egm on sustainable infrastructure development, · web viewhow can sustainable infrastructure...

Final Draft 27 May 2007

Background paper

UN Expert Group Meeting Bangkok, 11-13 June 2007

Smart, sufficient and sustainable infrastructure systems

Dr David NessInstitute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies/School of Natural and Built EnvironmentsUniversity of South Australia

1


May 2007

2


Contents

Executive summary

1. Introduction

1.1 Background1.2 Purpose1.3 Scope

2. What are the challenges?

2.1 What are the basic needs that infrastructure supports?2.2 The role played by infrastructure and its importance2.3 The challenge of urbanization2.4 The critical role of infrastructure in meeting sustainability targets2.5 What is sustainable urban infrastructure development?2.6 Potential for application of eco-efficiency principles2.7 Innovation through systems thinking2.8 Intervention opportunities: the Development Account Project

3. What has been done? What is missing?

3.1 Initiatives to promote sustainable urban infrastructure development3.2 Integrated planning for land use and infrastructure3.3 Distributed versus centralized systems3.4 Some examples of good practices and their characteristics3.5 What are current processes for financing infrastructure?3.6 What are some policy initiatives? 3.7 What is missing? Limitations of current approaches

4. What are the key issues in bridging the gaps and shifting policies?

4.1 The key issues in accomplishing the shift4.2 Barriers to bridging the gaps4.3 How can integrated approaches lead to more sustainable infrastructure?4.4 How can eco-efficiency concepts be applied to planning and assessment?4.5 How can social inclusiveness impact on eco-efficiency and sustainability?4.6 Financing, pricing and user charges4.7 Innovative funding mechanisms including CDM4.8 Governance, policies and institutional arrangements

5. What should the Development Account Project focus upon and how?

5.1 Identify key areas of project intervention to remove barriers5.2 Propose strategic partners and modalities for implementation5.3 Specific areas/ sectors of intervention eg water and sanitation, energy, transport, urban planning5.4 The Development Account Project

6. Concluding remarks: questions arising

3


References

Annexes

A. AcronymsB. Persons consultedC. Organizations and Initiatives D. Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South AustraliaE. Interdependencies among Infrastructures F. Systems ApproachG. Design Principles for Goa 2100

List of Figures

Fig. 1 Three Ecological Footprint scenariosFig. 2 Lifespans of people, assets and infrastructureFig. 3 Asia-Pacific’s Ecological FootprintFig. 4 South Australia Sectoral Greenhouse Gas EmissionsFig. 5 Sustainable Urban Infrastructure SystemFig. 6 Model of Cities: Alternative Urban FormsFig. 7 Mechanism of Economic Development Influences on the EnvironmentFig. 8 Reimagining the City of Panjim, IndiaFig. 9 BedZED One Planet LivingFig. 10 Integrated Transport, Energy, Water and Housing Infrastructure CorridorFig. 11 Linear InfrastructureFig. 12 Sustainable Urban InfrastructureFig. 13 Stabilization Wedges

Authorship of this paper

Dr David Ness is an Adjunct Research Fellow with the Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISST) and the School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia (see Annexe D). Among others, researchers from ISST and other groups within the University have contributed greatly to this paper.

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this paper has been a voyage of discovery, much assisted by University of South Australia colleagues and others mentioned in Annexe B. Members of the Environment and Sustainable Development Division of ESCAP, headed by Mr Rae Kwon Chung, have also guided me on this journey, with special thanks to Mr Lorenzo Santucci, Associate Environmental Affairs Officer, with whom I was in regular communication and who (with his associates) provided valuable information and direction. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Office of Major Projects and Infrastructure, South Australian Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. Special thanks are also due to Dr Barbara Hardy and the APFED (SA) Group (see Annexe B). Finally, this paper is dedicated to my mother, Mrs Doreen Ness.

4


Executive summary

This is a background paper for an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on Sustainable Infrastructure Development (SID) being held in Bangkok, 11-13 June, 2007. The meeting is intended to define the scope of a UN Development Account (DA) project on ’Eco-Efficient and Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Development in Asia and Latin America‘, involving the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. So the document has been framed with this project in mind.

Importantly, the paper does not seek to prescribe definitive solutions, but rather to open up a range of possibilities and opportunities, with the intention of facilitating discussion at the EGM. The document also seeks to build upon the previous Seoul Policy Forum.

Firstly, the key challenges are outlined, due to increasing urbanization and the consequential increases in environmental degradation and excessive resource exploitation. In particular, it highlights need to achieve Factor 4 resource productivity, involving a doubling of wealth and a halving of resource consumption, coupled with emissions reduction targets and reduced ecological footprint. The critical contribution of SID to achieving these targets (hereto underestimated) is described, and a definition of SID presented. This revolves around achieving integrated economic, social and environment development and considering life cycle resource use and impacts. Next follows a review of SID initiatives, with identification of the gaps and further effort required to respond to the enormity of the challenges. The key issues in achieving the necessary shift in attitudes, policies and practices are then outlined. Finally, suggestions are made for the focus, scope and conduct of the DA project.

It is suggested that an important first stage of the DA Project should be to undertake a high-level scan across the region in relation to SID status and opportunities. This mapping could help determine the biggest opportunities for intervention to improve resource productivity and meet MDGs such as poverty alleviation. Any pilot cities could then be selected and conducted in this wider context.

It is already apparent that some key opportunities for making a difference lie in improving the capacity of policy-makers, planners and decision-makers. To improve their awareness, it will be necessary to devise measures for SID and to demonstrate its importance and value-adding potential. A key strategy is to integrate various infrastructure programmes so that multiple objectives may be achieved for a given resource consumption. Essentially, this involves doing more with less.

An important concept put forward is that infrastructure should be seen as a system to facilitate the delivery of services. This enables, for example, a road to be viewed within the context of a transport system, with an understanding of its connectivity to other elements and to other systems. The introduction of systems thinking opens up opportunities for innovation and reform, which is very necessary to achieve the paradigm shift required to meet Factor 4 and associated targets.

A related objective of the DA project is to reinforce the sustainability of infrastructure in terms of disaster protection. The paper briefly explains how disaster risk assessments may be incorporated into strategic urban planning and infrastructure provision. Mapping of eco-efficiency may also be integrated with mapping of disaster-prone areas.

This led to the title of this paper, ‘Smart, sufficient and sustainable infrastructure systems’: Smart in terms of creative thinking and the concept of ‘intelligent infrastructure’; sufficient in

5


terms of moderation, responsible consumption, equitable benefits and resilience to economic or natural shocks/disasters; and sustainable in terms of integrating economic, social and environmental aspects, with a longer term view.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The First Policy Consultation Forum of the Seoul Initiative on Green Growth (SINGG): ’Promoting Sustainable Infrastructure Development‘ was held on 6-8 September 2006 in Seoul, Republic of Korea.

The secretariat of SINGG and ESCAP, in collaboration with other partners, agreed to continue working in the area of sustainable infrastructure through the network of experts created during the above Seoul Forum.

It was agreed to consider the opportunities for further analytical and policy work:

Carry out in-depth studies and analysis of regional experience on eco-efficiency project development compilation of good practices, as well as organization of capacity-building programmes and development of pilot or demonstration projects;

Furthering the work on eco-efficiency indicators to consider indicators for sustainable infrastructure development (SID), while considering existing indicators such as water loss rate, solid waste generation rate, and energy use rate/intensity in transportation;

Disseminate information on the importance and good practices of eco-efficiency in SID among decision-makers, planners, academics and related stakeholders;

Develop conceptual methodologies to improve eco-efficient infrastructure, such as congestion cost estimation to include not only time delay and oil consumption, but also environmental costs;

Develop guidelines for achieving eco-efficient infrastructure development in the region using existing information as much as possible, considering potential policy tools (such as economic incentives, life-cycle cost saving and strategic environmental assessment) and strategies that area appropriate to different sectors, development stages, urban and rural conditions.

Among the conclusions, the Seoul Forum saw a holistic approach as necessary in infrastructure development, considering both consumption and production aspects, physical and non-physical aspects, different stages of infrastructure development, different levels of organizations and the role of different stakeholders. The development of SID policies and strategies should take into account the eco-efficiency concept that seeks to merge and combine infrastructure systems, such as transport and energy. This theme runs through the paper.

Finally, it should be recognized that knowledge within the field of sustainable and eco-efficient infrastructure is at an embryonic stage. The Seoul Forum, the EGM and this paper are steps along a longer path to increase knowledge and raise the level of understanding.

1.2 Purpose

This paper is intended to form the background document for the Expert Group Meeting to be held in Bangkok 11-13 June 2007. It seeks to take the findings of the Seoul Forum a step further, facilitating discussion at the EGM and leading to the establishment of a UN

6


Development Account Project on Eco-Efficient and Sustainable Infrastructure, to be implemented in 2008-9. While seeking to break some new ground and to stimulate discussion, the paper is not intended to be prescriptive – rather, to raise a series of possibilities that could (or could not) be explored further.

In keeping with purpose of the proposed DA project, the paper is also aimed at policy makers, decision-makers and planners. 1.3 Scope

The paper concentrates on energy, water, transport and housing infrastructure systems. It focuses on the Asia-Pacific region, although the DA project will also cover Latin America.

The paper is also pitched at the level of urban infrastructures, not only at a city level, but also connectivity of urban areas at an inter-urban level.

The emphasis of the paper is on concepts, principles, methodologies and approaches.

The paper also concentrates on the Asia area, with the burgeoning economies of India and China. However, consideration will also need to be given to countries of the Pacific either in the first or subsequent phases on the DA project. The Pacific, for example, has suffered from major natural disasters and issues of reconstructing critical infrastructure and its vulnerability are paramount.

2. What are the challenges?

2.1 What are the basic needs that infrastructure supports?

As the OECD (2007a: 14) has acknowledged, “infrastructures are at the very heart of economic and social development”. To this could be added environmental development, so infrastructure can be seen as underpinning integrated economic, social and environmentally sustainable development. Infrastructure also constitutes an important economic activity in its own right. Fore example, the importance of the car industry to China’s economy is considerable, and strategies to address increasing motorization must take this into account. Infrastructure also contributes to raising living standards and, especially in the context of developing countries, to alleviating poverty, providing access to clean water and improving health and education.

Thus, infrastructure is important to achieving the various Millennium Development Goals, especially (but not only) MDG 1, MDG 7 and MDG 8.

MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Includes: Target 1: Reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day; Target 2: Reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

MDG 7: Ensure environmental sustainability. Includes: Target 9: Integrate the principles of sustainable development; Target 10: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe

drinking water and basic sanitation; Target 11: By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at

least 100 million slum dwellers.

MDG 8: Develop a global partnership for development. Includes:

7


Target 12: Develop further an open, rule-based, predictable, non-discriminatory trading and financial system. Includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction;

Target 13: Address the special needs of least developed countries; Target 18: In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new

technologies, especially information and communications.

The basic needs that infrastructure supports are perhaps best represented by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Article 13 refers to the right to freedom of movement; Article 17: the right to own property; Article 23: the right to work; Article 25: the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being, including food, clothing, housing and medical care; and Article 26: the right to education. These social and economic (and cultural) development needs are supported by transport, energy and water services.

The ESCAP (2006: 176) Report on ‘State of the Environment in Asia and the Pacific 2005’ highlights the importance of Millennium Development Goal 7 to the achievement of other MDGs.

The importance of infrastructure systems to achieving these goals and targets still needs to be highlighted and demonstrated. As discussed later, there are related international targets in relation to tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse emissions and, as some would argue, to reduce global and regional Ecological Footprints.

The OECD (2007a: 14) has also pointed out the “less desirable consequences” of infrastructures eg roads may mean more traffic, congestion, noise, dispersed development patterns and emissions. The OECD has succinctly highlighted the key dilemma and challenge:

The next decades are likely to see an accentuation of two facets of infrastructures. On the one hand, they will prove a vital tool in resolving some of the major challenges faced by societies – supporting economic growth, meeting basic needs, lifting millions of people out of poverty, facilitating mobility and interaction. On the other, environmental pressures in the form of changing climatic conditions, congestion and so on are likely to increase, turning the spotlight firmly on the inherent tensions between the imperative for further infrastructure development and the quest for sustainability.

2.2 The role played by infrastructure and its importance

Infrastructure is not an end in itself but is a key element for realizing sustained economic growth and sustainable development to meet the above MDGs and other goals.

However, work on the MDGs (and, indeed, other goals) has taken the role of infrastructure in achieving the goals and targets into consideration only to a limited extent. The work done in this regard has mainly focused on the financing aspects of infrastructure development, or the issue of access for disadvantaged groups, but has not explicitly addressed sustainability considerations (ESCAP, internal memo 2006).

The 2006 external evaluation of ESCAP suggested that it take up the issue of regional and subregional infrastructure development (Djumala et al. 2006: 18).

In this paper infrastructure includes transport, energy and water (refer IPWEA 2006) with addition of urban housing (but see ESCAP 2006b: 18). But infrastructure may be viewed more widely as the whole system. Is it water consumption, or is it the pipes? Is it roads, or is it the motorization rate? This leads to a definition of infrastructure:

8


Infrastructure is a system to facilitate the delivery of services rather than an end-product (see Howes and Robinson 2005).1

Not only is infrastructure very costly and has a long life, but it is also very intensive in resource use, including materials, energy, water and land. Much attention has been given to the eco-efficiency of products eg WBCSD, but if these principles can be applied to infrastructure the potential savings can be far greater and infrastructure can be delivered more cost-effectively.

Infrastructure development locks in consumption patterns for decades to come (ESCAP 2006b:18) eg urban roads and freeways in preference to mass transit systems imply heavy fossil fuel demand for personal modes of transport and continued growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

Buildings are estimated to contribute 40% of greenhouse emissions over their life, with buildings and infrastructure likely to be a far greater percentage. Hence, with the world’s fastest growing economies and highest numbers of people in India and China (4 billion combined), and with a substantial percentage of these being in cities, it is clear that the pattern of infrastructure development in Asia and the Pacific, as to be discussed in the EGM, is of critical importance for the planet.

2.3 The challenge of urbanization

Driven by buoyant economic development and continuous population growth, Asia is exerting exponential pressures on natural resources and the environment. This is an important reason to promote eco-efficient development, including infrastructure (ESCAP 2007).

A major challenge in Asian cities is to meet the demand for infrastructure and services – electricity, water supply, drainage, sanitation, solid waste management, roads and transport systems. According to Roberts and Kanaley (2007:19):

The urgency of this challenge is emphasized by the scale and short time-frame of projected city growth. Urbanization in Asia involves around 44 million people being added to the population of cities every year. The total requirement for infrastructure investments in Asia, 2006-2010, may well be around $250-300 billion per annum.

The aggregate number of people living in poverty in Asian cities is increasing, with the widening gap between the rich, the new middle class and the poor being of special concern. In the words of Roberts and Kanaley (2007:19),

Economic growth and urbanization have been, and will continue to be, central to reducing poverty in Asia, but a major challenge facing the rapidly urbanizing developing countries of Asia is to ensure that the economic benefits of urbanization are sufficiently widespread.

Urban poverty is often neglected in the global debate about sustainability – poverty commonly being thought of as a rural phenomenon. But, in reality,

the principal consequence of rapid urbanization in the developing world is the ‘urbanization of poverty’. It affects between 1 and 2 out of every 3 urban dwellers in developing countries. In these countries we are witnessing an explosion of slum populations that is driving the pace and nature of city growth (Taylor 2007: 22).

1 Eg success of transport programme not just in km of road, but how well meets services. A shorter length of road to achieve outcomes is preferable and more eco-efficient

9


The rise in income in Asian cities (notwithstanding its inequitable distribution) has produced dramatic increases in per capita car ownership, per capita waste generation, per capital levels of water use, energy consumption, sewerage, and industrial waste. Rapid and uncontrolled urbanization has exerted tremendous pressure on the urban infra and require its expansion (IGES 2005a: 98). This in turn has exerted greater pressure on the environment.

Growing motorization, especially in urban areas, has also led to an immense problem of traffic congestion in Asia and especially China2. It is estimated that if China adopts the same consumption patterns as the US, this would mean producing another 850 million cars and more than doubling the world’s output of oil. China now has about 50 000 km of roads and a further 25 000 km will be added over the next 5 years, with traffic already gridlocked. In addition, another 300-400 million people are expected to move to the cities and suburbs over the next 20-30 years. At the same time, public transport use is declining in comparison to the automobile: 70% of Beijing’s population used public transit in the 1970s, while just 24% use it today. This gives an indication of the enormity of the challenge to achieve SID. According to New Scientist (2006), “planners now agree that to make cities more eco-friendly the top priority is to cut car use”.

Water shortage has also become a pressing problem facing China’s rapid urbanization, with about two thirds of its 661 cities facing this problem. Among these cities, about 100 are in serious trouble, lacking enough water to support people’s lives and industrial operations. In addition, among 600 cities at risk of floods, only 40% have flood defences that meet national standards (China Daily 2006).

As Tipple (2006: 388) has pointed out, “housing and its occupants are most likely to be vulnerable to the effects of natural and human-made hazards in the developing world because of the context in which urbanization takes place”. Millions of people live on steep and unstable slopes, flood plains, low-lying coastal land, land close to sources of pollution and other hazardous sites. Through the “urbanization of poverty”, urban vulnerability to hazards has increased and disasters are more likely to follow.

The large population and rapidly increasing levels of consumption in Asia and the Pacific make the region a significant contributor to the global Ecological Footprint. With 55% of world population, the Asia-Pacific region’s footprint occupies 40% of available world biocapacity (WWF 2005: 8). Notwithstanding the global significance of the overall Asian footprint, the average footprint of an Asian resident is still far smaller than the average footprint of people living in Europe or North America - no doubt due to high levels of poverty. The growth in footprint is attributable largely to population growth. However, as wealth in the region increases, the footprint is likely to grow markedly.

2.4 The critical role of infrastructure in meeting sustainability targets

Factors 4 and 10 are eco-efficiency targets for the economy at large. Whilst developed nations should rightly aim for a Factor 10 improvement, Factor 4 is the target for developing countries (the main focus of this paper) and means that ‘resource productivity’ can – and should – grow fourfold. Factor 4 involves doubling wealth to solve the problems of poverty and, on the other hand, halving resource use to return to an ecological balance (Weizsacher et al.1998). This concept has much in common with ‘Green Growth’ and, indeed, to achievement of the MDGs.

How significant is infrastructure in terms of resource consumption and reducing material and energy flows? It has been estimated that up to half the stock of resources is held in buildings,

2 The main factor negatively influencing global competitiveness of cities is congestion (OECD 2006).

10


and half the total annual use of resources in developed countries is taken by construction (Architecture Institute of Japan 2005). Figures need to be determined for infrastructure, in the context of developing countries, but the proportion is likely to be of similar or even greater magnitude.

The ecological footprint is a measure of much biological productive land and water area a country, region of humanity uses to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb the waste it generates. It is measured in global hectares3. The global ecological footprint is the area required to produce the material throughput of the human economy under current practices. The WWF has estimated that if we continue on our current trajectory (Fig. 1) then by 2050 humanity will demand resources at double the rate at which the earth can generate them. This is known as ‘overshoot’. To overcome this, we need to find ways to consume less than half the current global average footprint. This is consistent with the notion of Weizsacher et al. (1997) of halving resource use.

Fig. 1. Three Ecological Footprint Scenarios (source: WWF Living Planet Report 2006: 3)

Five factors determine the extent of overshoot: population; consumption of goods and services per person; bioproductive area; bioproductivity per hectare; and, of most interest to the present discussion, footprint intensity: the amount of resources used in the production of goods and services. According to WWF, this can be significantly reduced by energy and resource efficiency and minimising waste (WWF 2006).

Efforts to stem the rapid escalation of overshoot and avoid ecosystem collapse must take into account the slow response times of human populations and infrastructure, which can last many decades.

3 Some questions have been raised about calculation procedure of ecological footprint have been raised and require further investigation (see Hinterberger 2003 and van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999).

11


Fig 2. Lifespans of people, assets and infrastructure (WWF Living Planet Report 2006: 26)

As WWF (2006) warns,

The assets we create can be future friendly, or not. Transport and urban infrastructures become traps if they can only operate on large footprints. In contrast, future friendly infrastructure – cities designed as resources efficient, with carbon-neutral buildings and pedestrian and public-transport oriented systems – can support a high quality of life with a small footprint…The longer infrastructure is designed to last, the more critical it is to ensure that we are not building a destructive legacy that will undermine our social and physical well-being. Cities, nations and regions might consider how economic competitiveness will be impacted if economic activity is hampered by infrastructure at cannot operate without large resource demands.

Energy (and emissions) due to fossil fuels comprises the greatest proportion of the ecological footprint, as shown in Fig. 3: Asia Pacific’s Ecological Footprint. The area used for infrastructure, including hydropower, housing, transportation and industrial production, is included as the “built up land” component. However, this is just the area occupied by infrastructure. The footprint due to infrastructure is far greater, and relates to much of the energy/emissions component in the diagram eg energy associated with production and operations of transport infrastructure.

Fig. 3. Asia Pacific’s Ecological Footprint (source: Global Footprint Network 2005)

12


The largest component of the world ecological footprint is demand placed on the biosphere by emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels (WWF 2006).

South Australia’s sectoral emissions

An indication of the importance of infrastructure to energy and emissions, and hence ecological footprint, can be gauged from analysis conducted in South Australia (SA) as part of that state’s Tackling Climate Change Strategy, also involving the Australian Greenhouse Office (2005). An overall picture of SA’s sectoral greenhouse gas emissions is shown in Fig. 4. Fig 4. SA’s Sectoral Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Source: Office of Sustainability)

Direct emissions from the transport sector account for 17% of SA’s CO2 emissions, with another 6-7% being embodied in producing fuel, manufacturing, constructing and maintaining vehicles, transport infrastructure and supporting the transport system. Thus total emissions attributable to transport may be 23-24% of total SA emissions4.

In addition, over 25% of the state’s greenhouse emissions can be attributed to energy use in buildings (Office of Sustainability 2005). This does not include embodied energy used to produce and transport the building materials used in construction. These can be equivalent to those due to operating energy. Thus, conservatively, the total emissions due to buildings sector may be in the order of 40% of total emissions, much of which is due to residential and commercial buildings.

The emissions related to energy therefore overlap those for transportation and buildings. The burning of fossil fuels generates over 70% of South Australia’s greenhouse emissions while at the same time providing essential energy services such as heat, electricity and transportation.

From the above, we can broadly estimate the total contribution of transport, building and energy infrastructure to overall emissions. If the definition of infrastructure is taken to include not only roads but also the vehicles that use these roads (ie the transport system) and also a proportion of the buildings sector, the total contribution of transport, building and energy infrastructure may be well over 50%.

4 Road passenger transport is the single largest contributor to transport-generated emissions at 66% of transport sector emissions.

13


It is assumed that, for the purposes of approximation, the SA figures may reflect developing countries. But figures for such fast growing countries are likely to be more. Note that freshwater is not included in the ecological footprint, although the Living Planet Report highlights the significance of rainfall runoff to the sea.

The above approximate analysis (requiring further verification) gives an indication of the importance of infrastructure in reducing total greenhouse emissions and also the global environmental footprint5. Even if a more narrow definition of infrastructure is taken, patterns of infrastructure – due to their long-life nature - will still have a substantial impact on overall emissions (eg road patterns will affect car use).

Much work to date on applying eco-efficiency principles has focused on the industry sector but, as shown in Fig. 4, this is relatively small in relation to the gains that can be achieved through more eco-efficient infrastructure.

Thus, we can see that the importance of SID to achieving global targets eg emission reductions and the MDGs has been greatly underestimated. In fact, it may be one of the greatest contributors, especially when taken over the life of infrastructure and including embodied energy and emissions. This issue is crucial to the future of the planet, especially due to the huge resource consumption on infrastructure in China and India. And the need to achieve at least a Factor 4 shift in resource productivity (doubling of wealth whilst halving resource use) and a halving of our global ecological footprint.

Greater value and efficiency can be gained from investment in infrastructure if the act of planning providing, operating and maintaining infrastructure is socially inclusive and can alleviate poverty through economic development of local urban communities. Thus, there are challenges and opportunities for infrastructure to be not only environmentally sustainable, but also economically and socially sustainable.

2.5 What is sustainable urban infrastructure development (SID)?

To respond to the above challenges, WWF (2005: 16) has advocated:

Build and advance green infrastructure: Design more resource-efficient, smarter cities; transport networks and infrastructure in the Asia Pacific Region. This concerns particularly large infrastructure projects in rapidly transforming nations, such as China and India, where retro-fitting in the future will be enormously costly and inefficient.

Among possibilities, WWF has highlighted encouraging investment in public transport infrastructure and making transport pricing reflect full social and environmental costs of road and air travel; and investing in information and communications technologies to allow urban areas to be less dependant on traditional transport systems.

Delivering services with efficient and closely aligned infrastructure is likely to be both cost-effective and eco-efficient. Infrastructure provision can have social benefits, too, if it can create employment for local communities, is inclusive of women, the poor and disadvantaged, and helps alleviate poverty. Sustainable infrastructure will also have lower vulnerability to natural disasters (see UNISDR 2005). The key concept is one of ‘doing more with less’, of using infrastructure to deliver several outcomes, so that the resources are truly used efficiently.

5 A major priority of South Australia’s Strategic Plan is to achieve the Kyoto target by limiting the State’s greenhouse gas emissions by 108% of 1990 levels during 2008-12, as a first step towards reducing emissions by 60% (to 40% of 1990 levels ) by 2050.

14


In general, infrastructure is not socially inclusive and does not benefit the poor as much as it could. Added value associated with the act of providing infrastructure tends to be overlooked. Insufficient attention is given to long-term costs and environmental impact.

SID could be seen as designing and maintaining buildings, structures and other facilities with an eye towards resource conservation over the life of the infrastructure (Office of Transportation - Portland 2001).

Thus, a sustainable infrastructure system is one that facilitates the delivery of transport, energy and water services to support social and economic development in an integrated, eco-efficien and, socially inclusive manner. It contributes to achievement of the MDGs and the reduction of greenhouse emissions and the ecological footprint.

In addition, both intra-urban and inter-urban transport infrastructure between cities/regions should be considered within the scope of the project. Aside from transport, water and energy infrastructure to supply urban demands for water, sanitation and energy also extend (geographically) beyond city limits comprising whole regions, and even interconnections between countries. Therefore, it is suggested that SID be defined as a network concept comprising both infrastructure within cities, plus the associated infrastructure networks interconnecting urban centres to meet energy, water and transport demand.

2.6 Application of eco-efficiency principles

In this paper, eco-efficiency is viewed very much in terms of the need to achieve a Factor 4 shift, namely, halving consumption and doubling wealth (thereby alleviating poverty). This is allied to reducing the Ecological Footprint and achieving Green Growth and, indeed, Sustainable Development.

Eco-efficiency is achieved by the delivery of competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life cycle to a level at least in line with the earth’s carrying capacity. It is related to other concepts such as ‘industrial ecology’, ‘cradle to cradle’ (closed loop) systems, ‘product stewardship’ and ‘dematerialization’. The term has often been used in reference to sustainable production and consumption, to ‘lean manufacturing’ and to supply chain management, where waste is designed out of the process.

While the concept is usually applied to the production activity of a firm, it may also be used to describe and assess the environmental impact of a wider scale of activity. In the same way, Ayres’ concept of “products as service carriers” may be extended to infrastructure.

How can the economy be restructured to consume significantly less energy (fuels) and less material goods?...how can dematerialization be accomplished without adversely affecting economic growth? (Ayres 1999).

Material and energy flows of stocks, and life cycle thinking, are also important considerations in the eco-efficiency of infrastructure, as is the concept of the 3Rs: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle (see ESCAP 2006: 13).

In a paper to the APFED meeting on 1 August 2006, Rae Kwon Chung pointed out that eco-efficiency of a product is not enough, and that the concept should be applied to the economy as a whole and physical infrastructure. As Chung noted, such ‘scaling up’ requires consideration not only of production activity but also consumption. In this wider context, Chung and ESCAP suggested that eco-efficiency be used as a measure of the efficiency of the use of natural resources to meet the needs of human populations (ESCAP 2006).

15


This approach may be summed up by the Japanese word ‘mottainai’ which means ‘too precious to waste’. It involves being sparing in use of material resources. This is at the heart of the 3R Initiative (reduce, reuse, recycle) that advanced the concept of a ‘circular economy’ (China) or a ‘resource circulating society’ (Korea) or a ‘sufficiency economy’ (Thailand). Such a society would have the potential to achieve higher resource-use efficiency through reducing the demand for raw materials and energy sources and minimising waste generation (APFED 2005, 2006). Moreover, the sufficiency economy advocates moderation, responsible consumption, and equitable sharing of the benefits of economic prosperity – it is a key to fighting poverty and sustainable development. In also advocating resilience to external shocks, it is also relevant to disaster risk management (UNDP 2007a, 2007b).

Eco-efficiency principles refer to efficient use of energy, water and materials throughput, as well as waste/emissions prevention/minimization in the economic system. The inclusion of energy, water, transport and housing infrastructure within the scope of the project will provide opportunities to apply or develop methodologies to evaluate infrastructure options against eco-efficiency criteria.

2.7 Innovation through systems thinking

The OECD (2007a: 15) has highlighted how various infrastructure systems – including land transport, electricity and water – have for many years shown signs of increasing convergence: “The various systems interact ever more closely with one another and engender all kinds of synergies, substitution effects and complementarities…policy makers need to take a holistic approach to infrastructure development”.6

Eco-efficiency also involves collaboration, integration and sharing, enabling more to be done with less through synergies. The application of systems thinking (Checkland 1981 and Metcalfe, pers. com 2006) is seen as helpful in advancing such connectivity and networking approaches.

According to WWF (2006), innovative approaches to meeting human needs are called for if we are to move beyond the belief that greater well-being necessarily entails more consumption, especially in developed nations where basic needs are already being met. WWF said (2006: 27):

Systems thinking plays a key role. It helps to identify synergies and ensure that proposed solutions bring about overall footprint reductions, rather than shifting demand from one eco-system to another.

It is important that physical infrastructure is seen as part of a wider system related to the provision of services that are essential for growth and poverty alleviation. For example, highways form part of a wider access and mobility system that may include the need for journeys (e.g. location of work and home), feeder roads, land uses, noise barriers, personal vehicles, public transport, freight, fuel, refueling stations, traffic control, and the like. These reflect the elements of a theoretical system, including purpose, components that are also systems (sub-systems), connections between the components, a boundary between the system and the outside ‘environment’, and resources (see Checkland 1981). In other words, eco-efficiency of transport infrastructure needs to be seen in the context of the wider transport or mobility system. In this regard, the OECD Report on Eco-Efficiency in Transport (1998) is a useful reference.

6 The Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South Australia (see Annexe D), was set up to realize the benefits of synergies between various groups with the University eg in transport and energy fields, and cross-discipline approaches.

16


According to a recent report evaluating World Bank transport projects, transport strategies must now focus more attention on cross-cutting issues such as traffic congestion, environmental damages, efficiency, safety and affordability: “This focus will necessitate more innovative, multisectoral approaches” (Independent Evaluation Report 2007).

Further opportunities arise if relationships can be established between the transport system, the water management system, the energy system and the like. For example, Prof Peter Newton7 has highlighted the interdependence between water and energy, with desalination, wastewater treatment and recycling all requiring significant inputs of energy (cited in Henderson 2007). The independencies and scope for synergies is illustrated in Figure 5.

Fig. 5 Sustainable urban infrastructure system

System purpose: To facilitate the delivery of transport, energy and water services to support social and economic development in an integrated, eco-efficient and socially inclusive manner.

Thus, transport, energy and water may all be seen as parts of a larger system, the urban infrastructure system. In turn, this may be seen as part of a service system. Russell Ackoff (see http://www.acasa.upenn.edu/), a leader in systems thinking, saw subsystems functioning in service of the next level system eg the purpose of a heart’s valve understood in relation to the heart; the purpose of the heart understood in relation to the circulatory system; the circulatory system understood in relation to the whole body, and so on. Subsystems always function in service of the next level system. In other words, Ackoff advocated holistic approaches and looking beyond the boundaries of a particular system, to open up opportunities for efficiencies and innovation.

7 Swinburne University’s Centre for Regional Development, Melbourne, Australia.

17

http://www.acasa.upenn.edu/


Taking a wider systems approach can lead to synergies, major innovations, and a better use of resources that we expend in infrastructure. Any gains from insular thinking (e.g. viewing highways as just road corridors) are likely to be restricted to that component of the transport system. On the other hand, a collaborative approach is likely to open up wider opportunities through the connections. Most importantly, ‘systems thinking’ enables us to focus on the purpose or required service (eg socially inclusive urban environments) and how all the elements may work together towards achieving this end. The Stockholm Research Institute (2007) has also called for a ‘systemic approach’, saying:

Urban environmental problems involve complex webs of interconnected and changing problems, which cannot be addressed in isolation. Urban strategies must recognize these interconnections…In most cities, this requires a fundamental shift in approach, greater inter-sectoral cooperation, and more forward-looking strategies.

2.8 Intervention opportunities: the Development Account Project

As noted by the Seoul Policy Consultation Forum, many developing countries are at the cross roads of developing and further expanding their infrastructures in support of robust economic growth. This is an opportune time for them to apply smarter approaches and “leap-frog” the mistakes of the west8.

It is the optimum moment for these countries to apply and integrate eco-efficiency into their infrastructure development, consumption patterns, and production patterns. Furthermore, if present opportunities are not grasped, unsustainable infrastructure patterns may be “locked in” for decades to come.

Green Growth approaches are most relevant to those developing countries where there is significant unmet need and lower levels of infrastructure development (ESCAP 2006b:17). Opportunities for economic growth and income-generation, based on distributed electrical generation systems and renewable energy technologies, for example, are larger in less-developed countries than others with more developed electrical grid systems.

Intervention should provide ex-ante evaluation of different infrastructure options against eco-efficiency criteria, as an input to decision making in the planning and design of major infrastructure decisions now in the pipeline both in the ESCAP and ECLAC regions. In particular, considering that today’s decisions on major energy, water and transport infrastructure imply a degree of lock-in into particular technologies and sunk capital with a lifetime of several decades. It is very likely that in the decades ahead within the lifetime of that infrastructure, eco-efficiency constraints will become tighter. For example, it is expected that the evolution of the global regime to mitigate climate change in the post-Kyoto period, will involve some form of emission caps and energy efficiency constraints (ESCAP 2007, pers. com).

This has led to the proposed UN Development Account (DA) Project, the objectives of which are:

“to improve the capacity of policy makers, planners and decision-makers to increase the environmental sustainability of infrastructure development, with emphasis on urban planning, eco-efficiency, disaster prevention, social inclusiveness and financing opportunities through participation in global carbon markets”.

8 Dr Woodrow Clark II advocated a ‘leap frog’ into the future at Seoul SINGG Forum 2006

18


3. What has been done? What is missing?

3.1 Initiatives and programmes to promote sustainable urban infrastructure development

A high level scan is required of the role and initiatives of various organizations, including:

UN Habitat/UNEP Sustainable Cities Programme Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) CITYNET UNEP SPARKLE (Sustainable Planning for Asian Cities making use of Research, Know-

How and lessons from Europe) and significant EU research eg PLUME, PROPOLIS etc – related to Asia Pro Eco (European Commission).

ASEAN Environmentally Sustainable Cities EAROPH (Eastern Regional Organisation for Planning and Housing) Others listed in Annexe C.

This background paper seeks to begin this process.

UN-Habitat, which focuses on housing and related infrastructure issues, has published the global ‘State of the World’s Cities Report 2006/7’, and another report on ‘Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities’ focused on small urban centres. The ‘Sustainable Cities Program’ (SCP) is a joint UN-Habitat/UNEP facility established in the early 90s to build capacities in urban environmental planning and management, targeting urban local authorities and their partners. It operates in conjunction with a ‘sister’ programme ‘Localizing Agenda 21’ (LA21). UN-Habitat runs the ADB ‘Poverty and Environment Program’ (based in Manila, Philippines) that is also collecting best practices in addressing environmental dimensions of poverty. UNDP and UNEP have formed a partnership with their new Poverty and Environment Facility. The Facility is designed to help developing countries – with an emphasis on Asia and Africa - to integrate sound environmental management into their poverty reduction and growth policies. UNDP and UNEP also have a ‘Climate Partnership’, with a joint project designed to help poorer countries navigate the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. The Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environment is aimed at improving environmental quality and health, covering air and water quality, waste management etc, with integrated urban environmental improvement being a current focus area. Some of the Kitakyushu pilot projects and cities could form the basis for investigations related to SID.

The ‘SPARKLE’ project aims to promote and disseminate knowledge and best practice on the development of sustainable urban land use and transport policies to countries in South-East Asia, primarily through seminars and guidance manuals. An example of such a seminar is that on ‘Sustainable Urban Transport and Land Use Planning’ held in Bangkok, Thailand, September 2005, followed by a workshop in Vietnam in 2006. SPARKLE aims to transfer a logical process of decision-making to Asia, not to transfer policies. It enables local planners and government officials to identify problems in local and regional land use and transport systems, formulate objectives, indicators and targets for a policy, and develop a policy solution to the problem. As such, it has some similar objectives to the DA project.

But initiatives tend to be fragmented and there is lack of an overall coherent theory and body of knowledge in relation to SID.

19


3.2 Integrated planning for land use and infrastructure

In the urban planning field, the link between patterns of growth and transport is well known and documented. Urban sprawl leads to inefficient resource use, whereas more compact forms of development may lead to greater eco-efficiency, especially when integrated with transport planning.

Researchers including Newton (2004) have modelled a number of possible planning designs for the future, including: the ‘compact’ city, with a central hub, which has been the tradition al development pattern; the ‘edge’ city, with nodal townships forming cities within cities; the ‘corridor’ city, which retains the inner city as the central hub with upgraded radial public transport; the ‘fringe’ city, which expands to develop new centres on the outer regions of the city; and the ‘ultra’ city that stimulates business centres in surrounding regional townships and provides high speed commuter linkages. This research has some analogy to that of van Ginkel and Marcotullio (2005: 31) who discussed the advantages of ‘clustered deconcentration’.

Fig. 6 Model of Cities: Alternative Urban Forms(Source: Prof Peter Newton, 2004)

Patterns of urban settlement are very much influenced by transport and its relationship to land use. The University of SA’s Centre for Building and Planning Studies (CBPS) has conducted research in this field eg ‘Land use, Travel Behaviour and the Viability of Different Forms of Transport’. A series of databases have been established relating to land use, travel patterns, transport infrastructure, socio-economic characteristics and a variety of other factors relevant to the study of land-use transport relationships. Other research is focussed on the planning and construction of sustainable human settlements, which seek a more holistic understanding of energy consumption in towns and cities. For example, one research project focuses on embodied energy and urban form, and has the overall aim of determining optimum configurations for urban development and renewal to minimise resource consumption (Pullen 2007). CBPS research also includes hazard mapping and planning for disaster-prone areas, in particular, bushfire hazards. Other Australian Universities and researchers have expertise in the field of land use and settlement patterns that may also be tapped eg Prof Peter Newton, Centre for Regional Development, Swinburne University.

Hayashi has constructed a useful model (see Fig. 6) showing how economic development can lead to motorization, suburbanization, congestion and inefficient energy consumption, whereas rail transit systems and compact land use development can lead to efficient energy consumption. Hayashi has also applied his model to London, Tokyo, Nagoya and Bangkok, which are at different stages of economic development paths, urbanization and motorization. He has thus explained the mutual relationships between land use, transport, energy consumption and the environment.

20


Fig. 7 Mechanism of Economic Development Influences on the Environment(Source: adapted from Hayashi 1993)

Light rail and other forms of mass transit systems are more eco-efficient than private car travel, especially when the parking space occupied by cars is taken into account (as mentioned earlier, land is a resource to be considered in eco-efficiency).

An Australian inquiry into sustainable cities recognized the need for a comprehensive network of complementary transport systems, including freight movements, with transport nodes forming the focus of urban villages. Whereas many major cities have been constructed around a feeder transport system that channels cars and public transport into the city centre, such a network would have “multiple systems operating in a decentralized manner that enables a web of travel directions and nodal hubs of work, industrial, residential and recreational connections.” The infrastructure must exist to facilitate interconnecting commuting travel, such as bus-rail interchanges and commuter parking at railways stations (House of Representatives 2005: 60).

Urban transit systems and integrated residential development.According to New Scientist (2006), “what is needed is a wholesale rethink of how cities are laid out – and how existing ones expand – to minimise the need for cars…”. One way of achieving this is to build cities where people live close to their work in higher density residential development, which is also close to transport hubs. In Australia, policies are now being designed to minimize urban sprawl and to encourage high density residential development around key activity centres and routes served by public transport (Henderson 2007). This is known as ‘Transit Oriented Development’ (TOD). However, there are few good examples of TODs in the Asian context (Asia-Europe Foundation 2006: 85).

Pizarro et al. (2006: 407) advocate the need to build stronger links between planning approaches and the literature on emergency and risk management. They argue for pro-active planning to reduce the vulnerability of settlements to climate and other risks. This involves the development of scenarios, analyses of vulnerability and the preparation of risk

21


management plans as part of normal city planning. Tipple (2006: 393) argues that, in the rush for shelter, people do not decide lightly to settle on unsuitable land eg that is vulnerable to flooding. He suggests that planning authorities in developing countries should provide alternative sites to which informal settlers can be directed. For this, areas should be designated, planned and provided with basic infrastructure such as clean drinking water.

3.3 Distributed versus centralized patterns

According to UNEP (2001), “in some communities, large distribution grids and remote treatment and generation facilities are giving way to a network of distributed or ‘on-site’ infrastructure systems, with shared elements…”. The OECD (2007a: 37) has also highlighted the trend to move away from large monolithic infrastructures of the past in favour of greater reliance on local autonomy, self-reliance and mobility.

Clearly, in many cases economies of scale will ensure the persistence of large-scale installations. But equally, a trend towards more distributed systems can be observed. This trend is driven in part by technology, in part by deregulation and liberalization, in part by security concerns, in part by environmental considerations, also in part by the difficulties governments have in raising capital for large infrastructure development projects.

However, from the standpoint of efficiency gains, productivity and overall life-cycle benefit, the OECD cautions that it is too early to assume that cost/benefit analysis would militate in favour of decentralized systems as is often advocated by interest groups and NGOs (see also Galli 2006). The OECD (2007a: 39) notes that concentration is actually increasing in several sectors (telecom, road transport and electricity).

Nevertheless, decentralized systems seem more appropriate for developing countries, especially as they are more conducive to community participation and involvement of the poor – with the poor having ownership rights in some cases. In this regard, notable successes have been achieved by Water Users Associations, and Self Funding Irrigation and Drainage Groups, in rural areas of China (World Bank 2003). These approaches, which began in the Zhanghe Basin in Hubei Province, could be adapted for use in urban areas, combining water use and economic development/poverty alleviation systems.

In decentralized communities, each new housing development is seen simultaneously as a centre of employment, communications and food production, as well as a facility for food production, waste treatment, stormwater management and waste management.

Developed countries are accustomed to considering infrastructure in terms of massive central power plants, sewage treatment and water filtration plants, multi-lane highways, and vast public building complexes. But the opportunity cost of large capital investment may be better allocated to smaller distributed systems at the local community level. Local management of sewage treatment, stormwater, energy production, and the like may reduce the demand for large central plants. This approach seems especially relevant for developing countries and presents an opportunity for involvement of the urban poor, both in the development and management of such systems and in their use. It is also likely to be more cost and eco-efficient to generate power, provide water supply, and deal with ‘waste’ close to the community they service.

Distributed systems are emerging on the back of new high technology, especially in terms of power generation. As with mobile phones, there is an opportunity for developing countries to ‘leapfrog’ outmoded technologies and avoid the need for extensive transmission lines and the waste of energy that may occur en route. Prof Peter Newton has highlighted the need for

22


smarter and more efficient, distributed urban water system and the important role of urban planning in containing total water consumption (cited in Henderson 2007).

According to UNEP (2003: 1-2):

In some communities, large distribution grids and remote treatment and generation facilities are giving way to a network of distributed or ‘on-site’ management systems, with shared elements integrated into the fabric of the built environment. More diverse land use and building types can complement these on-site infrastructure systems, creating self-reliant, mixed developments…In these communities, each new housing development is seen simultaneously as a centre of employment, communications and food production, as well as a facility for power generation, water treatment, stormwater management and waste management.

However, UNEP acknowledges that this type of sustainable integration is more difficult to apply in older communities. The performance of existing systems must be carefully evaluated and forecast in order to allocate resources between maintenance, refurbishment, or replacement. Many developing countries already have the advantage of extensive public transport services and land use patterns that suit public transport, cycling, and walking – it would be most unfortunate for these to be lost, just before their value is recognized. However, the economies of sunk costs do not apply where there is a lack of existing infrastructure, hence technologies that are not financially competitive in developed countries may be so in developing countries.

As UNEP has recognized, the life cycle impacts of energy and material flows need to be assessed for very diverse technologies and for a range of scales and locations. This will require comprehensive models in order to combine the flows from different stocks (i.e. roads, pipes, wires, etc.) to allow meaningful comparison between integrated and less integrated systems (UNEP 2003).

The OECD (2007a: 32) has recognized the interdependencies among infrastructures (see Annexe E). The automobile has favoured more dispersed settlement patterns which have a bearing in the requirement for water and electricity infrastructure. Conversely, these relationships can also be used to achieve cost savings and eco-efficiencies.

The DA project will need to consider the eco-efficiency implications of various settlement patterns.

3.4 Some examples of good practices and their characteristics

A comprehensive analysis is required, but this paper seeks to begin this process and highlights a few examples.

The Goa 2100 ProjectAccording to Atkisson (2003), ‘RUrbanism’ is the sustainable integration of rural and urban communities. It is a sophisticated new set of design principles and practices governing land use, energy, transportation, governance, and all aspects of economic, ecological, and social development for a major city. Most importantly, it is a new framework for thinking about how to put an existing city onto a pathway toward genuine sustainability — particularly a city in the developing world, but the framework could apply in many other urban/rural contexts.

23


Fig. 8 Reimagining the city of Panjim (Source: Atkisson 2003)

This extensive exercise in quantitative analysis and modeling was the foundation for a visionary reimagining of the city of Panjim, following the newly framed principles of ‘RUrbanism’ (refer Annexe G).

The goals, principles, strategies, and tactics both grew out of, and helped to frame, the quantitative analyses that underlay the model, and these are critical to the sustainability and feasibility of the project. Concepts including Factor 4 efficiencies are fully integrated and the design takes living biological systems as its basic starting point. As Atkisson (2003) has explained, “the city is re-imagined as an organism, with cells, skeletal structures, circulatory systems, and skin as the metaphors and models for the buildings, neighborhoods, transportation systems, and the meeting points between city and rural or natural spaces”. Interestingly, the team prepared a complete topographical and and-use model for Greater Panjim, using satellite and remotely sensed data, along with GPS and GIS technology9.

Dongtan, ChinaThe Dongtan eco-city is designed to be a sustainable city, for eventually half a million people, with a high-efficiency, small footprint (of around 2). It will be a pioneering eco-city that could become a blueprint for sustainable urban development, not only in China, where 400 new cities are planned in the next 20 years, but also the world. The planners have described Dongtan as a “holistic, systemic view of a city” – a view of the world they say is vital to all cities. All the buildings will be self-sufficient in energy use with power derived from a combination of wind power, solar power and other renewable sources. Most of the city’s waste will be recycled and composted. Visitors will park their cars outside the city and use public transport to travel around the city. All apartments and houses will be within seven minutes walk of public transport (Coonan 2007), exemplifying ‘transport oriented development’. Perhaps the Dongtan blueprint could be adapted for renewal of existing urban areas, with involvement of local communities and with the range of MDGs in mind, not just environmental sustainability.

Christie Walk AdelaideAdelaide’s Christie Walk EcoCity Project will be the first inner-city housing project in Australia to have on-site sewage treatment and to be able to provide treated effluent for irrigation of publicly owned parklands. Other features include photovoltaic panels that provide power to the grid and solar hot water to all dwellings, a roof garden, community produce garden, and underground stormwater tanks. Christie Walk is a grass-roots project involving the local community - the first privately funded housing co-operative to undertake green development. It recently received international recognition when it was awarded a silver prize through the Asia Pacific Forum for Environment and Development (APFED) in the Ryutaro Hashimoto Awards (Ecopolis Architects 2006), and may serve as a model for much wider application in the Asia Pacific when modified and adapted to suit particular circumstances.

9 Mapping using similar technologies could be considered for the Development Account Project.

24


One Planet LivingOne Planet Living aims to demonstrate how it is possible to make the challenge of living on one planet achievable, affordable and attractive. It is also the name of a partnership between the BioRegional Development Group and WWF, and is an initiative based on the experience

of the Beddington Zero fossil Energy Development (BedZED). This is a sustainable housing and work space project in London. Residents, find BedZED a desirable place to live, contracting the common but erroneous assumption that a smaller ecological footprint means a lower quality of life.

Fig. 9 BedZED One Planet Living

The key element of BedZED, Christie Walk and Dongtan housing is of residential self-sufficiency in energy and water, with some energy and water being returned to the community infrastructure system or ‘grid’. Similarly, roof gutters, rainwater tanks and filters at domestic scale could circumvent the need for mains water systems in urban areas in urban areas with abundant rainfall. Where tanks can be used for storage of stormwater and for mitigating run-off rates, there are also potential savings in urban drainage infrastructure (Dillon 2006, pers.com). Such on-site and decentralised schemes reduce the pressure on urban and regional infrastructure, and are likely to constitute a better use of scarce resources than highly capital and resource intensive central schemes. There is a case for such schemes to be subsidised by the general community and utilities, through a redistribution of funds, as they reduce the need for costly plant such as power stations.

Sewage systemsCities that do not have the infrastructure to dispose of sewage and organic wastes for reuse (as in food production) have other options. Some authorities have developed sewage farms using reed beds. Kuwait City pipes sewage water into groves of trees on the city outskirts, thus creating a green belt in the desert sand (Girardet 1992: 188-9).

Water recyclingThe University of South Australia has a leading role in the development and implementation of an Australian Government initiative to recycle stormwater for irrigation and industry purposes. As important part of the research is to investigate more effective strategies for harvesting, storing, treating and treating stormwater runoff. Studies will investigate the average annual stormwater runoff volume generated by catchments that have the potential to be harvested. It is highly possible that this methodology could be translated to developing countries. In fact, the University’s Centre for Water Science and Systems has established international linkages eg Yellow River Conservancy, China.

Waterworks and roadsThere are many examples, though, where local communities are empowered to manage infrastructure provision. One such example is the Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement in Sri Lanka, providing sustainable local communities with economic self-reliance through collaboratively digging wells, building waterworks and roads, planting trees, providing micro-credit, and generally sharing of resources (APFED 2005: 107). This improves environmental conditions whilst providing jobs for poor communities.

25


Renewable energy for electrificationAnother example of a local system is the APACE ‘Village First Electrification Program’ (VFEP), which began in the Solomon Islands but now includes Papua New Guinea, Bougainville, and Vanuatu. This is based upon micro-hydro technology, which recognizes that electricity via renewable energy is a prerequisite for basic services and economic development (APFED 2005: 472). Similar approaches have been pursued in Rajasthan, India, through a project on ‘Enhancing Access through Off-Grid Electrification’. This recognizes that the present approach to rural electrification is environmentally and financially unsustainable. The alternative approach through off-grid electrification, pursued to a modest degree, has established the resource availability and technical viability of renewable energy-based technologies (APFED 2005: 164).

The structure and composition of many electricity markets around the world is moving away from the centralized power generation and distribution that characterized the industry for much of the 20th century (Carder 2003). Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels enable more distributed power generation, converting sunlight into electricity, with no moving parts. It is the most cost-effective energy choice for many off-grid applications, for example in remote areas. Where solar PV is grid-connected, the electricity that is generated does not need special storage. It is used on site initially and, when the solar panel generates more than is being used, it feeds electricity into the grid. Systems are modular and easy to install, so they are very suitable for urban environments (Australian Conservation Foundation 2006).

Another more basic, remarkably simple, and highly innovative scheme, involving Solaris Technology of South Australia, is the use of low cost ‘solar lanterns’, to provide access to electric light for households in rural areas not serviced by mains or diesel power. This is being implemented in rural Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and involves The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), India. The provision of light by high reliability portable solar lanterns has many added benefits including: increasing effectiveness of literacy programs; allowing rural dwellers to participate in educational programs; increasing household income from home-based production; and opportunities for local business in servicing the lanterns (APFED 2005: 387). This is another example of ‘systems thinking’, where the solar lantern is considered not just as a lighting source, but as part of a wider education and development system.

Community-based energy efficienciesAccording to Kellett (2007), ‘top-down’ approaches and reliance on market mechanisms are failing to produce required reductions in energy demand and shifts away from fossil fuels. Using a deprived community in South Yorkshire, UK, he has proposed an alternative community-based ‘bottom up’ approach based on establishment of an Energy Service Company (ESCO) for a community. The ESCO, seen as a socially oriented business with the rationale of community development, would exploit the potential of energy efficiency measures, particularly in the domestic sector. It could accelerate the transition to a more sustainable energy future. Whilst based on a UK context, such an approach has commonalities with the community approaches described above and could have applications to developing countries.

Grant and Mortimer (2004) have used the model for baseline and renewable energy resource assessment reported by Kellett (2007) to estimate community energy profiles in a number of Chinese settlements. One outcome of this analysis has been a much improved understanding of the sustainability of certain Chinese practices and the opportunities which exist to maintain and improve upon these practices rather than to introduce top down approaches to urban infrastructure provision.

Community based programmes for climate resilienceSeveral Pacific Islands are implementing climate risk programmes, including Samoa, where community grants have been used to strengthen coastal resilience and reconstruction of roads

26


and bridges to cyclone-resilient standards. As Stern (2007: 439) has noted, such local initiatives may well be a fruitful approach since local people are usually able to identify more accurately the vulnerability.

Community-based transport systemsTransport needs can be reduced whilst also reducing need for large transport networks, and with added socio-economic benefits. For example, diesel operated three-wheelers were introduced to the Kathmandu Valley, Nepal, in the late 1980s to early 1990s and became a popular transportation option, but with associated pollution problems. Through the support of organisations such as the Global Resources Institute, the diesel three-wheelers are being converted to use electricity, which has given rise to an electric vehicle industry consisting of vehicle owners, electricity charging station operators, and a new business involving the manufacture of electric vehicles. All are components of an electric vehicle system (see APFED 2005: 116; Dhakal 2002). It is possible, as an adjunct to this project, that vehicles could be rented and shared as part of a sustainable product service system, taken back and reused, with increased eco-efficiency. This is an area for further investigation, but the words of Salon et al. (1998: 6)—whilst referring to developed countries—point to the way forward for developing countries:

Strong synergies and large incentives are needed to accomplish a major transportation transformation…Partnerships between new mobility businesses, such as local car-sharing organisations, bicycle retailers, and local bus and train operators, need to be fostered. These partnerships will create a strong new mobility core business community and will facilitate the intermodalism necessary for a new mobility system to thrive.

Partnerships are also possible with developers of residential areas. There are examples in Europe of apartments with much reduced car parking provision, where a car or mobility service is provided as part fo the tenancy package (Scheurer 2001). Such sharing arrangements lead to more efficient vehicle use and reduced parking and transport infrastructure.

Multi-use:Transport Corridors for Rainwater Harvesting and Reuse, and Solar CollectorsThere are emerging examples of transport corridors serving more than one purpose, which demonstrate prudent and efficient use of resources.

Beecham (2003) has outlined how biofiltration systems may have multiple land use functions. In this regard, permeable pavements can be designed for both enhanced water quality treatment and integrated rainwater tank storage (below the pavement surface). This allows transportation corridors to be utilized as large rainwater harvesting and reuse facilities, without requiring the construction of separate facilities. Research is continuing at the University of South Australia, under the theme of ’water-sensitive urban design‘, on enhancing the structural strength and water quality treatment capabilities of these novel systems.

Noise barriers along highways can also double as solar collectors, and there are a number of examples of trials and demonstration projects in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. The possibility of direct heating of neighbouring buildings has even been explored, again demonstrating wider systems thinking (Carder 2003).

The above concepts and their potential integration are illustrated in Figure 10.

27


Fig. 10 Integrated transport, energy, water and housing infrastructure corridor

More efficient traffic flowThe OECD (2006: 44) has mentioned techniques, using ‘intelligent infrastructure’10, to make traffic flow more efficiently, reducing the need to build new infrastructure. For example, uni-directional traffic flow during peak hours may be employed on existing freeways, managed by electronic control systems, thereby obviating the need to build a duplicate road with its associated resource consumption. An example is the Southern Expressway, Adelaide, South Australia.

Environmentally sustainable refurbishment of urban residential areas, ChinaProf Xiaoming Wang and his team from Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, have conducted research on sustainable improvement processes for old urban communities, involving resident participation.

3.5 What are current processes for financing infrastructure?

Adequate financing is probably the main issue related to infrastructure projects and interventions (see Acquatella and Jordan 2007). For example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has identified a requirement for investment in the energy sector in developing countries of around $10 trillion to 2030 - a significant (but unknown) percentage of this is likely to relate to the Asia Pacific region. Of the $10 trillion, $34 billion is required annually for energy access to poor people (see Stern 2007: 493).

At present, the cost of infrastructure is being borne to a large extent by taxpayers and consumers do not face the real costs of the infrastructure services they consume (ADB et al. 2005).

In many countries, municipal taxes and other local incomes are the traditional funding sources, supplemented by co-participation from central governments, by loans from multilateral financial agencies such as ADB and the World Bank, and by financial cooperation from development agencies. Financial resources at disposal of municipal

10 A Workshop on ‘Sustainable and Intelligent Transport Systems’ is being held in Thailand in August 2007. Also, the Transport Systems Centre of ISST, University of Adelaide, is conducting research on traffic control systems

28


governments are limited, while they are required to assume more and more responsibility for urban capital investment and for the management of the urban environment (IGES 2005:102).

Private sector funding and private public partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly being looked upon to fill the funding gap. However, their private participation is impaired by inadequate regulatory and governance frameworks. Asian developing countries are generally in need of considerable capacity strengthening before PPPs can be expected to function effectively.

There is also evidence that PPP’s may not function well in low-income cities where widespread poverty is found (Kidokoro 1998 cited by IGES 2005:103). PPPs work especially well with large infrastructure projects. The applicability of PPPs further diminishes in cities that are poor, where user charges are difficult to collect (IGES 2005:104).

Acquatella and Jordan (2007) have highlighted two main challenges associated with the current situation:

The performance to date of PPPs and their assessment in terms of social, economic and environmental impacts

The capacity for identification, measurement, appraisal and internalization of externalities (‘diseconomies’) generated by infrastructure investment.

3.6 What are some policy initiatives?

There are examples of infrastructure being seen in support of strategic objectives. This is well illustrated by the relationship between South Australia’s Strategic Plan (Government of South Australia 2005a), the Planning Strategy and the Strategic Infrastructure Plan (Office of Major Projects and Infrastructure 2005). The former contains almost 80 targets under 6 main objectives, including ‘growing prosperity’ and ‘sustainability’ (the elements of ‘green growth’), with the intention that various agencies and community organisations work together to achieve these targets. The Infrastructure Plan, which supports the Strategic Plan, highlights the need for more efficient use of all public built assets and infrastructure, and the notions of sharing, co-location and collaboration are central to the vision of future infrastructure.

The Asia Pacific region possesses a number of innovative models for infrastructure financing (ESCAP 2007), but “what is needed is a regional mechanism so that other countries could also benefit”.

ESCAP has advocated improvement of eco-efficiency of consumption through demand side management (ESCAP 2006:14). IGES has cautioned that supply-side responses can create further demand and further environmental stresses: “any prospects for longer-term success will require interventions that constrain and reduce demand”, especially in the case of urban transport where more roads create more demand and a concomitant increase in urban energy use and air pollution (IGES 2005:107). The Singapore vehicle quota system is one example. Thus, SID looks at the aspects of how we build, what we build and, importantly, whether we should build the infrastructure at all (Office of Transportation - Portland 2001: 2).

3.7 What is missing? Limitations and problems with current approaches

Understanding importance of eco-efficient infrastructure to meeting targets The magnitude of the contribution of infrastructure to climate change/ emissions targets and the MDGs has not be quantified and demonstrated. This is the most important issue to engage the attention of policy and decision-makers.

29


Environmental aspects are sometimes compromised for the sake of economic and social objectives. They may be seen as adding to cost and in competition to the need to achieve economic growth. The notion that eco-efficient infrastructure may actually be more cost-efficient is not widely appreciated.

Eco-efficiency of infrastructure is rarely considered in current decision-making processes. Its importance has not been demonstrated, the imperatives are missing and there is no clearly understood means of its measurement. Hence, the awareness of eco-efficiency concepts and criteria among policy makers, planners and decision-makers needs to be increased considerably.

Public participationPublic participation, which is more prevalent in developed countries, is vital in raising support from politicians in championing transport and infrastructure changes and is essential for solid decision-making (Asia-Europe Environment Forum 2006: 85).

Integrated land use and infrastructure planningThe biggest gap, though, is a lack of planning and resultant urban sprawl (Asia-Europe Environment Forum: 84). This also applies to the planning of infrastructure, where more attention is needed to the integration of land use planning and transport policy development, with consideration to the eco-efficiency of various urban forms (Newton 2004).

Achieving multiple purposes Infrastructure tends to be seen simply in terms of physically constructing a road to provide transport, for example. Little consideration is given to whether it may achieve multiple purposes and be integrated with the pursuit of other objectives. The added environmental and social value is seldom considered eg there is a lack of attention to social inclusiveness and how infrastructure systems may be used for economic development.

As Lee pointed out at the Seoul Forum, infrastructure does not just mean roads, water, energy and building cities, but rather all of their components too – people, time, money and creative ideas! “The most promising point for building a system or infrastructure of people, resources, energy, money and institutions is that it helps promote sustainability better” (Lee 2006: 6, 9).

Too often, provision of infrastructure is seen as a ‘hard’ engineering problem, with ‘soft’ aspects and interdependencies being overlooked. This is a key point – infrastructure may be viewed as not only the roads, but also the cars on the roads and the emissions they emit. It is all part of a transport or mobility system.

In this regard, the recent evaluation of World Bank transport projects showed that past Bank experience, with its relatively narrow and primary focus on roads, will be insufficient to provide for the Bank’s future response to emerging transport challenges – to resolve the nexus of issues associated with energy, land use, urbanization, air pollution and climate change (Independent Evaluation Group 2007). As the evaluation stated, “transport is developing into a complex multisectoral business that will require expertise from many different disciplines”.

Targets and measures /indicatorsThere is a lack of targets, performance measures and key performance indicators. In other words, eco-efficiency should be measured using indicators that relate environmental impact (eg emissions or pollutants) or resource use (such as water or energy) to the service of economic benefit (such as passenger kilometres in the case of transportation infrastructure). This is an extension of the concept of ‘material intensity per unit of service’ (MIPS), developed by Schmidt-Bleek (1999). The method of measuring eco-efficiency and resource-efficiency of infrastructure requires much more attention.

30


Planning for resilient infrastructureThere is a pressing need for planning for critical infrastructure that is resilient to natural disasters and ‘sustainable’ in the long term. This will require an understanding of risk management principles among policy makers and planners.

Institutional arrangements A major inadequacy appears to lie in institutional arrangements. This includes not only the capability and capacity of organizations for integrated, strategic thinking, but also their divisional and compartmentalized nature. To this can be added the need for policies and regulations.

Strategic thinking and planningThere is a deficiency in strategic thinking and planning. Higher order strategic objectives are overlooked in many cases. The success of a highway project may be gauged, for example, by the number of kilometres of road. But the road is intended to achieve economic objectives eg trade or tourism.

Need to ‘join up the dots’The links are missing between many initiatives and organizations. There is a need to “join up the dots”. For example, there is a possible link between SID and the managing the risks associated with climate change, especially where this affects developing countries that will suffer most from the effects of climate change.

In this regard, the interdependence, interconnectedness and intermodality of various infrastructure systems tends to be overlooked with possible benefits of synergies not being realized (see ESCAP 2006).

Low carbon infrastructure: resource productivityOperational energy/ emissions receive most attention, but around 30% of energy/ emissions is related to construction (embodied energy). Increased emphasis is required to the whole of life environmental impact of infrastructure and the concept of ‘low carbon infrastructure’ (see Pullen 2006). Kohler and Chini (2005) have also highlighted the issue of ‘resource-productive material use’ and the importance of energy and material flows through human settlements (urban metabolism).

An understanding of ‘resource productivity’ is required - with resources including materials, water, energy, land - coupled with an understanding of the Ecological Footprint concept. This is the key, to be able to produce infrastructure that minimises the depletion of these resources over its life cycle, and to reduce waste. The life cycle stages are planning, design, construction, operation, refurbishment, recycling and disposal.

Eco-efficiency indicators can be divided into 5 environmental performance categories: water use, energy requirement, global warming contribution, ozone depletion contribution, and waste. To this should be added consumption of material resources. Land is also an important resource, hence the importance of more efficient urban land use configurations as described earlier. Built up land is also an important contributor to the Ecological Footprint.

Current environmental impact assessments focus only on the impacts from the construction of infrastructure. Strategic Environmental Assessment tools are needed, including long-term use and life-cycle implications. As shown in Figures 11 and 12, there is also a need for a transition from linear forms of infrastructure provision, to circular or looped forms. This is consistent with the concepts of ‘resource circulating society’ and ‘circular economy’ mentioned earlier in this paper (section 2.6). In line with this thinking, the notion of ‘a waste management system’ should be replaced by that of a ‘resource recovery system’. This will reinforce the notion that resources are limited and should be prevented from going to waste.

31


As noted earlier, more recognition is required to the resource consumption aspects of various settlement patterns and infrastructure, with an understanding of ‘low carbon infrastructure’ and ‘low carbon economy’ and what these entail in terms of planning (see Gleneagles Summit 2005). These resources must be viewed over their lifecycle in terms of energy (including embodied energy) and emissions. The role of renewable energy in reducing these emissions is an important consideration.

Fig. 11 Linear infrastructure (Source: OECD 2006, adapted from Girardet 1992).

Fig, 12 Sustainable urban infrastructure (Source: OECD 2006, adapted from Girardet 1992).

According to the OECD (2006), ‘intelligent infrastructure’ deployment has the potential to augment the capacity at a more or less constant level of fixed capital stock - in other words, to enable more efficient infrastructure. This is the ‘smart’ element of the infrastructure system.

Macroscale examples of eco-efficient and sustainable infrastructure developmentGood practices are too isolated with minimal impact in an overall context. There is a lack of overall worked examples of how eco-efficiency policies and approaches can be applied at a macroscale (eg city level) and how these may lead to improvement in not only environmental quality but also economic and social development ie integrated sustainable development. This is a niche where the DA could make a difference and that could engage the attention of policy and decision makers.

As the World Health Organization (2000) noted:

Projects on the urban environment should be designed to focus on environment and poverty alleviation. For example, in planning for housing and settlements, it is important to consider not just solid and liquid waste management but also the

32


elements that provide income. This includes generating new sources of employment or providing access to employment through proper siting and transport planning.

The objective of the DA project will need framing with this in mind. It should be about more than ‘environmental sustainability’.

4. What are the key issues in bridging the gaps and shifting policies?

4.1 The key issues in accomplishing the shift

The key challenge is to convince policy makers, planners and decision-makers of the significance of eco-efficient and sustainable infrastructure in meeting MDGs and other goals. This will require more extensive analysis and demonstration of the contribution of infrastructure systems to achievement of various goals, including Factor 4. Such an analysis should be accompanied by a worked example or examples, at a high level, demonstrating how integrated and eco-efficient approaches may not only achieve environmental benefits, but also economic and social goals.

After this powerful message has been grasped by planners and decision-makers, a programme to build their capacity and skills will be required, including the provision of a policy toolkit.

4.2 Overcoming barriers

The barriers to understanding and acceptance of the key message, and to follow up by planners and the like, include the following:

Lack of overall imperatives, incentives, targets. This will require action by ESCAP at Ministerial level, using its convening power;

Political decisions. In many cases, decisions for infrastructure development are dependent on political decisions, which sometimes are not scientifically and environmentally sound (ESCAP Seoul Forum). Politicians may also tend to take short-term view, whereas a long term view is needed11. This also points to the need for ESCAP to engage with Ministers in not only the environmental sphere, but also in the economic and financial areas

Lack of comprehensive statistical data and relevant information to aid understanding of the current eco-efficiency levels of existing infrastructure (including long-term environmental impact of usage and lifecycle of the infrastructure) and future development plans (ESCAP Seoul Forum);

Green growth and eco-efficiency seen as too expensive (ESCAP 2006: 17); Institutional divisions and departments (see below).

4.3 How can integrated approaches lead to more sustainable infrastructure?

The development of large infrastructure impinges on many sectors and has wide cross-sectoral implications and spillovers. However, too often public policy decisions for the development of large infrastructure projects tends to be compartmentalized in sectoral agencies, as Acquatella and Jordon (2007) have also noted in Latin America. Governments are usually structured in divisions and departments which promotes insular thinking.

11 To overcome short-term political expediency, the OECD (2007a: 47) suggests that one solution could be to move responsibility for land transport infrastructure away from the political arena to a more arm’s length agency (as is already the case with telecom and energy).

33


For example, the transport department looks after roads and rail, the environment department looks after parks and biodiversity, the energy department is concerned with renewable energy, and the water department focuses on water supply and stormwater. As the Seoul Green Growth Forum noted, countries in the region are not talking full advantage of partnership building opportunities and multi-stakeholder consultations when developing infrastructure projects, such as partnership between environment and transport sectors, transport management plans between road and rail, and private and public transport (ESCAP Seoul Forum 2006).

There is a general lack of models/methodologies to guide integrated approaches to infrastructure development. In this regard, Acquatella and Jordon (2007) have highlighted the need for the DA project to develop guidelines or models to conduct integrated development of infrastructure; these should include methodologies to evaluate the relative merits of various options against carbon intensity, emissions, resource productivity and the like.

Integrated approaches are also needed for cross-border infrastructure. For example, while some countries are endowed with abundant energy resources, others are deficient. Such disparities highlight the need for regional cooperation.

As highlighted throughout this paper, the challenge is to take a ‘systems approach’ whereby various elements may be seen as interconnected and synergies explored.

4.4 How can eco-efficiency concepts be applied to planning and assessment?

A high level worked example (at least one), demonstrating the application and benefits of eco-efficiency approaches and methodologies, may be expected to assist engagement with policy makers, planners and decision-makers. It is suggested that this exercise is required at least at a city level, initially, but with recognition to inter-urban linkages.

The selection of an appropriate city or cities is likely to require a higher level scan across the region of opportunities to make a difference, taking into account the likely availability of information, what has been done previously (eg via other programmes) and receptive governments.

Cultural and demographic differences will need to be considered. One approach will not suit all countries and subregions.

It is most important that any such exercise involve not just city level governments, but also national governments. It needs to be seen in a wider context.

4.5 How can social inclusiveness impact on eco-efficiency and sustainability?

Social inclusiveness can increase profitability of investments in infrastructure as well as opportunities for contributing to economic growth and improving quality of life. As ESCAP (2007) has noted:

Integrated, people centred planning in cities like Curitiba, Brazil, and Bogota, Columbia, have delivered substantial economic, environmental and social benefit, while more recent eco-city initiatives in Asia…are at the frontiers of applying sustainability concepts to infrastructure development.

AS IGES (2005: 105-6) has pointed out, a large proportion of Asia’s urban population live in squatter areas where low financial rates of return limit the potential for PPPs and the like. A range of community partnerships are emerging to address urgent problems eg Orangi Pilot

34


Project in Pakistan for developing a waste-water system. Local management of infrastructure eg management transfer (devolution) to Water Users’ Associations (WUAs) and Self-funding Irrigation and Drainage Districts (SIDDs) in China, has also been cited in this paper.

The extent to which community partnerships may provide solutions to the urban infrastructure needs of communities, including squatter settlements, in burgeoning cities in the Asia Pacific, is an area that may benefit from further investigation. However, Tipple (2006: 390) has highlighted the potential employment and income from house building and infrastructure provision, especially housing built by the “informal sector”. He argues that ‘community contracts’ are a good way forward. These were developed under UNCHS/Danida aegis in Sri Lanka (UNCHS 1989) and later by Cotton et al. 1998. Under such contracts, community groups are paid to implement, maintain and operate government-financed works. Community contracts not only employ local people, but also increase skills, redistribute income downwards, and develop a sense of ownership and technical understanding of infrastructure (Tipple 2006: 390).

4.6 Financing, pricing and user charges

The Asia Pacific region needs an annual investment of about $600 billion in transport, energy, water and telecommunications infrastructure. But there is a shortfall of more than $200 billion annually (ESCAP 2007). The ADB et al. (2005: 162) have noted that, while in some East Asian countries “expenditure on infrastructure appears to have been less than optimal in recent years”, the possibility exists for stronger promotion of private financing and higher user charges. “Covering costs through user charges is a critical long-term objective”.

While private sector investment has played an important role, this has represented only about 20-25% of total infrastructure investment in the developing world. Furthermore, levels of private investment in infrastructure have sharply declined throughout the developing world in the aftermath of the Asia crisis (Delvoie 2005). Although Delvoie notes a renewed positive sentiment overall among investors in East Asian infrastructure, more innovative approaches to private sector finance will be needed, including diverse forms of public/private partnerships and greater recourse to large institutional investors (OECD (2007b): “Public sector infrastructures that today depend heavily on taxes and appropriations (eg in road transport) will need to place more reliance on other, perhaps new sources of funding (eg user charges)”.

Acquatella and Jordon (2007) have stressed the need to coordinate two objectives: social and/or productive investment and to take account of externalities. They recommend that PPP schemes should simultaneously seek ‘three types of returns’ in order to achieve sustainable urban development: economic, social and environmental return.. Their views accord with Delvoie (2005: 3): “Government decisions on which PPP projects (or in fact any infrastructure projects) to promote need to rely on impact analyses that go beyond economic rate of return evaluation as practices today”. Another issue highlighted by Devoie (2005: 6) is how to design effective public private partnerships in a context of rapid decentralization of responsibilities that adds new dimensions of complexity and inter-linkages: “Development institutions need to re-tool to directly engage provinces or municipalities”.

Moreover, the role of pricing is set to become increasingly critical, be it to combat congestions, better manage demand, or raise the required funding for investments. In the water sector, pricing has been “notoriously inadequate” to ensure the necessary investment in infrastructure (OECD 2007a: 43-44). The OECD has strongly stated that:

In developing countries, the major new infrastructure needs resulting from population growth and urbanization can only be accommodated if an appropriate pricing scheme is put in place. This will be a challenging task given the need of ensuring, at the same time, that the poor have adequate access to the water they need.

35


This may call for pricing schemes where the price per unit of water consumed increases with usage, so as to allow vital uses (eg drinking water) to be met at minimum cost to the user, while discouraging at the same time wastage and heavy use.

The OECD (2007a: 45) also notes that higher prices are likely to be seen as desirable by environmentalists, if only because of the substantial environmental benefit they can bring about, simply by curbing demand. However, the impact on the urban poor will need to be carefully considered.

Subsidies have been used in some countries to help the poor (see Jadresic 2002). However, Stern (2007: 276) advises that it is inappropriate to deal with poverty by distorting the price of, say, energy.

Addressing income distribution issues directly is more effective. There are a number of ways to achive this. One is indexing social transfers to a price index, taking account of different consumption patterns of poorer groups in the relevant price index for those groups.

Stern outlines other more direct means, including making special transfers to those with special needs. The ADB et al. (2005: 163), however, acknowledges that “subsidy is not a dirty word” and that some projects may require subsidies, although should be a last resort after costs have been minimized through other means.

4.7 Innovative funding mechanisms including CDM

The Global Environment Facility (GEF12) has a strong track record in financing programmes for energy efficiency and renewable energy, but is small relative to the scale of the challenge. According to Stern (2007: 503), the GEF would require up to a two to three fold increase in current financing in order to ensure sustained market penetration of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies over the next 10 years, while strategic global programmes would require a ten-fold increase. UNFCCC (2006) has also canvassed innovative financing mechanisms. However, as Stern has said, “Whether it is through GEF or other institutional mechanisms, an expansion in the scale of funding is required if the deployment of low carbon technologies is to be supported, accompanied by strong legal and regulatory environments” (Stern 2007: 503).

On the basis of avoided greenhouse gas emissions, as discussed earlier in this paper, there are financing opportunities for eco-efficient infrastructure through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The CDM enables developed countries of the North to gain emissions reductions by investing in developing countries of the South. The recipient countries benefit from free infusions that allow their factories, power plants and the like to operate more efficiently and hence at lower costs and higher profits. And the atmosphere benefits because of lower emissions. Importantly, as Stern (2007: 504) has noted, the CDM provides an important channel for private sector participation in financing low-carbon investments in developing countries.

Until now, CDMs have been applied to individual projects and, as Stern (2007: 505) observed,

There has also been limited use of the CDM in the poorest countries, raising concerns about distributional equity of the CDM, and the appropriate mechanisms to tackle low-carbon infrastructure to support wider access to energy for poor people

12 Note that the GEF operates a ‘Least Developed Countries Fund’

36


There are proposals to streamline CDM. For example, ‘programmatic CDM’ was approved at an UNFCCC meeting in Montreal in December 2005. This allows specific programmes taking place in the context of national/regional policies to be credited, with the aim of producing larger CDM projects with lower transaction costs. A programmatic approach to CDM can do so by aggregating smaller projects within a programme. Another option is to design a policy-based CDM that would provide credits to developing country governments that introduce a policy relating to emissions reductions (Stern 2007: 506-7).

According to Stern (2007: 507), the most cost-effective, large-scale emissions reductions are likely to be linked to strategic programmes eg supporting integrated programmes for urban transport and development, or in tackling a wholesale transition to lower carbon power generation. Programmes on this scale can take place only in the context of structural reforms and development policies implemented by national or regional governments.

Using its regional role, SINGG and its partners could seize the opportunity to apply this approach to sustainable infrastructure programmes, while alleviating poverty through economic development. This could be a valuable adjunct to ESCAP’s Green Growth approach.

There are other possibilities for expanding the CDM idea to generate further investment. According to the OECD (2007a: 45), the creation of markets for carbon emission permit trading will have a bearing on future infrastructure development, notably in the energy sector.In addition, eliminating the ‘overshoot’ described earlier means closing the gap between humanity’s Ecological Footprint and the planet’s biocapacity. The global community needs to make decisions on how much to shrink its footprint, and how this reduction in aggregate demand is to be shared. As WWF has proposed, possible strategies for allocation of ecological footprint could include ‘shift and share’, whereby footprints shares are traded between individuals, regions or nations – similar to trading of carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. (WWF 2006: 25).

4.8 Governance, policies and institutional arrangements

According to IGES (2005: 109), the crux of Asia’s urban environmental problems lies in improving the governance base for the formulation and management of appropriate policies and practices.

The word ‘governance’ means to steer and to pilot or to be at the helm of things. While the term government indicates a political unit for the function of policy making, the word governance denotes an overall responsibility for both political and administrative functions. According to UNDP (1999: 4), governance for sustainable development involves the following criteria: participation; rule of law; transparency; responsiveness; consensus orientation; equity; effectiveness and efficiency; accountability; and, not least, strategic vision.

Importantly, transparent legal and institutional ‘governance’ frameworks are also required for private sector involvement and investment (ESCAP 2006; ADB et al. 2005). The OECD (2007a: 47) has also highlighted the growing need for “effective regulatory oversight” due to increased participation of the private sector eg in water sector. Decentralization and more effective private sector involvement are seen by the OECD to be the way forward.

Urban governance is largely unprepared for the scale of change to come and the need to adopt more sustainable practices. According to Roberts and Kanaley (2007: 21), “Sustainable urban development will require major changes, starting with the way cities are governed and managed”. They have highlighted the need to strengthen urban governance, recognizing the importance of local leadership, utilizing local networks, involving local communities and

37


leveraging local resources. This paper has previously discussed how decentralized infrastructure and community contracts can involve the urban poor and lead not only to environmental improvements, but also social and economic development. Such arrangements need the support of national and local governments, though. These issues have been addressed by ESCAP Human Settlements, UNDP through its Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI) and more recently by UNCHS’ Global Campaign for Good Urban Governance.

In the context of this paper, though, perhaps the most pressing need is for institutional frameworks to integrate urban planning and management. As the Commonwealth Local Government Forum held in the Fiji Islands (2007) stated,

An institutional planning framework ensures that the national government works with local government…and partnerships are established with civil society and other stakeholders including the private sector…National government support for local governments in the management of urban issues is crucial…there is a need for more human and financial resources to be channelled to local governments so that they are able to develop and implement urban management policies.

Samoa has developed a framework that could serve as a useful model, although this was specifically designed for the Pacific urban context. The Samoan Planning and Urban Management Agency (PUMA) consolidated authority for urban land use and environmental planning, based on four functional areas: developing plans and policies, regulating development, coordinating urban services and, of special relevance to the DA Project, disaster management. Its success is reportedly based upon political commitment, good institutions, legislation, a strategic planning framework (that is locally appropriate), coordination mechanisms and other support tools and mechanisms (ESCAP 2003).

In relation to the reliance of urban infrastructure to natural disasters, there is a need to integrate climate change and other risks into development programmes. Stern (2007: 439) has cited the proposal of Burton and van Aalst (2004) for a ‘climate risk-screening tool’ for World Bank projects, while the UNDP has compiled an Adaptation Policy Framework and series of technical papers to guide projects towards identification of appropriate adaptation strategies (UNDP 2005).

5. What should the Development Account Project focus upon and how?

5.1 Identify key areas of project intervention to remove barriers

What are the key areas to target to make a difference, the biggest opportunities for least investment?

In depicting and responding to the massive challenge of meeting emissions and ecological footprint targets, a novel technique developed to tackle climate change could be applied to sustainability of infrastructure. It enables the magnitude of the problem to be graphically illustrated and broken down into manageable components or ‘wedges’.

Socolow et al. (2004) developed the ‘stabilization wedges’ concept to illustrate the scale of global emissions cuts needed in the future. The difference between the currently predicted path and the flat path from the present to 2054 gives a triangle of emissions to be avoided, a total of nearly 200 billion tonnes. This stabilization triangle can be divided into seven triangles or wedges of equal area. Each wedge results in a reduction in the rate of carbon emission of 1 billion tonnes per year by 2054, or 25 billion tonnes over 50 years. This concept

38


was adapted by Fiona Wild of BP in a talk to the South Australian ’Tackling Climate Change Summit‘, 2005 (see Fig. 13).

Fig. 13 Stabilization wedges (Source: Wild 2005 based on Socolow et al. 2004)

Although applied previously to emissions reductions, this ‘wedge theory’ may also provide a strong conceptual and pictorial basis to tackle other targets (eg MDGs, Factor 4):

Depict graphically the overall paradigm shift required, from the currently projected path (‘business as usual’)

Using large wedges, show how various sectors need to contribute to this measurable saving and in which sectors the largest gains can be made

Within each of these key wedges, there can be short-term and longer term actions (corresponding to an increase in effort and expenditure over time).

The DA project is intended to develop planning methodologies; it is not intended to implement these. It is aimed at and policy-makers, planners and decision-makers.

From the preceding analysis, the greatest opportunities lie in:

Verifying the critical significance of SID in meeting the MDGs and other targets eg ecological footprint or Factor 4 improvement in eco-efficiency;

Conducting a high-level scan or mapping of status of SID in urban areas across the region to identify the greatest opportunities for intervention to meet targets, accompanied by disaster risk mapping;

High level scan should include both intra-urban and inter-urban transport infrastructure between cities/regions. Aside from transport, water and energy infrastructure to supply urban demands for water, sanitation and energy also extend (geographically) beyond city limits comprising whole regions, and even interconnections between countries. Consider networks comprising both infrastructure within cities, plus the associated infrastructure networks interconnecting urban centres to meet energy, water and transport demand (define).

Development of a methodology for undertaking broad assessments of eco-efficiency and of selected urban areas followed by planning to achieve improvements, with measures. This should include mapping, assessment and planning in relation to disaster prone areas;

Demonstrating how infrastructure provision can support delivery of services and achieve economic, social and environmental objectives. More value from investment, improving quality of life;

Targets and measures of success, including ecological footprint and emissions reduction targets;

Use of Global strategies such as CDM (especially programmatic) and ‘shrink and share’ strategies as outlined in the Living Planet Report (WWF 2006);

39

7 BtC/y

Wedges

20552005

14

7

Billion of Tons of Carbon Emitted per Year

19550

Currently

projected path

Flat path

Historicalemissions

1.9

2105

14 BtC/y

Seven “wedges”

O


Achieving multiple purposes for a given resource consumption eg a transport corridor may also serve to harvest rainwater and even as a power source eg via solar collectors. So transport, water and energy infrastructure may be combined. Transport corridors can also be used as biodiversity corridors, allowing nature to persist in the urban setting (UNEP 2001). Infrastructure may also be integrated with urban planning objectives eg urban development and activity centres can be planned close to transport networks. This is a new integrated way of thinking;

Strategic, systems thinking and life cycle thinking; Institutional and governance frameworks necessary for the planning and

implementation of SID – including breand roles of various government, NGO and private stakeholders;

Development of policies and regulatory arrangements; Consideration of investment mechanisms eg CDM; Defining and agreeing upon criteria and measures; and, not least, Ensuring that SID processes are inclusive, especially of the poor.

There is clearly an opportunity to link SID with the disaster ramifications of climate change, especially where this may impact on poorer countries. This is one area where the CDM could be brought into play.

5.2 Propose strategic partners and modalities for implementation

Established networks and existing initiatives may be built upon. This may be expected to sustain and multiply project impacts and ensure sharing of good practices at regional/inter-regional level.

UN Country Teams; Networks of municipal authorities eg Kitakyushu Initiative , ICLEI, CITYNET; Universities:

o the relationship between Universities in developed countries eg Australia with those in developing countries eg Khon Kaen, Thailand could be tapped, to provide leverage into other countries eg Laos, Cambodia.

o The Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies at University of South Australia has expressed interest (see Annexe E). It could play a role in developing methodology/indicators/software tools and in collaborative research and pilot projects.

o APFED’s Network of Research Institutions (NetRes); ADB; UN-Habitat; UNEP International Environmental Technology Centre; International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD); Sustainable Urban Transport Project (SUTP) – Asia (GTZ).

UN-Habitat project concept ’Global Energy Network for the Urban Settlements (GENUS) – Promoting Energy Access for the Urban Poor Worldwide’ may benefit from a link with this project. The broad objective of improving access to energy services for the urban poor could be substantially strengthened by consideration of environmental sustainability (climate change) implications of providing such access ie access must be provided in as eco-efficient a manner as possible.

A partnership could be established with the OECD, to build upon OECD research, activities and policy development in the area of infrastructure development (see OECD 2007a, b).

40


It could be useful to establish a relationship with the ‘SPARKLE’ project (Sustainability Planning for Asian Cities) under the European Union’s ‘Asia Pro Eco Programme’. Both these initiatives involve transfer of know-how from Europe to Asia. Similar programmes could be established to transfer knowledge from developed to developing countries within the Asia Pacific region (ie North-South transfer).

5.3 Specific areas/ sectors of intervention eg water and sanitation, energy, transport

According to the World Bank (1994: 35), although each sector has special problems, there are common patterns – operational inefficiencies, inadequate maintenance, excessive dependence on fiscal resources, lack of responsiveness’ needs, limited benefits to the poor, and insufficient environmental responsibility.

Pilots/case studies should desirably cover cross-sectoral integration and interdependencies (see Annexe E), which has been a main theme of this paper. The DA project could take a broad scale urban planning perspective, beginning with consideration of the eco-efficiency of various settlement patterns (eg compact, corridor or ‘clustered deconcentration’) and then examining the various infrastructure systems and exploring how these might be integrated into an overall infrastructure system, including possible synergies.

The above approach could be more advantageous and lead to greater eco-efficiencies than focusing upon individual sectors.

5.4 The Development Account Project

From the foregoing review and discussion, it is suggested that considerations relevant to the Development Account (DA) Project may include the following:

Policies and methodologies: development of a ‘policy toolbox’ (see OECD 2007a: 48);

Developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDC); Existing cities versus new developing cities; Focus on sectoral issues (eg transport, water, energy) or preferably consider these in

integrated, holistic manner; North-South cooperation, knowledge transfer and capacity building eg ‘SPARKLE’; South-South cooperation, including sharing of good practices and development of

knowledge networks; Partnerships between Universities in developed countries with those in developing

countries, as well as between those in developing countries; Partnerships with UNDP, UN-Habitat etc at country level; Availability of data eg UNEP, SIAP; Use of technologies such as GIS mapping assisted by GPS (as in the case of Goa

2100 project); The appropriate level of intervention: Regional, subregional, national or cities?

It is understood that the DA project will involve development of methodologies/indicators/software tools to assess eco-efficiency, with modelling tools. For example, the Stockholm Environment Institute (2007) has reportedly developed a methodology “for the most comprehensive analysis yet attempted” of sustainable consumption and production in the economy by industrial sector, geographic area and socio-economic group. This includes Ecological Footprint and Material Flow Analysis, participatory appraisal and social and environmental impact assessment (SIA and EIA).

41


It is also understood that the project will involve a pilot (or pilots) of at least city-level eco-efficiency assessment and development of strategies and policies for SID. This may involve:

Establishing targets; Assessment (desktop) of current circumstances; Consideration of how this could be improved towards targets eg fraction of urban

water demand that could be met by rainwater harvesting, and how this could achieve economic and social objectives as well as environmental;

Evaluation of options, costs and benefits of different approaches13; Development of strategies, policies and planning methodologies including financing.

A further dimension of the project is outreach and dissemination, with development of e-learning and training modules.

Targets and measures will need to be established, with measurement of existing conditions and modelling of how this may be improved by reconfiguration.

An additional project dimension is the role of infrastructure in natural disaster preparedness and mitigation, as a follow up to the Hyogo Framework for Action. Infrastructure development needs to take the disaster risk factor into account in order to ensure sustainability by: (i) reducing vulnerabilities to natural disasters, and (ii) safeguarding investments made in case of occurrence of a natural hazard.14 Thus, sustainability of ‘critical infrastructure’ could be an important aspect of the DA project.

6. Concluding remarks: questions arising

Because of the nature of this paper, it is not appropriate or possible to reach definitive conclusions. Instead, a series of key questions arising and discussion points is presented:

1) What are the major challenges for infrastructure development due to urbanization? Motorization and congestion? Water shortages? Use of renewable energy? Resilience to natural disasters and climate change? How can the demand for infrastructure be met but in a smarter, more sufficient and more sustainable way?

2) How significant is the contribution of infrastructure to meeting emissions reduction and other targets eg MDGs, Factor 4, Ecological Footprint and how can this be demonstrated to engage the attention of policy makers, politicians etc?

3) What is the scope of ‘infrastructure’ being considered? Is it just the roads, pipes, wires etc or is it the wider system? (transport system, energy system etc) Is infrastructure “a system to facilitate the delivery of services rather than an end product?”

4) How can sustainable infrastructure be defined eg ‘a system to facilitate the delivery of transport, energy and water services to support socioal and economic development in an integrated, eco-efficient and socially inclusive manner’?

5) What are the limitations of current patterns of infrastructure development eg dispersed sprawl and what more sustainable patterns and models are available eg ‘clustered deconcentration’?

13 Can eco-efficient infrastructure be cost-effective too?14 Mumbai floods affected slum area. See ICE WaRM.

42


6) How can eco-efficiency concepts be applied to assessment of infrastructure patterns and planning and how can the impact be measured?

7) How can social inclusiveness impact upon infrastructure eco-efficiency and sustainability? Are decentralized patterns more conducive to community participation and involvement/ownership of the poor? Can the principles of Water Users Associations, community contracts and the like be applied more widely to other infrastructure?

8) Can ‘systems thinking’ lead to better understanding of the relationship and interdependencies between infrastructure and lead to innovation?

9) What opportunities are there for multi-use of resources invested in infrastructure and synergies eg sharing of corridors and ‘doing more with less’ by being smarter? How can intelligent systems contribute to more efficient use of infrastructure eg managing unidirectional traffic flow?

10) What opportunities and strategies are there for transferring lessons and know-how from countries of the North to those of the South and for ensuring that the mistakes of developed nations are not repeated?

11) What is the potential for private investment via PPPs etc and how can these provide economic, environmental and social return, including consideration to the circumstances and needs of the poor?

12) To what extent can CDM (including programmatic CDM) and other innovative financing mechanisms be used to generate investment in infrastructure and beyond the energy sector?

13) What are the criteria for good practices and what are some examples, especially planning approaches and methodologies?

14) How can the criteria be tailored to differing countries, cultures and circumstances, including developing countries, least developed countries (LDCs)?

15) What are some successful policies and financial strategies eg congestion taxes, user charges, vehicle quotas?

16) What institutional capacity building and supporting policy ‘tool kits’ are required for planners and decision-makers?

17) How can the vulnerability of critical infrastructure be approached and related to planning for sustainable and eco-efficient infrastructure?

18) How can the DA Project relate to other existing and proposed programmes eg UN Habitat ‘Global Energy Network for Urban Settlements’? Who are possible partners?

19) Where are the best opportunities for intervention to make a difference and at what scale or level? Developing countries? Least developed countries? Existing urban areas versus new? Infrastructure networks connecting urban areas?

43


References

Acquatella, Jean and Jordan, Ricardo (2007), ECLAC Inputs to Expert Group Meeting on Sustainable Infrastructure Development June 11-13, Bangkok, Sustainable Development and Human Settlements Division, UN ECLAC (unpublished).

Architectural Institute of Japan, eds (2005), Architecture for a Sustainable Future – All About the Holistic Approach in Japan, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (see 2.3 ‘How to economise the resources’).

Asia Development Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation and the World Bank (2005), Connecting East Asia: a New Framework for Infrastructure, Advance Edition.http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EXTEAPINFRASTRUCT/0,,contentMDK:20700727~menuPK:1833026~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:855136,00.html

Asia-Europe Environment Forum (2006), Asia-Europe Environment Forum Conference ‘1/3 of Our Planet: What Can Asia and Europe Do for Sustainable Development?’, Bertrand Fort and Sol Iglesias (eds), Jakarta, Indonesia, 23-25 Nov, Asia-Europe Environment Forum.

Asia Pacific Forum for Environment and Development (2005), Final Report, APFED of http://www.iges.or.jp/en/ltp/pdf/apfed/index.html.

Atkisson, Alan (2003), Introducing ‘RUrbanism’: The Goa 2100 Project, adapted from project documents produced by the Goa 2100 design team.www.atkisson.com/pubs/Goa2100-Summary-v4.pdf

Australian Conservation Foundation (2006), Renewable Energy: Solar Electricity, Briefing Paper, June.

Australia State of the Environment 2006: Human Settlementswww.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/report/human-settlements.html

Australian Greenhouse Office (2005), South Australia State Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Australian Government.

Ayres, R. U. (1999), Products as Service Carriers: Should We Kill the Messenger – or Send it Back? Centre for the Management of Environmental Resources, Fontainebleau, France, Zero Emissions Forum.

Beecham, S (2003), Water Sensitive Urban Design: A Technological Assessment, Waterfall, Journal of the Stormwater Industry Association, Vol. 17, pp 5-13.

Burton, Ian and van Aalst, Maarten (2004), Look Before You Leap: a Risk Management Approach for Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation into World Bank Operations, Prepared for the Climate Change Team, World Bank, February. http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/46ByDocName/LookBeforeYouLeapARiskManagementApproachforIncorporatingClimateChangeAdaptationinWorldBankOperations/$FILE/LookBeforeYouLeapCCteam2004.pdf

Carder, Derek (2003), The Feasibility of Trials of Renewable Energy Generation in Highways, TRL Ltd.

44

http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ESSD/envext.nsf/46ByDocName/LookBeforeYouLeapARiskManagementApproachforIncorporatingClimateChangeAdaptationinWorldBankOperations/$FILE/LookBeforeYouLeapCCteam2004.pdf



http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/report/human-settlements.html

http://www.atkisson.com/pubs/Goa2100-Summary-v4.pdf

http://www.iges.or.jp/en/ltp/pdf/apfed/index.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EXTEAPINFRASTRUCT/0,,contentMDK:20700727~menuPK:1833026~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:855136,00.html




Checkland, Peter (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley.

China Daily (2006), City Water Shortage Top Problem. 24 November.

Commonwealth Local Government Forum (2007), The Second Pacific Regional Workshop on Urban Management, 23-25 April, Nadi, Fiji Islands, Commonwealth Local Government Forum, ESCAP, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

Coonan, Clifford (2007), Carbon-free Living: China’s Great Leap Forward – the World’s Largest Building Project is a revolutionary Eco-city of Electric Cars and Zero Emissions Near Shanghai, The Independent, 10 May.http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2241450.ece

Cotton, A P, Souhail, M and Taylor, W K (1998), Community Initiatives in Urban Infrastructure, Loughborough: Water, Engineering and Development Centre, University of Loughborough.

Daellenbach, H G (2003), Systems Thinking and Management Science, REA Publications, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Delvoie, Christian (2005), Private-Public Partnerships for Infrastructure Development, Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC), 16th General Meeting, Seoul, Korea, 5-7 September.

Djumala, D, Hirono, R and Mankad, P (2006), External Evaluation, UNESCAP.

Ecopolis Architects (2006), EcoCity Project Wins Another Award, Media Release, 24 August.http://www.ecopolis.com.au

ESCAP (2000a), Issues Paper on Urban Governance: Global Vision and Local Needs – Assessment, Analysis and Action by City Governments.http://www.unescap.org/huset/hangzhou/paper/governance_paper.htm

ESCAP (2003), Pacific Regional Workshop on Urban Management, Nadi, Fiji Islands, 1-4 December, ESCAP Pacific Operations Centre.

ESCAP (2006a), Jakarta Declaration on Enhancing Regional Cooperation in Infrastructure Development, Including that Related to Disaster Management.

ESCAP (2006b), Green Growth at a Glance: the Way Forward for Asia and the Pacific.

ESCAP (2006c), State of the Environment Report.

ESCAP (2007a), High-level Policy Dialogue on Regional Co-operation for Infrastructure Development and Financing in Asia-Pacific, 21-22 March, New Delhi, India, ESCAP and Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS).

ESCAP (2007b), Overview of Sustainable Infrastructure (unpublished as yet).

Girardet, Herbert (1992), The Gaia Atlas of Cities: New Directions for Sustainable Living, London,. Gaia Books Ltd.

Girardet, Herbert (2006), Which Way China, Resurgence Issue 236.http://www.resurgence.org/2006/girardet236.htm

45

http://www.resurgence.org/2006/girardet236.htm

http://www.unescap.org/huset/hangzhou/paper/governance_paper.htm

http://www.ecopolis.com.au/

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2241450.ece


Gleneagles Summit (2005), Gleneagles Plan of Action: Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, G8.http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_CCChangePlanofAction.pdf

Global Footprint Network (2005), Asia-Pacific Region 2005: The Ecological Footprint and Natural Wealth, WWF and

Government of South Australia (2007), South Australia’s Strategic Plan http://www.stateplan.sa.gov.au/plan.php

Government of South Australia (2005), Tackling Climate Change Strategy (draft). http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/default.htm

Grant, J F and Mortimer, N D (2004), Future Perspective Report - Work Package P: Energy Systems, for the Sustainable Users Concepts for China Engaging Scientific Scenarios (SUCCESS) Project, European Commission, Report No 25/7, November.

Guha, Ramachandran (2006), How Much Should a Person Consume: Environmentalism in India and the United States, University of California Press.

Hamnett, Stephen, ed (2006), Learning from Urban Disasters: Planning for Resilient Cities, Built Environment, Vol 32, No 4, Alexandrine Press.

Hayashi, Yoshitsugu (1996), Economic Development and its Influence on the Environment: Urbanization, Infrastructure and Land Use Planning Systems, in Y Hayashi and J Roy (eds), Transport, Land-use and the Environment, pp 3-25.

Henderson, Hartley (2007), Sustainable Cities: 21st Century City Challenges, Ecos, No 135, Feb-March.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage (2005), Sustainable Cities, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, August.http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/environ/cities/

Hinterberger, F, Giljum, S and Hammer, M (2003), Material Flow Accounting and Analysis (MFA), Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI), Vienna.

Howes, R and Robinson, H (2005), Infrastructure for the Built Environment, Butterworth-Heinemann, UK.

Independent Evaluation Group (2007), An Evaluation of World Bank Assistance to the Transport Sector, 1995-2005.http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTOED/EXTTRANS/0,,contentMDK:21174378~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:3300525,00.html

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (2005), Sustainable Asia 2005 and Beyond, IGES White Paper.

IPWEA (2006), International Infrastructure Management Manual, Institute of Public Works Engineering Australia www.ipwea.org.au/upload/IIMM_article2006.pdf

Jadresic, Alejandro (2002), Consumption Subsidies for Water Supply in Chile.

46

http://www.ipwea.org.au/upload/IIMM_article2006.pdf

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTOED/EXTTRANS/0,,contentMDK:21174378~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:3300525,00.html

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTOED/EXTTRANS/0,,contentMDK:21174378~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:3300525,00.html

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/environ/cities/

http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/default.htm

http://www.stateplan.sa.gov.au/plan.php

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_CCChangePlanofAction.pdf


Kellett, John (2007), Community-based Energy Policy: A Practical Approach to Carbon Reduction, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol 50, No 3, pp 381-96, May.

Keiner, Marco, Koll-Schretzenmayr, Martina, Schmid, Willy (2005), Managing Urban Futures: Sustainability and Urban Growth in Developing Countries, Ashgate.

Kitzes, Justin, Peller, Audrey, Goldfinger, Steve and Wackernagel, Mathis (2007), Current Methods for Calculating National Ecological Footprint Accounts, Science for Environment and Sustainable Society, Vol 4, No 1.

Kohler, Niklaus and Chini, Abdol R (2005), Resource-productive Material Use, Issues Paper, Proceedings of the 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference (SBO5), Tokyo, 27-29 Sept.

Ness, D and Pullen, S (2006), Decoupling Resource Consumption from Growth: A New Business Model Towards a Sustainable Built Environment in China, SASBE2006, Shanghai.

Ness, D (2006), Sustainable Infrastructure: Doing More with Less – Applying Eco-efficiency Principles, First Policy Consultation Forum of the Seoul Initiative on Green Growth, 6-8 Sept, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

New Scientist (2006), Eco-cities, Cover Story, 17 June.

Newton, Peter (2002), Urban Australia 2001, Special Report: Australian State of the Environment, Australian Planner, Vol 39, No 1, pp 37-45.

Newton, Peter (2004), Reshaping the Future of Cities, Ecos, Jan-March.

NZIER (2004), Sustainable Infrastructure: a Policy Framework, Report to the Ministry of Economic Development, New Zealand.http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/18061/nzier.pdf

OECD Environment Policy Committee (1998), Eco-Efficiency in Transport, Workshop Report and Background Paper, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1998doc.nsf/c16431e1b3f24c0ac12569fa005d1d99/84a001857e0e205ec12565b7003a69a7/$FILE/02E89754.DOC

OECD (2006), Competitive Cities in the Global Economy, OECD Territorial Reviews, November.

OECD (2007a), Infrastructure to 2030: Telecom, Land Transport, Water and Energy, OECD Publishing, Paris.http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_36240452_1_1_1_1_37465,00.html

OECD (2007b), Infrastructure to 2030: Growth, Innovation and Finance, Workshop at Globalcity Conference on Creating a Sustainable Future for our Cities, Tues 15 May, Lyon, France.

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Office for Major Projects and Infrastructure (2005), Strategic Infrastructure Plan for South Australia, Government of SA, April. www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au

47

http://www.infrastructure.sa.gov.au/

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_36240452_1_1_1_1_37465,00.html

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1998doc.nsf/c16431e1b3f24c0ac12569fa005d1d99/84a001857e0e205ec12565b7003a69a7/$FILE/02E89754.DOC

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/1998doc.nsf/c16431e1b3f24c0ac12569fa005d1d99/84a001857e0e205ec12565b7003a69a7/$FILE/02E89754.DOC

http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/18061/nzier.pdf


Office of Sustainability (2005), Tackling Climate Change: South Australia’s Greenhouse Strategy – Overview Paper, Government of South Australia

Office of Transportation, Portland City (2001), Sustainable Infrastructure Report, Portland City, USA.

Pizarro, Rafael, Blakely, Edward and Dee, John (2006), Urban Planning and Policy Faces Climate Change, in ‘Learning from Urban Disasters: Planning for Resilient Cities’, Stephen Hamnett, guest ed, Built Environment, Vol 32, No 4, Alexandrine Press.

Pullen, S., Troy, P., Holloway D. and Bunker R. (2002), Estimating Energy Consumption in the Urban Environment with a Focus on Embodied Energy, Proceedings of the 36th

ANZAScA Conference, 1 – 4 November 2002. Deakin University, Australia.

Pullen, Stephen (2007), A Tool for Depicting the Embodied Energy of the Adelaide Urban Environment, Proceedings of the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors 2007 International Transitions Conference, March, pp 224-242.

Roberts, Brian and Kanaley, Trevor (2007), Sustainable Urban Development in Asia, Australian Planner, Vol 44, No 1, March.

Ryan, C, Sustainable Consumption: a Global Status Report, UNEP Production and Consumption Branch.http://www.uneptie.org/pc/pc/gs2002.htm

Salon, Deborah, Sperling, Daniel, Shaheen, Susan and Sturgess, Daniel . (1998), New Mobility: Using Technology and Partnerships to Create More Efficient, Equitable and Environmentally Sound Transportation, A1E14: Committee on New Transportation Systems and Technology.

Scheurer, J. (2001), Car-Free Housing in European Cities: A Survey of Sustainable Residential Development Projects, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.

Schmidt-Bleek, F. (1999), Factor 10: Making Sustainability Accountable – Putting Resource Productivity into Praxis, A report by the Factor 10 Club, Factor 10 Institute, Carnoules.

Socolow, Robert, Hotinski, Roberta, Greenblatt, Jeffery, and Pacala, Stephen (2004), Solving the Climate Problem: Technologies Available to Curb CO2 Emissions, Environment, Vol 46, No 10, pp 8-19, Dec.www.princeton.edu/%7Ecmi/resources/stabwedge.htmhttp://www.princeton.edu/%7Ecmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/Environ_08-21a.pdf

Stern, Nicholas (2007), Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury, United Kingdom. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

Stockholm Environment Institute (2007), Applied Sustainability Modelling, SEI.http://www.sei.se/index.php?section=implement&page=asm

Taylor, Paul (2007), The United Nations Perspective on Reinventing Planning, Australian Planner, Vol 44, No 1, March.

The Japan Times (2007), Half-billion Asians in Urban Slums, 6 Feb.

48

http://www.sei.se/index.php?section=implement&page=asm

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/CMI_Resources_new_files/Environ_08-21a.pdf

http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm

http://www.uneptie.org/pc/pc/gs2002.htm


Tipple, Graham (2006), Housing, Urban Vulnerability and Sustainability in Rapidly-Developing Cities, in ‘Learning from Urban Disasters: Planning for Resilient Cities’, Stephen Hamnett, guest ed, Built Environment, Vol 32, No 4, Alexandrine Press.

UNCHS (1989), Community Contract System in Urban Low Income Settlements, Nairobi: UNCHS (Habitat).

UNDP (2000), Governance for Sustainable Development, in ‘Urban Links’ No 24, January.

UNDP (2005), Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures, Cambridge University Press, February.

UNDP (2007a), Sufficiency Economy: Thailand’s Answer to Globalization, Press Releasehttp://www.undp.or.th/NHDR2007/pdf/EN_Press%20Release%20NHDR%202007.pdf

UNDP (2007b), Thailand Human Development Report 2007: Sufficiency Economy and Human Developmenthttp://www.undp.or.th/NHDR2007/index.html

UNEP (2001), Energy and Cities: Sustainable Building and Construction, IETC Side Event at UNEP Governing Council, 6 Feb, Nairobi, Kenya.

UNFCCC (2006), Report on the UNFCCC Workshop on Innovative Options for Financing the Results of the Technology Needs Assessments, Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice, 24th Session, Bonn, 15-16 May.http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbsta/eng/03.pdf

UNISDR (2005), Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters (HFA), International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 16 March.http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm

United Nations Millennium Development Goals.www.un.org/millenniumgoals/goals.html

Van den Bergh, J and Verbruggen, H (1999), Spatial Sustainability, Trade and Indicators: An Evaluation of the Ecological Footprint, Ecological Economics, 29 (1), pp 61-72.

Van Ginkel, Hans and Marcotullio (2005), Asian Urbanization and Local and Global Environmental Challenges, in Managing Urban Futures, Keiner et al (ed), pp 11-36, Ashgate.

Walsh, Bryan (2006), Asia’s Environment: Visions of Green, Time, 9 October.

WBCSD (2000), Eco-efficiency: Creating More Value with Less Impact

Weizsacher, E V, Lovins, A B and Lovins, L H (1998), Factor Four: Doubling Wealth Halving Resources, Earthscan.

Wild, Fiona (2005), Tackling Climate Change Summit, South Australia, Novemberhttp://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/PDFs/Presentations/SA%20GHG%20conference%20091105.ppt

World Bank (2003), Water User Association Development in China: Participatory Management Practice under Bank-Supported Projects and Beyond, Social Development Notes, No 83, June.

49

http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/PDFs/Presentations/SA%20GHG%20conference%20091105.ppt

http://www.climatechange.sa.gov.au/PDFs/Presentations/SA%20GHG%20conference%20091105.ppt

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/goals.html

http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2006/sbsta/eng/03.pdf

http://www.undp.or.th/NHDR2007/index.html

http://www.undp.or.th/NHDR2007/pdf/EN_Press%20Release%20NHDR%202007.pdf


World Health Organization (2000), Issue Paper on Urban Environmental Management in Asia and the Pacific, Regional High-level Meeting in Preparation for Istanbul+5, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China, 19-20 October, WHO Regional Office for Western Pacific.

WWF (2006), Living Planet Report.http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/index.cfm

50

http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/index.cfm


Annexe A

Acronyms

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

DA Development Account

ECLAC UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean

EGM Expert Group Meeting

ESCAP UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific

ESCO Energy Service Company

GEF Global Environment Facility

GIS Geographic Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

IEA International Energy Agency

LDCs Least Developed Countries

MIPS Material intensity per unit of service

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

SIAP Statistical Institute for Asia and the Pacific

SID Sustainable Infrastructure Development

SIDDS Self-funding Irrigation and Drainage Districts

SINGG Seoul Initiative Network on Green Growth

TERI The Energy and Resources Institute, India

TOD Transit Oriented Development

UNCHS UN Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)

UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNDP UN Development Programme

WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development

WUAs Water Users’ Associations

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

51


Annexe B

Persons consulted

Prof Simon Beecham, Professor in Sustainable Water Resources Engineering, School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia

Prof Jerzy Filar, Director of Research, Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South Australia

Dr Barbara Hardy, AO, and members of the APFED (SA) Working Group: Dr Peter Dillon, Mr Lou Ginsberg and Mr Bill Lambie

Prof Patrick James, Head, School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia

Dr John Kellett, School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia

Assoc Prof Mike Metcalfe, Associate Professor Systems Management, School of Management, University of South Australia

Prof Peter Newton, Centre for Regional Development, Swinburne University of Technology

Prof Wasim Saman, Director, Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South Australia

Prof Michael A P Taylor, Director, Transport Systems Centre, Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies, University of South Australia

Mr Stephen Pullen, Senior Lecturer, School of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia

52


Annexe C

Organizations and initiatives

Ackoff Collaboratory for the Advancement of Systems Approach (ACASA)http://www.acasa.upenn.edu/

ASEAN Environmentally Sustainable Citieshttp://www.aseansec.org/network_activities.htm

Centre for Building and Planning Studies (CBPS), University of South Australia

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/clean_development_mechanism/items/2718.php

Eastern Regional Organization for Planning and Housing (EAROPH).

Goa 2100 Projectwww.atkisson.com/pubs/Goa2100-Summary-v4.pdf

Global Environmental Facility (GEF).http://www.gefweb.org/

International Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Management (ICE WaRM)http://www.icewarm.com.au

Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologieshttp://www.unisa.edu.au/isst

International Association for Public Transport (UITP)www.uitp.com

International Energy Agency (IEA)http://www.iea.org/

Kitakyushu Initiative for a Clean Environmenthttp://www.iges.or.jp/kitakyushu/

Least Developed Countries Fund (operated by GEF)http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/least_developed_country_fund/items/3660.php

New Zealand Sustainable Infrastructure National Strategywww.med.govt.nz/upload/18061/nzier.pdf

Pacific Regional Workshops on Urban Management

Partnership for Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia (PSUTA) – a pilot programme of the Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)

Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements (CITYNET).http://www.citynet-ap.org/en/index.html

53

http://www.citynet-ap.org/en/index.html

http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/18061/nzier.pdf

http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/least_developed_country_fund/items/3660.php

http://unfccc.int/cooperation_and_support/financial_mechanism/least_developed_country_fund/items/3660.php

http://www.iges.or.jp/kitakyushu/

http://www.iea.org/

http://www.uitp.com/

http://www.unisa.edu.au/isst

http://www.icewarm.com.au/

http://www.gefweb.org/

http://www.atkisson.com/pubs/Goa2100-Summary-v4.pdf

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/clean_development_mechanism/items/2718.php

http://www.aseansec.org/network_activities.htm

http://www.acasa.upenn.edu/


Seoul Initiative Network on Green Growth (SINGG) – Policy Consultation Forumhttp://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/mced/singg/index.asp

SPARKLE (Sustainable Planning for Asian cities making use of Research, Know-how and Lessons from Europe). http://ec.europa.eu/comm/europeaid/projects/asia-pro-eco2/pdf/projectsheets/projectsheet_22.pdf

UN Habitat www.unhabitat.org Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP) and ‘Sustainable Cities: State of the World’s

Cities’ 2006/7’ Water and Sanitation Programme and ‘Meeting Development Goals in Small Urban

Centres – Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities’, 2006 Local Agenda 21 (LA21).

World Bank’s East Asia Pacific Region: Infrastructure Developmenthttp://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EXTEAPINFRASTRUCT/0,,menuPK:855150~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:855136,00.html

54

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EXTEAPINFRASTRUCT/0,,menuPK:855150~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:855136,00.html



http://www.unhabitat.org/

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/europeaid/projects/asia-pro-eco2/pdf/projectsheets/projectsheet_22.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/europeaid/projects/asia-pro-eco2/pdf/projectsheets/projectsheet_22.pdf

http://www.unescap.org/esd/environment/mced/singg/index.asp


Annexe E

Institute for Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISST)University of South Australiawww.unisa.edu.au/isst

ISST is the flagship of the University of South Australia’s research capabilities in the built environment and sustainable development area.

Its establishment is a result of the identification of sustainability as a priority area for immediate expansion of teaching and research in UniSA’s academic profile. This coincides with the commitment made to environmental sustainability by the South Australian State Government, which was spelt out in the State Strategic Plan. ISST’s mission also aligns with the “environmentally sustainable Australia” national research priority.

ISST includes the Sustainable Energy Centre, Transport Systems Centre, Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, and the Agricultural Machinery Research and Design Centre. It is related to other research centres and groups within UniSA, including Centre for Water Science and Systems, and the Centre for Building and Planning Studies.

ISST is active in programs which build upon its collective capabilities, eg: Integrated design and assessment of sustainable developments Sustainable Cities Waste management Product Stewardship and Industrial Ecology.

Importantly, ISST/UniSA has links with other research institutions in the Asia Pacific region eg Centre for Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

The University of SA also has educational programs in Environmental Management and Sustainabilityhttp://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/programs/program.asp?Program=LMES

The aim of ISST to realize the benefits of synergies between various disciplines, including urban planning, water resource management, energy planning, transport planning and the built environment may be seen as a microcosm of the need to develop partnerships between transport, energy, water and housing infrastructure sectors in the Asia Pacific.

55

http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/programs/program.asp?Program=LMES

http://www.unisa.edu.au/isst


Annexe E.

Independencies among infrastructure (Source: OECD 2007a)

56


Annexe F.

Systems Approach(source: Metcalfe 2006, pers.com)

In the mid 1970s, Peter Checkland explained that a situation is a system when it possesses:

1. An ongoing purpose (that may be determined in advance - purposeful, or assigned through observation - purposive)

2. A means of assessing performance (formal or informal)

3. A decision taking process that responds to that assessment (that could be deterministic or considered)

4. Components that are also systems (i.e., the notion of sub-systems)

5. Components that interact

6. An identified environment (with which the system may or may notinteract)

7. An identified boundary between the system and the environment (that may be closed or open)

8. Resources

9. Continuity

A good, healthy system will also have a degree of tension between elements. One example from this paper is the tension between the trend towards decentralization of infrastructure and the application of PPPs, which are traditionally based on large centralized projects.

57


Annexe G

Design Principles for Goa 2100Source: Atkisson, Alan (2003), Introducing ‘RUrbanism’: The Goa 2100 Project. From ‘The Natural Advantage of Nations’.

Adapted from Project Documents Produced by the Goa 2100 Design Team:Aromar Revi, Rahul Mehrotra, Sanjay Prakash, and G.K. Bhat

Three Goals for the Sustainability Transition

1. Sufficiency and Equity: Well-being of all people, communities and ecosystems 2. Efficiency: Minimal throughput of matter-energy-information 3. Sustainability: Least impact on nature, society and future generations

Seven Organizing Principles for Sustainability

1. Satisfying the basic human needs of all people and providing them an equal opportunity to realize their human potential 2. Material needs should be met materially and non-material needs non-materially3. Renewable resources should not be used faster than their regeneration rates4. Non-renewable resources should not be used faster than their substitution rates by renewable resources5. Pollution and waste should not be produced faster than the rate of absorption, recycling or transformation6. The Precautionary principle should be applied where the ‘response’ time is potentially less than the ‘respite’ time7. ‘Free-energy’ and resources should be available to enable redundancy, resilience and reproduction

Five Strategies for Land-Use Management

1. Enable a long-term ecological succession from forest to cropland to city to forest 2. Design the landscape first; situate the city in the interstitial niches3. Land-use transitions governed by the demand for ecosystem services, resource potential, natural ecological succession and contiguity4. Identify static and dynamic elements in the city, design the former, and provide a dynamic vocabulary for the latter to co-evolve with the landscape5. Devolve governance and taxation to the lowest viable level

Six Tactics to Manage Physical Stocks & Flows

1. Use less with Factor 4 technologies for supply and social limits of sufficiency and equity on demand2. Grow your own, tapping harvestable yields as autonomously as possible3. Build two-way networks for security: every consumer is also a producer4. Store a lot because renewable resource yields are often diurnal and seasonal5. Transport less over shorter distances using least life-cycle cost technologies6. E-xchange using intelligent wireless networks to enable real-time trade and delivery of goods

58


A Dynamic Fractal Morphology

1. Cellular structure: nuclei, cores, spines and skins2. Hierarchical networks adapting to topography3. Optimal densities, settlement structure and heights enabling security4. Contiguous and hyper-linked with interpenetration of living net5. Dynamic consolidation and nucleation around fractal boundaries and surfaces

59