Regional Charrette, New Zealand Figure 3.35 The Auckland Sustainability Framework

Figure 3.35 The Auckland Sustainability Framework

Source: RGF (2007).

• To provide methods to adapt business-asusual scenarios, for example, the 10-year community investment plans of a local council • To identify strategic responses that must be undertaken to achieve sustainability goals

The ASF “will provide direction so that our local authorities and central government agencies can work together with a common purpose to embrace the opportunities and face the challenges associated with developing a truly sustainable region” (ARC 2008).

Keys to Success

Extended peer communities

The overall process created considerable buy-in at political and administrative levels, and the resulting framework is owned by all parties. However, there has been a considerable change in political representation at the local and national levels since the adoption of the ASF. Many new council members have not been involved in the development of the framework, and the national government has redefi ned sustainability into the narrower concept of natural resource management.

Nonetheless, the ASF has been used to develop a collective investment plan, which is referred to as the One Plan, as well as a number of local council plans, including the Manukau City Council’s 2060 Strategic Framework and the Waitakere City Council’s social strategy.

Stretched thinking

The framework and, especially, the participatory process have stretched the thinking of many participants with regard to the following topics:

• Recognizing that the world and Auckland are going to experience exponential change over the next 50 years and that they have limited time to prepare for this change

• Recognizing that many business-as-usual practices will have to be altered or abandoned

• Understanding the meaning of sustainable development, especially by bringing in a

Maori perspective

• Developing the Mana Whenua Framework

The development of a separate, but linked Maori framework has ensured that the long-term planning for Maori is being undertaken by Maori. The depth of indigenous understanding of generational thinking and the holistic and spiritual understanding of the relationship between the environment and people are fully realized in the Mana Whenua Framework and have challenged and stretched the thinking on the ASF.

Lessons Learned in the Auckland Case

Two groups appear to have been less well represented in the process of the development of the ASF: business representatives and the developers who would eventually implement the strategies and activities based on the ASF. A special process may be needed to engage these groups because they are typically reluctant to attend open meetings and because they require a process that is especially effi cient.

After the ASF was adopted, the region quickly focused on new priorities. As a consequence, one component of the framework—winning hearts and minds—did not achieve progress (see fi gure 3.35). Winning hearts and minds acknowledged the importance of the social learning that council members, key staff members, and stakeholders experienced through the development of the ASF. Continued dialogue and education on the challenges and solutions involved in achieving sustainability are required among these key decision makers and the public.

While the ASF has been adopted as a guiding framework, no hard targets have yet emerged for planning and strategy making. Likewise, no bottom-line thresholds for public sector decision making have appeared. Without these elements, the ASF may become a useful tool for some parties, but may be ignored by others. The new national government is restructuring the eight local government bodies within the region into a single unitary council, and it remains to be seen whether this new council will adopt the ASF as the guiding regional framework.

Notes

1. The government of New Zealand is in the process of restructuring the Auckland local government and plans to replace the existing seven local councils and one regional council with one super council and 20 to 30 local community boards. 2. See Frame (2008) for a critical analysis of the regional planning process and outcome.

References

ARC (Auckland Regional Council). 2006. “A Workshop to Design the Auckland Region’s Future: Summary of Proceedings.” Auckland Regional Council,

Auckland, New Zealand. http://www.arc.govt. nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Auckland/

Sustainability/START%20workshop% 20report.pdf . ———. 2008. “Auckland Sustainability Framework.”

Auckland Regional Council, Auckland, New

Zealand. http://www.arc.govt.nz/auckland/ sustainability/auckland-sustainabilityframework.cfm. CitiesPlus. 2002. “Canada’s 100-Year Plan for a

Sustainable Region.” CitiesPlus, Vancouver,

Canada. http://www.citiesplus.ca/index.html. Frame, Bob. 2008. “‘Wicked,’ ‘Messy,’ and ‘Clumsy’:

Long-Term Frameworks for Sustainability.”

Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 26 (6): 1113–28. RGF (Regional Growth Forum). 2007. “Auckland

Sustainability Framework. An Agenda for the Future.” Auckland, New Zealand. http:// www.aucklandoneplan.org.nz/aucklandsustainability-framework/sustainabilityconcepts-and-challenges/sustainabilityconcepts-and-challenges_home.cfm.

Eco2 Sector Notes

A Sector-by-Sector Lens on Urban Infrastructure

We will now look at important urban infrastructure issues in more detail through the lens of each sector. Ideally, this leads to a kaleidoscopic view of the city that recognizes the interrelationships of energy, water, transportation, and solid waste. These interrelationships apply across sectors and with respect to the built form of the city. In this context, the fi nal note in part 3, “Managing the Spatial Structure of Cities,” provides important lessons on how spatial planning and land use regulations may powerfully infl uence mobility and aff ordability.

It is clear that many of the operational and jurisdictional boundaries of sectors impede innovation and creativity in the eff ort to achieve better outcomes. It is also clear that investments made in one sector may result in savings in another sector (for example, investments in water effi ciency usually result in large energy cost savings). Pooling scarce resources to invest in multifunctional and multipurpose common elements may also benefi t urban residents (for instance, through single-purpose underground infrastructure corridors).

What emerges from a closer analysis is an understanding of how these infrastructure systems interact with a city’s spatial form. Infrastructure investments trigger and enable urbanization. However, urban planning and spatial development establish the locations, concentrations, distributions, and nature of demand nodes for sector infrastructure systems. Urban and spatial planning also identifi es the physical and economic constraints and parameters of infrastructure systems, including capacity limits, service delivery technologies, and cost recovery requirements. Good urban planning and spatial development provide proactive demand-side management and improve resource effi ciency by identifying and assessing the viability of technology and infrastructure options. For instance, public transportation is fi nancially viable only at certain threshold urban densities and forms and under good coordination of urban land use.

In addition to illustrating the opportunities and strategies for realizing benefi ts within and across sectors, the following notes shed light on critical sector-specifi c issues that are not under the direct control of city authorities, but nonetheless infl uence city sustainability. These issues may need to be addressed on a sector-by-sector basis. Moreover, identifying critical pressure points beyond the direct control of city authorities is important in devising an expanded platform for collaboration.

SECTOR NOTE 1 Cities and Energy

Overview

Cities and urban areas account for about twothirds of the world’s annual energy consumption. In the coming decades, urbanization and income growth in developing countries are expected to push this urban consumption even higher.1 As the main consumers of energy and as implementers of national and regional sustainable energy policies and programs, cities may play a crucial role in improving our energy and environmental futures by making smart choices in urban development, energy demand management, and energy supplies. In return, cities stand to become more livable, aff ordable, and sustainable.

Traditionally, urban energy planning and management have aimed to improve access, security, reliability, and aff ordability. These eff orts have focused on developing networkbased energy systems (on which cities have become dependent), such as electricity grids, district heating networks, and natural gas pipelines. These eff orts remain essential because modern cities simply cannot function without such networks. However, the potential for dire environmental impacts of traditional urban energy use persists, as exemplifi ed in the London smog disaster of 1952 that killed 12,000 people. Today, heavy urban air pollution in many developing countries is a sober reminder that growing cities cannot always cope with the serious health-related impacts of the consumption of fossil fuels. The fi rst oil crisis of 1973 highlighted the importance of energy effi ciency, conservation, and renewable energy. However, 35 years later, achieving progress in energy effi ciency and renewable energy remains a tough challenge in both developed and developing countries. The emergence of climate change as a global development constraint, much of it related to the energy consumption habits and infrastructure in cities, also calls for fundamental changes in how countries and cities approach urban development, manage energy demand, and secure energy supplies.

How can cities address their multidimensional energy challenges, which aff ect their success and long-term development prospects? The evolution of urban energy agendas—from access, security, reliability, and aff ordability to environment and public health concerns and, more recently, to climate change mitigation and adaptation—has challenged cities and national and regional governments to break away from supply-centric practices and strengthen environmental rules in planning and management. The largely successful control of local and regional air pollution in cities in developed countries is encouraging and suggests possibilities for the expansion of efforts in developing countries. This success relied mainly on relocating factories, switching to cleaner fuels, and adopting stringent national and regional emissions regulations for industries and motor vehicles. As a result, many cities have become more attractive and competitive.

Controlling the carbon footprints of cities represents the greatest current energy challenge, but urban planners may tap this challenge to strengthen energy security and enhance energy access, aff ordability, and reliability. To be successful, cities must manage energy demand by promoting energy effi ciency across sectors and the uptake of effi cient and renewable energy supplies. It is also important, particularly in developing countries, for urban planners to support solutions incorporating energy effi ciency and renewable energy in urban land use planning and land development. These eff orts require that cities be actively involved in energy planning and management and that they adopt a long-term vision of urban development and redevelopment.

Visionary cities are adopting a new paradigm of integrated urban energy planning and management. Recent examples include PlaNYC 2030 of New York City and the Paris Climate Protection Plan (City of New York 2007; Mairie de Paris 2007). However, implementation hurdles remain, and the real test of turning visions into realities lies ahead. City governments are often faced with urgent tasks and competing interests and must prioritize actions against the constraints in human and fi nancial resources. City administrations often lack a single department with adequate authority to spearhead a cross-cutting agenda, with the exception of the mayor’s offi ce, which commonly cannot sustain eff orts because of mayoral term limits. In addition, urban energy planning and management are not entirely within the jurisdiction of city governments. In fact, prevailing urban energy infrastructures, with the exception of district heating systems, are usually not under the direct purview of local governments.2 If cities are to succeed, they need strong support from their national and regional governments.

Why should a city government care about being assertive and making and implementing sustainable energy decisions? The short answer is that it pays. Most energy effi ciency and conservation measures are not high-technology applications or expensive solutions, and the initial costs may usually be quickly recovered. The Municipality of Emfuleni in South Africa, for example, initiated an energy and water effi ciency project that cost US$1.8 million and achieved annual savings of about 7 billion liters of water and 14 million kilowatt-hours. This equated to annual monetary savings of over US$4 million; thus, the project paid for itself in under six months. Because the contract was fi nanced and implemented by an energy services company, the municipality saved money not only from reduced water losses and pumping costs, but also through less investment up front. The energy services company, however, recouped its investment quickly by sharing part of the cost savings (USAID 2005). The Växjö Municipality in Sweden began, in 1994, to replace its streetlights with higheffi ciency lamps, which reduced energy use by 50 percent. After a project investment of about US$3.6 million, the city saved US$0.75 million per year, which meant the project paid for itself in less than fi ve years (C40 Cities 2009a). Cities facing budget shortfalls are well advised to consider mining current expenditures for energy savings in their facilities and operations.

Energy effi ciency and cleaner energy in developing-country cities with serious air pollution promote productivity and reduced medical bills, which improves urban livability and competitiveness. A recent joint study by the Chinese government and the World Bank has estimated that the cost of ambient air pollution in China’s urban areas in terms of air pollution–related premature deaths and illnesses amounted to US$63 billion in 2003, equivalent to 3.8 percent of China’s GDP (World Bank 2007). In fact, China’s eff orts in the past two decades to modernize energy infrastructure and improve energy effi ciency have aimed to reduce the health impacts of air pollution. This is evident in the rapid penetration of gaseous cooking fuels and the rapid expansion of district heating systems in northern Chinese cities, which are also

implementing national energy effi ciency standards for buildings.

Among rapidly growing cities in developing countries, shifting to a new paradigm of urban energy planning and management is as much about contributing to global welfare as enhancing capacity to serve growing energy needs at lower costs and with greater security. Good environmental stewardship in energy planning and management is essential to mitigate regional and global environmental impacts that aff ect the long-term well-being of cities (for example, acid rain, climate change–induced storms, and rising sea levels). Making cities more energy effi cient and more accessible to renewable energy supplies also helps hedge the risks of higher energy costs if a global agreement is reached to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions drastically. This does not mean that developing cities should necessarily address all sustainable energy options at the same time. Pursuing actions on sustainable energy, however cost-eff ective they may be, requires public and private investment, eff orts from city governments and citizens, and the strong support of regional and national governments. Cities should, moreover, tailor their eff orts to the available resources and pursue initial steps toward sustainable energy that generate signifi cant and immediate local benefi ts.

Where should a city start? In general, there are three areas where actions and interventions at the city level are critical and where city governments are in the driver’s seat:

1. Investing in sustainable energy supply and retrofi ts in city government facilities and operations. Cities might start by adopting a range of energy effi ciency and conservation measures in government-owned buildings and municipal services, such as water supply and wastewater treatment facilities, public lighting, transportation, and solid waste management. Large government complexes are often good candidates for distributed energy supply options such as the cogeneration of heat and power using natural gas. Local governments might also expand renewable energy supplies by purchasing green electricity and accommodating renewable energy technologies, such as photovoltaic systems and solar water heating, in their own buildings and facilities.

2. Promoting energy effi ciency and the application of renewable energy technologies in the urban built environment. City governments may promote energy effi ciency and renewable energy options in nonmunicipally owned or operated sectors by harnessing their dominant role in shaping the urban built environment. One of the most critical and eff ective interventions involves enforcing national or regional energy effi ciency standards in new building construction and building renovations.3 A more ambitious green building agenda may also include additional requirements for water effi ciency and conservation, the adoption of renewable energy technologies, incentive programs for industry and residential users, and other measures to reduce the environmental impact of buildings (see CBSC 2009).

3. Promoting energy effi ciency and renewable energy through land use planning and land development policies. Within their jurisdictions, city governments may shape or reshape land use and development patterns in ways that minimize carbon footprints, while ensuring lower overall operating costs. In this area, energy planning encounters and integrates with transportation planning and other urban infrastructure planning to serve a city’s growth ambitions and environmental aspirations eff ectively.

Cities in developing countries face much tougher challenges than do their counterparts in developed countries. Technical capacity is often lacking. Competition for resources is fi erce. Because of growth pressures and capital constraints, compromises are often reached to