illustration of a gigantic collective learning process at work, a topic that emerges from many sessions. Everywhere, copying recipes is not just enough, we also experiment. It then becomes possible to draw lessons from each other’s experiences. On that level, Ecocity seems to be an intermediate step rather than an arrival point: the need for exchange of experiences is definitely expressed but the networks of cities and territories are not really organized to take full advantage of this exchange of experiences. What could be the benefit? There again, the different sessions provide specific answers: no one is dreaming about a ‘one size fits all’ solution that could be replicated from one city to another. Everyone is keen to highlight the specificity of not only each city, but of each neighbourhood .The idea of ​​«copying the best practices» so familiar to international institutions is practically absent. Does this mean that we cannot learn anything from each other? Quite the contrary. What can emerge from the exchange of experiences is not universal recipes but guidelines for action, replicable processes of collective solutions adapted to each context.

The exchange of experiences should be part of the collective learning process necessary in every city and region. In the session «Beyond Agenda 21», the formulation was even more radical: «Deciding is experiencing, it is a principle of iteration where we draw lessons from our past actions «. And this iterative approach is equally adapted to cities, cities networks and territories.

I stated that the object of experimentation and its ambition have changed. I was intrigued, even before the start of the conference, by the large number and especially the diversity of the sessions proposed. Some topics were obvious, such as housing energy efficiency or soft mobility or else financing the transition, while others were more surprising at first sight. This is the case for local agriculture, social innovation experiments, solidarity economy, and local currencies, not to mention a title as enigmatic as «Think of the city like a theatre.» This diversity showed that beyond the narrow issue of sustainable development, transition now plays a unifying role for all those who care to think differently about the city, the economy, society and governance. And the analysis of the minutes of the various sessions confirms this intuition: the issues raised have a mutual echo and appear to be the complementary elements of an ongoing transformation that is both empirical, a process of trial and error, and global in the sense that in the end they reveal a different vision of the society as a whole, according to procedures that cannot be reduced to a classical political programme, even if it was ecological.

Of course, Ecocity’s participants, though many, only form a microcosm. They do not claim to represent the whole society, neither do they claim, like political parties in the past, to be an enlightened avant-garde whose role is to guide the whole society. Similarly, as demonstrated in session on the «zero carbon city”, the sum of the changes taking place does not necessarily correspond to the scale of the problems. All these experiments, when put together, don’t constitute – and I will come back on this point - a coherent alternative theory on economics, governance or governance models applicable to different goods and services. It nevertheless reveals a new posture, a pragmatic way not to be shocked - in the etymological sense of the word - by the magnitude of the changes and also not to expect salvation ideas but to connect personal and collective transformation.

3. Main themes addressed during the conference I remind you that my analysis covers only 62 of the 90 workshops. I did not have the available time to show how the general perspectives that emerged were born from the convergence between different sessions. The detailed work based on all sessions remains to be done in a second stage. However, my experience in this type of collective process tells me that the work carried out on nearly two-thirds of the workshops will not be contradicted by a systematic and comprehensive work. The multiplicity of subjects could have led to a sectorial approach which would have made the synopsis irrelevant. But this has not the case. Very quickly I saw numerous connections appearing between the various sessions with several main common themes. Moreover, I noted many Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

3

connections between these themes which are different points of view on a same reality. I will describe the general outline and then later, I will illustrate the approach by focusing on a particular theme, the ability to manage relationships.

In a somewhat arbitrary way, I selected two cross-cutting themes throughout the sessions: a new concept of society and of its role and a new concept of governance. And I will complete this presentation with a point on six recurring themes that deserve further development in the final summary of the conference: a strategy for change connecting the local and global dimensions in a new way, small steps towards a wider transformation; a new vision of the world and a different system of values, a new articulation between short term and long term, a new relationship to knowledge and a new concept of the territory; an approach focused on relations.

These themes relate to each other, the common thread being the approach to complex living systems.

4. A new concept of society and its role: regaining control of our destiny Control, initiative and mutual trust are the keywords. What seems to take place here, is both the refusal of determinism in technics, in the economy and in globalization which would make each individual a passive toy against forces against which it would be foolish to fight and for which it is then up to the individual, even if against others, to enjoy the benefits. This dual desire to control one’s destiny, to refute determinism, even when supposedly beneficial (as in the case in technics or economy), and rebuild social ties, preferring cooperation to competition, is found in very many forms.

It is first about managing initiatives, the right to take it but also the affirmation of its value, even if it seems miniscule in relation to major issues. It obviously characterizes the “Transition” movement presented by Rod Hopkins at the opening plenary session. But the desire to regain initiative goes well beyond this movement and is found in many sessions showing the ability of citizen groups to precede public initiatives, to develop learning capacity in doing things and neighborhood coordinators are used as a model.

This control is also about time management which praises slowness and autonomy. It is about information management, including with the fact that each city has to invent its own indicators and that the labels produced by non-governmental organizations have more credibility than the public labels.

This management also extends to space. In some sessions there are talks about reclaiming the city, the neighborhood. In doing so, the society is no longer defined by broad categories such as social class or ethnicity. It reconnects itself (the metaphor of connecting social fabric is found in several sessions) through collective initiatives. Regaining confidence in oneself, in neighbors and in public authorities, confidence that cannot be imposed but arises from collective experiences, this notion is shown in various forms in all the sessions that dealt directly or indirectly with citizens’ mobilization.

The session “the city as a laboratory» came out with a very nice formulation : «We must treat each other as agents of change.»

During the same session we talk of «collaborating tangibly to create the intangible,» another wonderful formulation that shows how what is played out, through cooperation on concrete projects «mends the social fabric.» Through shared initiatives we create the intangible capital of a community, this art of taking new challenges together, the pleasure of being a player.

Here we see that the sessions went straight to the point and that in dealing with the mobilization of territorial resources they identified this intangible capital as the most precious of all.

In this constructivist approach to society, it is not surprising that the idea of «learning process» is recurrent throughout the sessions, to the extent that the city itself is designated as a learning process, for example that of cultural diversity as stated in the session on «world city». Another session makes a subtle distinction, about the idea that we must restructure the urban fabric between density, compactness and complexity. From what I understood, density is the physical description, the number of inhabitants per hectare.

Compactness describes the intensity of social ties. Complexity goes further by addressing not only the intensity of these links but also their diversity. Complexity of the city would be the ultimate goal.

As mentioned later about governance, enhancing the value of learning and initiative supports the idea of autonomy of social dynamics compared to the initiatives of public authorities. As in a past tradition of civil society which was suspicious of every form of power, it is not about opposing public authorities, but being in a position to become partners. This was highlighted during the session on agriculture in the city when it was said that the primary function of local governments is to reinforce citizen learning.

To say that the first duty of government is not to finance investment, nor to organize public services but rather to build the intangible capital of the community and of the territory, what an evolution!

Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

4

The issue is not about making statements of precedence, announcing who is ahead between and authorities, or who should be pushing who. If in certain sessions, there are questions about the ability of governments to support citizens’ initiatives, in others, the difficulty for governments to raise levels of awareness and behavioural changes was pointed out. The important thing is to make these dynamics meet.

The idea of management is also raised in relation with needs. The fact that citizens’ movements interested in the transition towards sustainable societies react to the consumer society and the throwaway culture is nothing surprising in itself. But some sessions go further. One of them clearly identifies the real needs versus the needs maintained by companies to sustain the business machine.

This collective thinking on real needs goes beyond mere individual attitudes and can lead to a new economical democracy where a community would assess their needs and respond accordingly. This theme will also be found in the new influential role of the regions in terms of economic development.

From the perspective of society, it also means to return to the ultimate goal of consumption, to the notion of service actually carried out. Hence the interest in what we call the functionality economy, with symbols like the shared use of assets such as cars. But it also implies the management of material flows, often little known and poorly understood: to manage these relationships in the world we should be able to know the flows, have a material and energy tracking system of production and consumption. This knowledge is often lacking and the frequent reference to short supply chains, including valuing «the production itself» discussed in the session on ‘agriculture in the city’ is so far the only answer in hand. I have not seen in any session the call I expected to autarchy, I will come back to that when it comes to the design of the territory: regaining control and enhancing autonomy does not mean turning inwards. This is how we should understand the reference to labels: always this desire to manage “what the society wants to make of us”, for this we need insight and knowledge.

The same flow management is found about money, in the session on crowd-funding or in the one on local currencies.

Management finally applies to technology. The slogan that might emerge from different sessions is precisely: using the technology but not being dominated by it. Consider new technologies, such as information and communication technology, as a pool of new opportunities and not as a form of progress determinism. I really liked this definition «A smart city is a city where everyone becomes smart» proposed during the session on intelligent cities. Any advertiser would have loved to come up with this phrase. I saw no sign of technophobia, distrust against technology, nor have I found any fascination about it.

In regards to current modes of development and consumption, given the general feeling about the risk of destroying the planet, one might expect a form of guilt speech, a painful sense of responsibility. However, several sessions showed the motivation of citizens to act whilst underlining the importance of pleasure. The session «Training the next generations» even uses a striking phrase: «Making sure that extraordinary things are not made boring.»

The pleasure of being a player outweighs the sense of duty to achieve something. But this issue is important because in the early days, many advocacy efforts to help raise risk awareness put more emphasis on guilt. But, as pointed out during the «zero- carbon city» session, on the contrary, the goal is to make this process of transition towards sustainable societies desirable. To show that it is possible, that the principle challenge is to make it appealing and to have pleasure in taking action.

At the same time that we talk about reclaiming our lives, there are significant talks about reclaiming the city. It has become a topic in which one can become an active player. Responsibility yes, but joyful responsibility, pride in being a stakeholder in a society which is reinventing itself. Moreover, several sessions put emphasis on the power of imagination, the necessity and the power of dreams.

In one of the sessions we speak of «serious game»: it is through play that we can rediscover some leeway against a global system which so often seems determined to leave individuals and communities powerless. These functions of dreams and imagination lead some of us to bet on children, not because they would be able to bear the responsibilities that their parents’ generation was not able to assume, but as mentioned in one of the sessions, because «we can do things through children who are less conditioned than us as regards their dream ».

During the session entitled «The city as a theatre» it is pointed out that the city is to be seen as a narrative to the society about its own story. And it is because it is a story being written that people engage in it.

5. A new concept of governance

Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

5

Governance is understood here in its broadest sense, the art of a society to manage itself by adopting regulations of all types ideology, institutions, ways of exercising power, processes – making it possible to remain sustainable while ensuring the wellbeing of everyone.

One theme could summarize the key points: learning how to manage a complex system. Complex due to the constant interactions between the biosphere and human societies. Complex due to the importance of rebound effects and feedback which prevent any linear approach. Complex because space and society cannot be reduced to individuals or isolated places but are structured in neighborhoods, communities which form much of our everyday realities. Complex because we must always refer to expected results and products without sticking to the needs necessary to achieve them. Complex because it is necessary to take into account global interdependence whilst acknowledging the diversity of local and micro-local realities. In some sessions, «symbiotic governance» and «symbiotic thoughts » have been used to summarize this vast programme.»

I will come back later about the conversion of space and built infrastructure «at a time of triumphant industry and car-based society» but I will use here the metaphor of the highway as a critique of linear thought: we had a congestion problem so we answered it in immediate terms with the creation of new infrastructure. But this creation has a rebound effect, contributing to urban sprawl, wider use of the automobile and ultimately greater traffic congestion.

Like what has been said about society, governments are thus invited to have a more controlled approach to technology, to get away from a linear vision of progress as well as to understand and use the ecosystems. The session on «Watershed Management» for example, points out that maintaining forest catchment areas is a much cheaper way to supply water to cities than building running water treatment plants. « Energy efficiency » is an excellent illustration of the art of reflecting about interactions between living systems, technology and society. Authorities are invited to address the city as a living system, an ecosystem, whose metabolism needs to be urgently understood. This analog representation is considered more relevant than the mechanical representations that prevailed in the past and still remain today at the heart of urban planning. Better yet, as stated in the session on social and environmental engineering, even a building must be considered as a living organism. This forces us to consider all of its internal and external connections and also to bring in the foreground the interaction between technical characteristics of a building and the behavior of its occupants.

As highlighted in the session «Accelerating behavioral change « it is unnecessary to over insulate buildings if it means their occupants stop worrying about saving energy , which in turn leads to a rebound effect amounting to 40% of the expected insulation performance levels.

We have already emphasized the idea that there is no model to copy but, as stated in the session «Mobility in times of crisis» there is a wide range of possible and inspiring solutions to achieve «tailor-made» solutions. The type of governance that participants are eager to see is a governance that combines unity and diversity in a much better way than what is done today.

Unity because urban strategies are part of overall transitional dynamics. Diversity because strategies must be adapted to the infinite diversity of realities, neighbourhoodsand people’s expectations.

I am deliberately talking about strategy as it is clear that we are moving from a planning approach to a strategic approach.

Everyone has put the emphasis on the importance of the long term dimension. The idea of continuous policies necessary for the transition can be found in many sessions. Thirty to fourty years is what is mentioned in the «zero-carbon city» session. But longterm perspectives do not necessarily mean rigidity in the long run, actions predicted well in advance. If actions arise from a work process involving different players, they are irreducible to investment that public authorities plan well ahead. On the contrary, many sessions emphasize the importance of flexibility: in the face of unpredictable developments, it is wise to realize that agreed longterm investment in infrastructure and housing for example, is likely to be used in the future for different purposes compared with what was planned in the first place. This is clearly shown by the current difficulties encountered by cities: what to do with suburbs designed for families and for the exclusive use of cars in view of the aging of the population and the decline of cars? What to do with uni- functional areas or derelict industrial areas which have lost their raison d’être?

Just like the example of urban highways converted into public spaces, what will become of what we build today? Bearing in mind that long-term investment will happen in a different environment and will have a utilization that is different from the one we think of today, it is necessary to fully reconsider the conception of investment. A countdown of the mono-functional approach that characterized planning in the past decades, the session on «ports» invites for example to think of ports not only in their primary function but as large areas in which all the assets should be used to their best.

Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

6

The new approach to governance also focuses on the processes in terms of creation of common policies instead of the institutions, conceived as static objects with particular skills that would confine them in a sector-based approach to urban ecosystem and a more or less paternalistic approach to society. All this, once stated, seems almost obvious. But in reality, it challenges the conventional mental models of governance! We can talk endlessly about a symbiotic approach to governance, yet we will not come out with anything great - as mentioned during the «Do urban planners need a B plan» session - if we do not reduce the gap between the intellectual tools that aim to create an integrated city and the decision-making system which in itself remains fragmented in layers or sectors and is dominated by a planning-based approach and by short-term preoccupations.

This calls for collective thinking, driven at city networks level, on institutional engineering : how to create institutions and processes that, in practice, can provide officials and citizens the necessary knowledge on territorial metabolisms suitable for the implementation of an integrated approach, suitable for engaging collaborative processes with all the players, suitable for strategies – implying the redefinition of relationship between political and administrative power – suitable for highlighting performance requirements rather than standardized ways of achievement. Based on these multiple interrogations we realize that the process of transformation of governance is still in its infancy, that due to unchanged modes of governance, the examples shown remain great exceptions rather than general realities.

But the reflection on governance, during the sessions, does not only challenge the functioning of local institutions. One of the sessions explicitly speaks of the importance of rethinking the relationship between levels of governance and this idea is found, sometimes more implicitly, in many other sessions. Thus, for example, if we recognize that the Sates’intellectual software does not work at the scale of local communities or neighborhoods, and that structuring States into governmental departments with compartmentalized skills will take a long time to change, the obvious conclusion is that even state policies would be better conducted through local policies and institutions more relevant for this integrated approach. The need for multi-level governance is explained in the session on «Shared governance» in a very original and relevant way and is also found in the session on «Urban agriculture « : we should no longer consider borders as boundaries between two worlds, let’s say town and country, but rather as bridges .

Symbolically, this type of bridge can be found in the use of new organic materials such as straw in the construction of buildings.

In this respect, we could talk about deconstruction of secular concepts operating in opposition, like the city on one side and the countryside on the other. But removing the borders does not mean abolishing all boundaries. On the contrary, taking an interest in the flows of exchange among the parts of the ecosystems involves having a virtual membrane for each part: how can we run a city as a living organism if we do not have the means to understand its metabolism, and manage the relationships with the outside world ?

If we cannot measure the flows - of materials, energy, money, information, etc that circulate within the city and outside? This point is outlined in the UNEP programme for a better understanding of flows into and out of cities and territories.

These considerations thus challenge both the effective functioning of our local authorities and the articulation of governance at different levels. But they also raise harsh questions on democracy. Understandably, with all that has been said about the engagement of citizens, democracy cannot be reduced to a vote and the credibility of local governments cannot be judged on the implementation of election promises. Similarly, as we have seen, it is unrealistic to isolate the sphere of local action as opposed to the sphere of national and global action. In the same way, the continuity requirements for the transition over thirty or forty years undermines the idea of a political contract between local leaders and the population, reduced to a term of office. To the extent that during the session on «Democratic constraints and transition», new approaches are suggested to save democracy by imposing it in a long-term process and redefining the relationships between local and global.

6. A new approach to change, time and space The six recurring themes that complement the two topics I have just outlined are the following: strategy for change between local and global, a new vision of the world and a different value system; a link between short and long term, a new relationship to knowledge ; a new concept of territory ; a relationship centered approach

6.1 A strategy for change between local and global This strategy for change refers to both society and governance. I found throughout the sessions many aspects of what I described in my book «Essay on Oeconomy « as «three diamonds for change» : to drive a systemic change which requires a convergence between different types of actors, we must act at different scales, we must respect a number of steps.

Many sessions emphasize the role of players. For citizens, the transition towards sustainable societies is such a vast issue that it seems out of reach. Hence the ideas already mentioned: we must make operational and visible. «Making the evolution visible and Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

7

demonstrating the ability to act are not simple acts of connections towards the outside world, they are an integral part of the strategy for change and, if we may use that term, they are used to encourage. Hence the emphasis put on indicators in different sessions, whether indicators common to different cities allowing to assess each other or even more importantly indicators used by players to measure progress.

Beyond being aware of the magnitude of the challenges ahead which can have a guilt effect, various sessions have emphasized the necessity to make change desirable in order to connect what might be called «the allies of change.» For the same reasons, it is stressed that a purely normative or repressive approach used by local or national governments, through norms and sanctions, as for example in the case of mobility or energy efficiency, is not enough, it must be driven by more positive incentives.

Instead of a plan based on expected long-term results with intermediate steps, in a somewhat military way, we prefer to emphasize the importance of collective learning processes, hoping for a increasing snow ball effect. The limitation of this empirical and strategic approach is obviously to hide the disproportion between the scale and pace of change already underway and those that should be undertaken. This is shown in the scenarios of the «post-carbon» city : without a much deeper change of regulatory modes, such as energy prices, reducing the consumption of fossil fuels by four cannot be achieved by 2050.

No doubt he will have to quickly invent a combination of both approaches while keeping the momentum, I would say festive, of these collective learning objectives and while developing courses of action in line with the scale of the problem.

6.2. A new vision of the world and of new values Many sessions outline a form of reversal or reconversion. The seventeenth century philosopher, Mallebranche considered the animal as a machine. In the twentieth century, the Industrial agriculture industry tried to get away with ecosystem dynamics. The planned city with its uni-functional spaces, uses the same mechanical and industrial metaphor. However, during sessions, there were constant talks about «getting inspired by the living.»

One understands the symbolic place occupied by organic farming in the participant’s minds: it embodies this reversal process of thought, this capacity, by harnessing modern knowledge, to integrate agricultural production into the natural ecosystems. It is a similar process for cities. We jump (a pretty image) from Malebranche’s animal machine to a building as a living entity (including its inhabitants) with its own metabolism This reversed vision of the world implies a similar reversal of the value system. It also takes the opposite view on industrial society and the founding assumptions associated with the market economy: there is now talk of ‘naturality’, simplicity, cooperation, diversity, proximity and solidarity. It would be bold to say that this new system of values has already swept the last. In fact, the participants’ daily life is still shaped by industrial society, mass consumption, globalization, economic competition and the maintenance of the economic machine fed by incessant new needs . What applies to the strategy of change goes for the change in the vision of the world.

An emerging phenomenon should not be taken for a transformation already accomplished. The major question is to know through what new business models, which new educational models, what economic democracy at the scale of the territories, what regulatory tools for the consumption of fossil fuels and raw materials this new vision of the world becomes reality. What the sessions show is that this new vision of the world and this new value system have left the privacy of ecological circles to address the whole society, the whole economy and the whole industry. That is something.

6.3. Our relationship to time Two time-related preoccupations have clearly emerged during the various sessions. On the one hand, we recognize the need for long-term commitment to achieve a genuine transformation of society, economy and cities that each of them calls for. And, at the same time, whether it is old disused industrial premises, buildings whose uses have changed, neighborhoods whose population has changed, urban highways to be rehabilitated, suburban residential areas designed for families and which, depending on energy prices, will no longer match the reality, we see that fractures can occur and therefore long term action does not rely on long-term investment on today’s assumptions.

This explains a triple relationship to time, a very sensitive issue raised in many sessions. Firstly, there is the emphasis on short- term action, which I have already discussed at length, with the «Transition» movement as the main symbol. Surely we need to have a very long term vision, but it is important to take immediate action to give momentum. Secondly, the very long term dimension means that social dynamics have to be put into place to overcome the formal inability of democracies to commit to long-term. Thirdly, there is Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

8

a need to take into account the unpredictable in such ways that long-term investment does not imply rigidity of use.

6.4. The relationship to knowledge The need, outlined in many sessions, to deal with complex items, whether it is territory, neighborhoods, ecosystems where interactions are multiple and non-linear, has a significant impact on the building of knowledge. Each «item» becomes unique and understanding the multiple interactions, internal or external, makes it impossible to address it by putting «universal laws» end to end, laws that could be developed using methods taken from 19th and 20th century empirical science.

This obviously has consequences regarding the production of knowledge, as described in the session on University. The need for closer links between the university and territories is therefore not limited to the question of whether this wealth of knowledge within the university can serve the territories in which they operate. Another dimension is added: the territory itself becomes a key support for the production of knowledge.

6.5. A new relation to territories This new report has several sources. I will only mention two which have major impacts on the definition of what is meant by territory. The first one is to consider the city as a vast collective learning model. The city is no longer a physical object, but a community defined by the intensity of its internal links. The second development concerns the emphasis on the flow of materials, information, money (as outlined in the session on local currencies) found in the territory and the city. Still the analogy with living organisms: how to manage a territory or a city if we don’t understand its metabolism?

6.6. Relations between economy and society, at the heart of governance This is another consequence of the «symbiotic» approach as it gradually establishes itself. Whether dealing with relationship between levels of governance, relationships among stakeholders, relations between problems, internal or external territorial relations, society and governance are no longer considered as a juxtaposition of objects but as connections between them.

I will conclude by saying that what appears to me, at least in the 62 sessions on which this preliminary summary is based, as an intellectual investment deficit. The management of common goods is addressed in different presentations on water, air, public services and land. These sessions reveal on-going research and trials with a view to create new ways of managing these common goods, with gains and losses accounting methods that are not strictly financial terms and with new service pricing policies.

New thoughts are emerging, for example during the session on air about mandatory trading quotas. Similarly, sessions on economy highlight the necessity to go beyond the current public tender approach and focus more on cooperation. What remains clear is that the debate on the types of governance for goods and services which are not just market-related is still insufficient. This is one of the issues on which the cities networks should now put in joint efforts and I hope that the next edition of Ecocity in Abu Dhabi will be the opportunity for a new breakthrough.

Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

9

Synopsis - ECOCITY 2013

10