Get involved and become a sponsor for Ecopreneurs for the Climate in Reading

@ECO4CLIM_Rdg Join the Ecopreneurs for the Climate in Reading “Glocal Week of Green Business for #Climate, #Innovation + #Jobs OCT 24-30”

This is going live in the U.K. in October 28th!

Whether you are a student or an Ecopreneur, whether you are a free-lancer or work in an SME, or even in a large company, as long as you believe change is possible; our contribution makes a true difference for the people and the planet. This is your movement – Inclusive, diverse, fun and transformative. Your generous contribution to this campaign will, in a few years, develop 50 labs across the world / empower more than 500 ecopreneurs / generate 3,000 green jobs and directly avoid hundreds of tons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

How can you join?

The 2016 edition “ECO4CLIM_Rdg” will take place on October 24-30, 2016. It will comprise of multi-stakeholder eco-innovation workshops and the Climate Champion Awards. **Save the Date28 Oct** ECO4CLIM_Rdg’s coordinators, climate-champion ecopreneurs and global partners participate in prestigious international forums the likes of CLIMATE CHANCE WORLD SUMMIT in France, the Women Leaders and the Global Transformation Summit, the #COP22 Climate Summit in Morocco, or SwitchMed Connect 2016 in Barcelona. Now is the time, participate, add your city or join our ecosystem of partners:

Looking to unlock Reading’s green potential. We will, in three weeks, seek to locate and highlight eight local climate innovations (Eco-preneurs)! Do not hesitate to put forward to us yours or any local low-carbon Innovation that can reduce Reading’s Greenhouse gas emissions footprint!

!Green entrepreneurs for the #Climate, the Global Week of Green Business and the Climate Movement – October 24-30, 2016 #ECO4CLIM16 Climate organiser for #ECO4CLIM_Rdg Please let us know if you like to be trans-boundary involved. We are looking for – Space partner, – Media partners, – Sponsors and – Enablers for Reading Climate Champion Awards 2016 – Email eco4clim @ cccrdg .org .uk

We warmly welcome you to participate in the ECO4CLIM_Rdg Event – Climate, Innovation +Jobs “Glocal Week of Green Business and the #ClimateMovement” Friday 28th October.



Feel free to pledge-as-you-feel to get UK’s first Climate LAB started 🙂


Habitat III Conference in #Quito in October 2016 should show territorial coherence


Congratulations to the Netherlands parliament’s brave decision to close down their coal industry. 

Thank you to #ClimateChance and partner for organising this important stakeholder event in Nantes.

Thank you, to the Habitat III Panel discussing the #NewUrbanAgenda (NUA) in this climate forum – “On the road to Habitat III, what is the place for proposals from non-state actors?” (28/09/16, 9-11 am)

It was mentioned that 15 of the paragraphs of the New Urban Agenda addresses cities and climate change. Economic growth and development is mentioned as many times! While half the world is trying to stop the petroleum companies from drilling activities.. These two polarised position doesn’t match!

The NUA’s responsibility is to make cities divest from fossil energy and reinvest in urban sustainable opportunities.

We stress the importance of the use of funds mobilized by climate action, both mitigation and adaptation, for the development of sustainable cities and rural territories, considering that the New Urban Agenda that will be adopted by the UN member States during Habitat III Conference in Quito in October 2016 should show territorial coherence respecting the various global challenges we face.

In the agreed Habitat III document we need a paragraph about urban degrowth and protecting our green belts, shrinking cities,, There should even be a shut-down paragraph of cities and how to rewild shut-down cities.

What is the really the views of the on the new data driven UN-cities concept?

Is the Habitat III agenda about smart purpose driven cities or is Habitat III trying to create a city in city?  When it comes to stakeholder’s engagement and multi-actor governance, this is urgent;

·        Keep it simple

·        Implementation, Implementation, Implementation

·        Build back better

What is the military’s stakeholder role in the new urban agenda? Military reserves for urban capability building in a peaceful world.

How will the new urban agenda leaver with liberté, égalité, fraternité? Maybe it’s time to change city development to “opportunité de villes”!

Wouldn’t we prefer to see purpose-driven agenda, with one purpose to sustain, all urban human activities..

“Proud to be on the list of the “Nantes Declaration of climate actors” signatories that will be presented in Quito during Habitat III”

Planners – White LED Blue Light and its effect on Humans and Wildlife Habitat


Light affects our health and well-being in many ways. White LED’s with blue-rich spectra are being rolled out over the country at an alarming pace, often without proper health or environmental impact assessments. These white LED’s are detrimental to human and wildlife circadian rhythms as well as the view of our night sky. 1,2,3 , Urgent action is needed to ensure installation of LED lights use a warm-white Correlated Colour Temperature (CCT) ideally 2700K for the benefit of Public Health, Ecology, Road Safety, and Sky Glow.


“Lighting planners and policymakers in local government nowadays need to be very careful in choosing the light class as low as possible, in order to avoid unnecessary over sizing, in using Constant Light Output for luminaires, avoiding cold temperature of LEDs and, above all, seizing the importance of using lighting control systems. The good thing about LEDs is that you can dim and switch on/off easily, and this raises the importance of sensors.”~#Alan2016

There are currently very few solutions that successfully combine an understanding of the physiological effects of light with efficiency and aesthetics. Recently, a number of governmental and non-governmental organisations have provided interesting publications which should be taken into consideration to help ensure benign, safe, and pleasant lighting in our outdoor environment. 4,5,6

The American Planning Association (APA) recommends outdoor LED lighting exclude wavelengths below 500 nanometers. The International Dark Sky Association (IDA) recommends a CCT of maximum 3000K to minimise sky glow and the American Medical Association (AMA) has issued guidelines recommending that blue-rich light is reduced as far as possible in order to protect Public Health.

The American Planning Association (APA) recommends outdoor LED lighting exclude wavelengths below 500 nanometers. 5 The International Dark Sky Association (IDA) recommends a CCT of maximum 3000K to minimise sky glow and the American Medical Association (AMA) has issued guidelines recommending that blue-rich light is reduced as far as possible in order to protect Public Health. 7,8,9,10 In the UK, Public Health England are recommending that councils use a warm colour temperature for street lights to miminise glare and discomfort. 4 Unfortunately, street lighting is currently exempt from the UK nuisance regulations which limit the effects of light and noise on people. Due to a lack of clear guidelines from Central Government, notably the Department for Transport, councils often opt for blue-rich white LED street lights, thus increasing light pollution.

An example may be taken from the situation on the Isle of Wight, where high CCT LED outdoor lighting has been installed, and there was little or no public consultation nor any trials prior to implementation. 11 Reading Borough Council is currently planning to install streetlights with a CCT of 4000K, which is above the recommended level of 2700K, despite awareness of Public Health England having advised otherwise. 12 In contrast, best practice of lighting implementation can be found in Cardiff and Westminster Council. In 2014, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) sent out a survey which collected responses from over 80 local authorities. CPRE has published a document which provides 9 key recommendations based on this evidence and other evidence directly collected by CPRE. 6

The scientific understanding on the visual and non-visual effects of light forms a strong basis of the recommendations to minimise glare and to minimise spectral intensity below 500nm from artificial night time light.1,2,3,13,14,15,16

In 2014, the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) sent out a survey which collected responses from over 80 local authorities. CPRE has published a document which provides key recommendations based on this evidence and other evidence directly collected by CPRE:

“It should be clear to planners that outdoor lighting has a multitude of often detrimental effects on the built and natural environments as well as on our health. If existing standards are not adjusted to account for the spectral characteristics of the LED lighting being created and promoted by the lighting industry today, we could, ironically, be faced with higher levels of light pollution, glare, and overlighting…The choice is clear: we can use responsible standards to guide lighting design, or we can continue to allow uncontrolled lighting to degrade our quality of life and negatively impact human health and ecology. Planners have important roles to play in making the former scenario a reality in their communities.” – Bob Parks, APA 5

“Local authorities should give careful consideration to the type of LED lighting they use and consider the potential impacts that higher temperature blue rich lighting has on ecology and on human health… New street lighting should be tested ‘in situ’ before a lighting scheme is rolled out across a wider area to ensure that it is the minimum required for the task and does not cause a nuisance to residents.” – Emma Marington, CPRE 6

The scientific understanding on the visual and non-visual effects of light forms a strong basis of the recommendations to minimise glare and to minimise spectral intensity below 500nm from artificial night time light.

“A National Policy to curb blue-rich light pollution is urgently required”~


– Ms Tanja Rebel and Mr Enrico Petrucco, Reading UK


All references have been provided as free, full access, internet-accessible sources wherever possible.

  4. Public Health England,
  5. APA,
  6. CPRE,
  7. IDA,
  8. IDA guide,
  9. AMA,
  10. AMA statement,

Regional Government of Andalusia [PDF]


Additional Internet Links and Public Opinion:!id=iPad%20Pro/6500K-iPad%20Pro<<


Habitat III will Adopt, commit, implement, encourage, promote adequate investments, support, recognize, invite, underscore and promote sustainable urban innovation opportunities;

Innovation; promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all, ensuring decent job creation and equal access for all to economic and productive resources and opportunities; preventing land speculation; and promoting secure land tenure and managing urban shrinking where appropriate.

Effective, innovative, and sustainable financing frameworks and instruments, enabling strengthened municipal finance and local fiscal systems in order to create, sustain, and share the value generated by sustainable urban development in an inclusive manner.

Innovation, entrepreneurship, inclusion, identity and safety, and the dignity of all people, as well as to foster livability and a vibrant urban economy.

Develop vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive urban economies, building on endogenous potentials, competitive advantages, cultural heritage and local resources, as well as resource-efficient and resilient infrastructure, promoting sustainable and inclusive industrial development, and sustainable consumption and production patterns, and fostering an enabling environment for businesses and innovation, as well as livelihoods.

(Providing the labor force with access to income-earning opportunities, knowledge, skills and educational facilities that contribute to an innovative and competitive urban economy.) NON-SUSTAINABILITY Para 56

Promote an enabling, fair, and responsible business environment, based on the principles of environmental sustainability and inclusive prosperity, promoting investments, innovations, and entrepreneurship.

Sustain and support urban economies to progressively transition to higher productivity through high-value-added sectors, promoting diversification, technological upgrading, research, and innovation.

Adopt a smart city approach, which makes use of opportunities from digitalization, clean energy and technologies, as well as innovative transport technologies, thus providing options for inhabitants to make more environmentally friendly choices and boost sustainable economic growth and enabling cities to improve their service delivery.

Integrated planning that aims to balance short-term needs with long-term desired outcomes of a competitive economy, high quality of life, and sustainable environment. Strive to build in flexibility in our plans in order to adjust to changing social and economic conditions over time. Implement and systematically evaluate these plans, while making efforts to leverage innovations in technology and to produce a better living environment.

National, sub-national, and local governments to develop and expand financing instruments, enabling them to improve their transport and mobility infrastructure and systems, such as mass rapid transit systems, integrated transport systems, air and rail systems, and safe, sufficient and adequate pedestrian and cycling infrastructure and technology-based innovations in transport and transit systems to reduce congestion and pollution while improving efficiency, connectivity, accessibility, health, and quality of life.

Protective, accessible, and sustainable infrastructure and service provision systems for water, sanitation, and hygiene, sewage, solid waste management, urban drainage, reduction of air pollution, and storm water management, in order to improve safety against water-related disasters, health, and ensure universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all; as well as access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all; and end open defecation, with special attention to the needs and safety of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations. Seek to ensure this infrastructure is climate-resilient and forms part of integrated urban and territorial development plans, including housing and mobility, among others, and is implemented in a participatory manner, considering innovative, resource efficient, accessible, context specific, and culturally sensitive sustainable solutions.

Leveraging cultural heritage for sustainable urban development, and recognize its role in stimulating participation and responsibility, and promote innovative and sustainable use of architectural monuments and sites with the intention of value creation, through respectful restoration and adaptation.

The implementation of the New Urban Agenda requires an enabling environment and a wide range of means of implementation including access to science, technology, and innovation and enhanced knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, capacity development, and mobilization of financial resources, taking into account the commitment of developed countries and developing countries, tapping into all available traditional and innovative sources at the global, regional, national, sub-national, and local levels as well as enhanced international cooperation and partnerships among governments at all levels, the private sector, civil society, the United Nations system, and other actors..

Call on businesses to apply their creativity and innovation toward solving sustainable development challenges in urban areas, provide financial support, including through innovative financial mechanisms, to programmes and projects to implement.

(International multilateral financial institutions, regional development banks, development finance institutions, and cooperation agencies to “provide” financial support, including through innovative financial mechanisms, to programmes and projects to implement the New Urban Agenda, particularly in developing countries.) NON-SUSTAINABILITY Para 142

Need for enhanced cooperation and knowledge exchange on science, technology and innovation to the benefit of sustainable urban development, in full coherence, coordination and synergy with the processes of the Technology Facilitation Mechanism established under the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and launched under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Recognize the significant contribution of voluntary collaborative initiatives, partnerships and coalitions that plan to initiate and enhance the implementation of the New Urban Agenda, highlighting best practices and innovative solutions including by promoting co-production networks between sub-national entities, local governments and other relevant stakeholders.

Development of national information and communications technology policies and egovernment strategies as well as citizen-centric digital governance tools, tapping into technological innovations, including capacity development programmes, in order to make information and communications technologies accessible to the public, including women and girls, children and youth, persons with disabilities, older persons and persons in vulnerable situations, to enable them to develop and exercise civic responsibility, broadening participation and fostering responsible governance, as well as increasing efficiency.

Science, research, and innovation, including a focus on social, technological, digital and nature-based innovation, robust science-policy interfaces in urban and territorial planning and policy formulation, as well as institutionalized mechanisms for sharing and exchanging information, knowledge and expertise, including the collection, analysis, standardization and dissemination of geographically-based, community-collected, high-quality, timely and reliable data, disaggregated by income, sex, age, race, 21 ethnicity, migration status, disability, geographic location, and other characteristics relevant in national, sub-national, and local contexts.


Source: HABITAT III NEW URBAN AGENDA Draft outcome document for adoption in Quito, October 2016

Permafrost carbon−climate feedback is sensitive to deep soil carbon decomposability but not deep soil nitrogen dynamics

Here we show, using a carbon−nitrogen model that includes permafrost processes forced in an unmitigated warming scenario, that the future carbon balance of the permafrost region is highly sensitive to the decomposability of deeper carbon, with the net balance ranging from 21 Pg C to 164 Pg C losses by 2300. Increased soil nitrogen mineralization reduces nutrient limitations, but the impact of deep nitrogen on the carbon budget is small due to enhanced nitrogen availability from warming surface soils and seasonal asynchrony between deeper nitrogen availability and plant nitrogen demands. Although nitrogen dynamics are highly uncertain, the future carbon balance of this region is projected to hinge more on the rate and extent of permafrost thaw and soil decomposition than on enhanced nitrogen availability for vegetation growth resulting from permafrost thaw. This is grave!!!

Via M. Ohlinger post from Proceedings of the National Academay of Sciences of the United States of America

#Principle10 and the Bali Guideline – #NuevaAgendaUrbana


Principle 10 and the Bali Guideline

Bali Guideline Implementation Guide Published

“Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.” UNEP has launched the Spanish-language version of its Guidelines to the Implementation of Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration. Principle 10 sets out three fundamental rights: access to information, access to public participation and access to justice, as key pillars of sound environmental governance.


Learn more here:


Analysis – Rumour has it: Innovation lurks in the shadows of the #NewUrbanAgenda

This post has been in the making for a long time… in my head at least, if not on paper. I first thought I would write it after the civil society hearings for Habitat III in NY in early June, then postponed it until after the last round of inter-sessionals and informal negotiations at the end of June. But time was at a premium, and there was enough coverage, analysis and reflection from the Earth News Bulletin, Citiscope, Cities Today and Next City, so I didn’t feel I had much to add. Sure, it was an interesting process and one in which stakeholders felt included and heard and empowered… especially as several of our proposals, including a call to establish an International Multi-Stakeholder Panel on Sustainable Urbanisation, and the acknowledgement of the General Assembly of Partners, made it into the draft NUA released on 18 July, which formed the basis for negotiations in Surabaya.

Going in to PrepCom3, 25-27 July, we were offered a sense of hope by the co-facilitators, and key groupings of Member States, that an agreement would be reached on large sections of the NUA, if not the entire document, in Surabaya. This turned out to be a false aspiration, as we now know, as talks progressed in fits and starts, and ultimately stalled after almost 48 hours of nearly uninterrupted, exhausting negotiations. A new draft was issued on the 27th of July, setting off disgruntled murmurs among Member States about not being given adequate time to review it, and then yet another one on the 28th, at the end of the PrepCom, for them to take home, review and consult (look at all the different iterations here). It was agreed that they would reassemble in New York at unspecified dates, three to four weeks hence, to resume the discussions, so that, hopefully, an agreement can be achieved before Quito, and deliberations at the Conference can begin to focus on implementation (see Citiscope’s despairing article on the fragility of the process, also noting comments on why it is not as bad as it appears to be.)

The statements from Member States in the Main Committee and the revised versions of the document issued in the course of the Surabaya meeting had little to offer to stakeholders. Most of our proposals fell victim to a mass cull of elements that appeared to threaten status quo. Politics makes for strange bedfellows indeed. The US, EU and G-77 seemed to be in perfect harmony, for a change, for instance when they all called for deleting references to the General Assembly of Partners (GAP), ostensibly for different reasons, but obviously with the same result – a rejection of any attempts to expand stakeholder engagement in international processes, as well as the implementation of international agreements, beyond the usual suspects, whether a handful of New York-based major groups for the former (international process), or a few handpicked favourite NGOs and CBOs, for the latter (implementation). Several individual states expressed their support in private, but only offered ‘lukewarm defence’ of the proposition in the Main Committee, where it mattered.

This, and other developments, and a scan of the 28 July draft, set me thinking, and hence the title of this post – where is innovation in the New Urban Agenda? She does seem to be around, lurking in the shadows, occasionally making an appearance, desparate for recognition, but not making much headway in the absence of so much as a welcoming glance. Where will she find a home?

Let us begin with the process. Most people agree that the Habitat III process as it was conceived was fairly innovative – coming as it did at the heels of the generally satisfactory process of stakeholder engagement in the SDGs, it had to at least match that, if not go further. The 22 issue papers were led by UN agencies. The 10 Policy Units brought in the collective wisdom of 200 experts. Systematic stakeholder engagement was encouraged, which led to support for the Global Task Force (GTF), invited to lead the hearings of Member States with local authorities, and the General Assembly of Partners (GAP), facilitating the same for civil society stakeholders, in New York in June. This was remarkably different from the Major Groups system, not only in that it included many groups that didn’t find a voice, or at least, an equally loud voice, through the nine major groups, but also that it allowed a range of non-New York-based organisations and individuals to participate in the process, by offering them travel support. GAP is a self-organised platform of (now) 16 Partner Constituent Groups, with two co-chairs from different organisations, usually from different regions, and often gender-balanced. Overall, the 32 member GAP Executive Committee (about to be expanded to 34 as we have just welcomed our 16th Partner Constituent Group – Persons With Disabilities) includes 18 women and 14 men, from across all continents. Many of them have never engaged in high-level UN processes before. But they have all had an equal chance to articulate issues and priorities important to them and their constituencies, comprising at least 58000 organisations and networks, adding up to an outreach of nearly 1 billion people. They did this through stakeholder statements in the plenary sessions of all preparatory and intersessional meetings, written submissions, meetings with the Bureau, meetings with co-facilitators, interviews with media covering the process (see Rose Molokoane’s impassioned, articulate statement on grassroots’ inclusion here), language suggestions on successive drafts, and of course corridor chats and conversations over coffee and lunch. Limited time to make statements before Member States meant that very often, groups had to caucus and collaborate on joint statements. Shared google documents meant that people could comment on each other’s statements and reinforce key messages. A final, consolidated GAP statement was always offered, which highlighted common messages and exhorted Member States to remember why they had gathered in the room – to agree on how to realize sustainable, inclusive urbanisation for all urban and rural inhabitants, especially the most marginalized and vulnerable. Proposals from the GAP Partnerships document were offered, elaborated, rephrased, adjusted and debated inside and on the margins of the main meetings.

Many Member State representatives expressed their pleasant surprise at the level of organisation and coordination among stakeholders, one that is not often seen in the major groups system. The result, as I said before, was the inclusion of 3 of our 6 key propositions, and several key phrases and concepts critical to the various constituencies – right to the city, empowerment of local and sub-national governments, gender equality, youth empowerment, recognition of the contribution of grassroots groups and the informal economy, a clear emphasis on decent work, focus on essential public services, land, mobility, disasters and humanitarian crises, children in vulnerable situations, etc. – in the initial drafts of the New Urban Agenda. Process innovation, thus, also resulted in the inclusion of progressive content in the document.

The challenge, however, was to do this systematically – to identify the most progressive propositions from the Policy Unit reports, the declarations of regional and thematic meetings, and various submissions articulating positions of Member States and stakeholders – cluster and include them in the early drafts, or use them as a checklist for later versions once these had pulled apart, threadbare, by the negotiators. This systematization seems to have been a weak link, possibly hampered by the delayed appointment of the co-facilitators, multiple agendas being pursued within the 12-member Bureau, or an overstretched Secretariat. The absence of a clear justification for inclusion of key themes and proposals could also have been a contributing factor towards their exclusion.

Some of the most transformative propositions on implementation, follow-up, monitoring and review, also came from stakeholders. The one that received most attention, and survived the longest in the document, was to establish the multi-stakeholder panel on sustainable urbanization, as mentioned earlier in this post. It created discussion, member states asked fundamental questions, forcing GAP, which had made the proposal, to think deeper and refine its own proposition, look for precedence and examples, and explore the institutional and administrative implications of the panel. Yet, they failed to be convinced. G-77 felt, perhaps unknowingly encouraged by UN-Habitat itself, that setting up and independent knowledge platform would weaken the normative agenda of the organization that they were trying to strengthen. The US ruled it out on account of potential resource requirements. Most surprisingly, the European Union also failed to agree within its own coordination to support it, in the belief that it might actually strengthen UN-Habitat… or perhaps they have another agenda (rumour has it that a proposal for setting up a new UN cities agency, an alternative to UN-Habitat located somewhere in western Europe, is ready, and an announcement imminent). Anyway, after a tough fight, in the 28 July edition of the New Urban Agenda, the Panel was eliminated from the document.

The panel, however, was not the only creative proposal put forth by stakeholders. One of the criticisms of the implementation of the Habitat Agenda of 1996 was that it wasn’t systematically monitored or reviewed. To address this, stakeholders presented two ideas. First, that all monitoring and reporting on the NUA involves stakeholders, and uses disaggregated, quantitative and qualitative data and evidence, including case studies and good practices, collected from the bottom-up, to complement official national statistics. And second, that the World Urban Forum, which meets biennially and is arguably the most important and inclusive global gathering of urban thinkers, practitioners and advocates, is strengthened and transformed into an arena for multi-stakeholder reporting on the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. Stakeholders have advocated that WUF, which usually spans five days, be split into two parts – one where there is a freewheeling exchange of ideas and innovations, and one where a broad range of actors including national, sub-national and local governments, and the entire spectrum of stakeholders – for an illustration look at the 16 PCGs of GAP here – voluntarily report on the progress made in the implementation of the NUA. These proposals, too, made their way into the initial drafts, but have been significantly diluted since – the first one because it challenges national governments’ vice-like grip on data and statistics, and the second because it is (once again) conflated with the issue of strengthening UN-Habitat and its initiatives (including the World Urban Forum).

In addition to the above, GAP also suggested that realizing a sustainable urban future needed a break from business as usual, and that innovative ideas coming from all possible sources – local governments, grassroots, civil society, professionals, research and academia, business and industry, among others – must be harnessed. Nothing new or dramatic there. But its proposal of setting up a Partners’ Lab (or Labs) for Urban Sustainability, to test ideas and approaches and prototypes before scaling them up, didn’t make much headway, possibly because of perceived resource implications. The New Urban Agenda thus does not offer any mechanisms to encourage, support or mainstream innovative practices for sustainable or inclusive urbanization.

So here we are, back from Surabaya, en route to Quito, via New York. Most of those who read the Surabaya draft of the New Urban Agenda will agree that it is not a bad document. The structure is acceptable, the declaration has significantly improved over time, the vision could be bolder but it is not entirely uninspiring. It has all the key ingredients for sustainable urbanization, sprinkled across the document. It is concise and though the language is often a bit loose, especially in the view of academics and professionals, it is not incoherent. So, it’s a “good enough” document, once that will allow all of us to align whatever we do with “provisions of the New Urban Agenda.”

But, it is also important to recognize that the language of the New Urban Agenda is not progressive, failing to raise the bar on process, themes, implementation arrangements, or monitoring, leaving that task to yet-to-be agreed processes to emerge organically sometime in the undetermined future. This is a particularly important missed opportunity for a non-binding document, which offers the unique possibility of moving beyond the norm, pushing the boundaries of the envelope beyond “agreed language”. In our case, recognizing the inclusion of sixteen different constituencies in the process of development of the NUA, and more importantly, potentially in the urbanization process over the next twenty years, would be a quantum leap over focusing on the “HABITAT Agenda Partners” (a legacy of Habitat II, 1996) and equally, over the established major group system which offers limited accessibility and engagement opportunities to diverse stakeholders based in different corners of the globe. Setting up an international panel on sustainable urbanization, an IPCC-type body but one that involves not just scientists but all stakeholders, which elevates urbanization to the highest level of political priority while at the same time making it a household concern, would help move the discourse forward by leaps and bounds. Multi-stakeholder monitoring systems would for the first time ensure that the power of data, information, evidence, is shared by all, not manipulated by a few. And the Declaration of a Decade of Sustainable Urbanisation would help bring many many initiatives together under a common umbrella, helping to maintain the focus on this mega-trend with its associated mega-challenges over the next ten years.

But alas, as I said, innovation has no friends this particular room, among Member States negotiating the most important global agreement on sustainable urbanization, with implications for the next two decades and beyond.

Thankfully, however, she continues to flourish on the ground, away from the noise in the Main Committee, often driven by stakeholders, local authorities and UN-Habitat’s staff who go quietly about their business. The agency’s work on rolling out the International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning is supplemented by field-based planning labs in several cities across the world. Housing and land continue to be strong areas of focus. National Urban Policies are in great demand. Public space and protection of the commons is an important priority. The City Prosperity Initiative shows the way in monitoring SDG 11. Field-based deployments are expand and strengthened – think Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (not for the faint-hearted), or Nepal and Ecuador (not for those looking for a standard, cookie-cutter approach to post-crisis (??) recovery and reconstruction), or India and South Africa (not for those who cannot manage an incredibly challenging political environment). Diverse requests from various international bodies, cities, regions and countries, on policy and operational matters related to planning, housing, governance, economic development, legislation, etc., are addressed and managed on a regular basis. Old partnerships are deepened, new ones readily explored. Indeed, UN-Habitat’s normative strength is reinforced by its extensive work in the field, in collaboration with a wide range of stakekeholders, across 60+ countries. No other organization – so far – has demonstrated the same combination of expertise, skill sets, experience or reach, required to coordinate and drive the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.

Not supporting the UN agency which has the most extensive and long-standing experience in urban development, the confidence of stakeholders, the support of local authorities, and one that has regularly reinvented itself to meet the challenges of the times, grappling with a broad mandate, growing demand and declining resources, is in my view yet another missed opportunity in the HABITAT III process and the New Urban Agenda. No doubt that UN-Habitat needs change, and in some ways a fresh approach, but recent appointments in its senior management indicate that it may have turned a corner, and should send a positive signal to donors and partners. Like a phoenix, it may yet rise again to assume its legitimate role and responsibility in driving and coordinating the global effort towards sustainable urbanization, even with a “good enough” New Urban Agenda. The stakeholders are certainly keeping their fingers crossed.

/Shipra Narang Suri
Vice-President at General Assembly of Partners/ Habitat III

ICLEI Updates From Surabaya At HABITATIII #H3PrepCom3

here is an overview of 27 july and early hours of 28 July

1- Side event of ICLEI and University Tekniki Malaysia, focusing on advancing sustainability  of  Asian cities and regions effectively reflected the diversity of topic in the region through its multinational (Malaysia, S. Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Germany, India), multilevel (local, regional, national governments), multistakeholder (governments at all level – research and academia – finance partners) structure. Mr. Datuk HJ. Mohammad Bin Mentek, Secretary General of Malaysian Ministry of Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government and Head of Malaysian Delegfation at HabitatIII PrepCom3 in Surabaya also delivered a warm and encouraging closing remark, congratulating all partners and inviting an active collaboration in the preparation of World Urban Forum9 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in February 2018.

2- Around midday, Co-Facilitators circulated a revised version of draft NUA as of 27 July. The text had revised paragraphs except para.8 (related to Right to the City)  and Section C Follow-u and Review (as Eu and Colombia noted that informal informals had not reached a conclusion yet.) After brief exchanges, Co-facilitators announced to reconvene at 17:00

3- At the plenary of Main Committee at 17:00, many Member States expressed frustration and dissapointment on the process, in particular lack of clarity on how to close agreed paragraphs, reflection of already communicated texts and next steps. While some delegations expressed general views, some delegations continue to submit new and additional textual proposals. The discussions also started to focus on the way forward between Surabaya and Quito as it became clear that the draft will not be adopted in Surabaya. Meanwhile no new text was communicated on Section.C


4- In the early hours of the morning, Co-Facilitators convened the plenary, suggested to circulate a new text in the next hour in their personal capacity taking into account the views and results of Section C informals and invited delegations to consider an informal informal in New York City at UN HQ in early September. There were no objection to this proposal.

5- Around 02:30 on 28 July, Secretariat 2 documents; draft report of the Main Committee (negotiations on draft NUA) and draft report of the PrepCom3.

6- Around 03:30 on 28 July, first Main Committee and then PrepCom3 Plenary convened and adopted the circulated documents, with subject to further updates by the Rappertouer as appropriate. Meanwhile, Joan Clos in its capacity as the Secretary of the Conference announced new webportal to announce Quito Action Plan and invited all stakeholders to upload their commitments. During the closing remarks, delegations expressed appreciations to Co-Facilitators, Indonesia government as well as people and Mayor of Surabaya.

7- The PrepCom3 concluded at 04:30 on 28 July Thursday.

7- It has to be noted that altough para.12 of the UNGA Resolution 70/210 (Rules of Procedures of Prep Com) reinvited Bureau of PrepCom3 to circulate a draft outcome document at least 6 months before the Conference, neither the Report of the Main Committee nor the prepCom3 Report included any reference to any official document with appropriate documentation number. The Conference website were uploaded with link to documents of 6 May, 18 June and 18 July, without any official document number.

8- As of 28 July 14:00 Indonesia time,  the Conference website did not contain any link to the Report of the Main Committee nor any draft text as of 27 July.

9- Around 10:00 on 28 July Thursday, the H3 Secretariat circulated a new draft NUA as of 28 July. The text is attached. It has to be noted that the document contains no information whether this is a product of Co-facilitators. The version as of 28 July contained significant changes to version as of 27 July, including a string dedicated paragaraph 7 in the Declaration recognizing 2nd local and regional governments and their 2nd World Assembly. There are some significant changed in other sections and a totally new Section C Follow-up and Review is also included which seemed to be a convergence document between version as of 18 july and proposals of EU presented on 26 July, containing numerous brackets as well as 2 options in para.164 regarding options the wwqy forward for strengthening UNhabitat. The reference to an International Multistakeholder Panel on Sustainable Urbanization, the only innovative outcome expected to  be announced as n outcome/legacy of H3 remained in the version of as of 18 july was also removed in this version 28 July.

10- It may be possible to expect an informal informal meeting to be convened in NYC at UN HQ in the first week of September.

Here is a brief coverage of 26 July Tuesday

1- In the morning, Co-facilitators met with stakeholders. GTF speakers highlighted the need to engage local and regional governments appropriately in the implementation as well as follow-up and review.

2- At the Plenary, stakeholders delivered their official statements. Intervention of local and regional governments was delivered by Maimunah Mohd Sharif, Municipal President, Municipal Council Of Seberang Perai, Malaysia; President, Malaysian Association of Local Authorities (MALA); Member, ICLEI Global Executive Committee. Follow the links to reach the text and video of the intervention.

3- Follow the link to access the ppt of ICLEI session at Urban Speakers Corner.

4- The main committee continued hearings from Member States for their inputs to Declaratiuon, Section A Commitments, B- Means of Implmentation. The committee reconvened at 19:30 to focus on section C Follow up and review. The African Union reiterated its position for the strengthening of UNhabitat and its new mandate for the New urban Agenda. US and EU reiterated their wish to focus on the substance of NUA at  H3 and continue discussions on its further follow up and review in connection with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as UN General Assembly related process. Specific and substantial textual proposals were presented by the EU. G77/China responded with a positive spirit for a convergence on main subjects.

5- Informal informal negotiations continue over the night, including a stocktaking plenary by Co-Facilitators at 03:30. G77, EU, US reported about progress achieved so far and asked for additional time. Co-facilitators proposed to reconvene the plenary at 11.00 on 27 July wednesday and commit to share a revised version of the sections on Declaration, Sections A and B and results from the informal informals from Section C on follow and review.

Things to follow on 27 July Wednesday

1- A partial calendar of official negotiation sessions is available on conference homepage

2- Main committee is planned to reconvene at 11:00.

2- ICLEI and Universiti Tekniki Malaysia will host their joint side event “Advancing Sustainability of Asian Cities and Regions” at 13:30 at Crystal Room:4, including speakers from Seberang Perai, Seoul Metropolitan Government and Iskender Regional Authority. Citynet will convene another side event at the same time at Crystal Room:1

3- Timing of closing plenary  will be announced during the day based on the progress achieved in the negotiations. General Assembly of Partners will convene at 1830 and throughout the day an additional session of Co-Facilitators with stakeholders may be scheduled.

Here is a summary of 25 July Monday

1- PrepCom3 agreed on modalities and agenda of H3 in Quito,

2- Chile representative assigned as the Acting Co-Chair in Surabaya in place of Ecuador,

3- Plenary started to hear general comments from Parties, no time left for Stakeholder interventions, will continue on Tuesday

4- Main Committee established to conduct informals on draft outcome, held its first session, started hearing views of parties on the Declaration, but suspended the session upon request of G77/China, will re-convene on Tuesday.

5- UCLG launched GTF publication summarizing H3 journey at Urban Speakers Corner

6- Cities Alliance side event convened at lunch time

7- City of Surabaya hosted cultural event (personally speaking, this was the best organization i had ever attended at an intergovernmental conference since 2002, hats-off to Mayor and People of City of Surabaya)

8- A very inspiring article is published at Citiscope by Ulrich Graute on UN negotiations and engaging local governments. Another important coverage by Gregg Scruggs is also available. Another Op-Ed is released by Nicola Paula at ENB prior to the start of the Surabaya

and things to look for 26 July Tuesday

1- an informal daily programme of negotiations is released at H3 PrepCom3 homepage, that contains a partial coverage of all event.

2- Plenary for statements will start at 10:00 at level:3 (expected to offer slots for Mayor Groups and Other Stakeholders), main committee will start at 10:00 at level:4

3- GAP Prep meeting will convene at 08:30 at level:4, Co-facilitators will meet with Major Groups and Other Stakeholders at 09:00 at level:4

4- Transport Day will convene at Hotel Sheraton between 13:00 – 17:00. ICLEI member City of Johannesburg will share updates on Johannesburg Ecomobility Festival held in September 2015 at the closing plenary.

5- At the lunch time, WRI will convene its side event

6- ICLEI will host a session at Urban Speakers Corner at Exhibit area at the ground floor at 15:30. Speakers areMaimunah Mohd Sharif, Municipal President, Municipal Council Of Seberang Perai, Malaysia; President, Malaysian Association of Local Authorities (MALA); Member, ICLEI Global Executive Committee and Emani Kumar, Regional Director, ICLEI South Asia Secretariat; Deputy Secretary General, ICLEI World Secretariat. Title is “Globalizing Integrated Transformative Actions to Ensure Sustainability of the Urban World 2030”

6- At 19:30, Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly of Partners will convene at Crystal Room


Source: ICLEI

What is the military’s role in the New Urban Agenda #NUA?

[Below posted 2/7 1.15 (Part3) pm and 26/7 11.27 am (Part4)]

Dear Enablers of the Zero Draft version 3,

Main Topic A: The Transformative Commitments for Sustainable Urban Development / Part 3 and 4
– Sub-topic 1. Sustainable & Inclusive Urban Prosperity & Opportunities for All >

In preparation for the UN Habitat III Conference, the Prepcom3 as one very important Conference, with 4248 participants representing 142 countries governments, professional, non-profit, and civic organizations, and many side events.

Voices heard at the H3PrepCom Conference: “In an urbanizing world, armed conflict & violence are urbanizing too.”, “Conflict is increasingly fought in urban areas” New Urban Agenda needs to address this”, “Conflict & violence urbanising: NUA needs to support intl hum law, resilient urban servs, victims of chronic violence”,“Government block funds for military prep for climate change because – hey -who cares what’s going on in Arctic?”

“By the year 2050, the world urban population is expected to nearly double, posing massive sustainability challenges in terms of housing, infrastructure, basic services, and jobs among others.” Is the “Transit City” the new norm in our new urban paradigm?
We need to address how existing armed forces and military reserves can become a stakeholder and joint partnership with the civil society and local authorities “New Urban Agenda” in the way cities and human settlements are planned, developed, governed and managed. E.g. collaborative action such as inter-municipal cooperation, including the establishment of practitioners’ capacity networks or transformative commitments via shared use for military spaces into public places etc.
What is the military’s role in the New Urban Agenda #NUA?

Military readiness can compliment planning strategy, and collaboration comply with International Humanitarian Law #IHL

Military force for urban action will strengthen cooperation between sub-national and local governments and civil society as well as their existing networks to deliver on capacity development programmes by means of peer-to-peer learning, subject-matter related partnerships, and collaborative action such as inter-municipal cooperation, including the establishment of practitioners’ networks and other science-policy interface mechanisms.

Military force for urban action will support institutionalized mechanisms for sharing and exchanging information, knowledge and expertise, including the collection, analysis and dissemination of geographically-based, community-collected and disaggregated data by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national and local contexts, as well as ensuring a robust science-policy interface in urban policy formulation.

I think the New Urban Agenda #NUA would benefit from military precision, military indicators and military efficiency for real urban transformation in the post-2015 future.

The military’s new role can charge mobility, rural transportation and transport between cities?

Is the military’s new responsibility to leading and carrying the new urban movement?

It’s likely a necessity the military protect our green belts by controlling territorial expansion.

Soldiers can be deployed as urban men committed to prepare our cities for new challenges.

Protection, there’s already a great need to protect 10 000 “smart cities”, this is a huge responsibility.

Army reservists are with training ready to serve, first alongside the regular army.

Army personnel have collectively and individually technical capacities that can be used in favour of civil society – for example, during or after natural disasters.

What will the military’s role look like in the Habitat III agreement?


The Zero Draft for the New Urban Agenda seems to be well connected and embraced by the global community, yet is the balance there? One word missing in the draft is military.

For a holistic approach point of view, we need to discuss how urban sustainable development and the military force can collaborate for a modern safe peaceful future and further secure and safeguard the New Urban Agenda.

In our achieving to accomplish tasks and system governance our cities new important networks and partnerships being formed. In collaboration these can create urban miracle development over nation borders. Cities may also need to take bold military decisions on how interaction can create and generate new civil/military urban tasks and functions. Within the goal11 to downsize the military sector and divert it into maintenance and support areas for sustainable urban development. City leaders and planners are via its position as responsible as any to “demilitarization” and submit Urban Solutions as best the city we need practice towards the world we want..

For the Prepcom3 regional event in Surabaya, Climate Change Centre Reading will continue its engagement in the UN Habitat III global campaign and second World Assembly, by awaiting granting special accreditation status for holding a side event, in time to present conclusions and contributions to the Habitat III conference.

One topic for the Zero Draft is the role and the future of military urban support action in relation to urban sustainable development for the New Urban Agenda (NUA).

Issues to address:

Military for urban action commit to strengthen synergies between international migration and development, at the global, regional, national, sub-national, and local levels. We further commit to support refugees, internally displaced persons and migrants, regardless of migration status, as well as their host communities, taking into account national circumstances, ensuring full respect for human rights and recognizing that, although the movement of large populations into towns and cities poses a variety of challenges, it also brings significant social, economic, and cultural contributions to urban life.

Military for urban action to support the working poor in the informal economy as contributors and legitimate actors of the urban economies, including the unpaid and domestic workers. A gradual approach to formalisation will be developed to preserve and enhance informal livelihoods while extending access to legal and social protections, as well as support services to the informal workforce.

Military for urban action to facilitate and support urban development in a manner that preserves rapidly diminishing natural resources, protects and improves the urban ecosystem and environmental services, promotes disaster risk reduction, while promoting sustainable economic development and people’s well-being, through environmentally sound planning, infrastructure and basic services, enhancing the quality of life of the inhabitants.

Military for urban action to promote and support the creation of well-connected and well-distributed networks of open, multipurpose, safe and green public spaces, including the creation of ecological corridors, to improve the resilience of cities to disasters and climate change, reducing flood risks and heat waves, and improving food security and nutrition, physical and mental health, household and ambient air quality, and attractive and liveable urban landscapes.

Military for urban action commit to strengthen resilience of cities and human settlements, including through the development of quality of their infrastructure by adopting and implementing integrated, age and gender-responsive policies and plans in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030,mainstreaming holistic and data-informed disaster risk reduction and management at all levels, reducing vulnerabilities and risk, especially in risk-prone areas of formal and informal settlements, including slums, enabling households, communities, institutions and services to prepare for, respond to, adapt to, and rapidly recover from the effects of hazards, including shocks or latent stresses. We will promote the development of infrastructure that is resilient and which will reduce the impact of disasters especially in slums and informal settlements.

Military for urban action to shift from reactive to more proactive risk-based, all-hazards and all-of-society approaches, while also ensuring timely and effective local disaster response to address the immediate needs of inhabitants following a disaster, as well as supporting the integration of the ‘’Build Back Better’’ principles in the post-disaster recovery process to integrate the lessons from past disasters into future planning and resilience-building measures.

Military for urban action commit to promote national, sub-national, and local climate action, including climate change adaptation and mitigation, and to support cities and human settlements, their inhabitants and all local stakeholders as key implementers. We further commit to support the shift to a low-greenhouse gas emissions energy and transport systems in urban areas, consistent with the objectives of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Military for urban action invite international and regional organizations, including the United Nations development system, development partners and the private sector to enhance coordination of their urban development strategies and programed to apply an integrated approach to sustainable urban development, mainstreaming the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.

Military for urban action will integrate disaster risk reduction, and climate change adaptation and mitigation considerations and measures into age and gender responsive urban and territorial development and planning processes, including low-carbon, resilience-based, and climate effective design of spaces, buildings, and constructions, services and infrastructure, promote cooperation and coordination across sectors as well as build capacity of local authorities to develop and implement risk assessments on the location of current and future public facilities, and formulate adequate evacuation procedures.

Military for urban action will encourage and support applying the principle of subsidiarity in the implementation of national housing policies through sub-national and decentralized structures in order to ensure the coherence between national and local urban development strategies, land policies, and housing supply.

Military for urban action will support the development of vertical and horizontal models of distribution of financial resources to decrease inequalities across territories, within urban centers, and between urban and rural areas, as well as to promote integrated and balanced territorial development. In this regard, we emphasize the importance of improving transparency of data on spending and resource allocation as a tool to assess progress towards equity and spatial integration.

Military for urban action will support access to different multilateral funds, including the Green Climate Fund, for cities to secure resources for climate change adaptation and mitigation plans, policies, programmes and actions. We will collaborate with local financial institutions to develop climate finance infrastructure solutions and to create appropriate mechanisms to identify catalytic financial instruments. We will collaborate with national and international insurance and reinsurance institutions to develop feasible solutions for future climate risks in cities, with regard to investments in urban infrastructures, urban assets as well as for local populations to secure their shelter and economic needs.

Military for urban action will support local government associations as promoters and providers of capacity development, recognizing and strengthening, as appropriate, both their involvement in national consultations on urban policies and development priorities, and their cooperation with sub-national and local governments, along with civil society, private sector, professionals, academia and research institutions and their existing networks, to deliver on capacity development programmes by means of peer-to-peer learning, subject-matter related partnerships, and collaborative actions such as inter-municipal cooperation, on a global, regional, national, sub-national, and local scale, including the establishment of practitioners’ networks and science-policy interface practices.

Military for urban action will support science, research, and innovation, including a focus on social, technological, digital and nature-based innovation, robust science-policy interfaces in urban and territorial planning and policy formulation, as well as institutionalized mechanisms for sharing and exchanging information, knowledge and expertise, including the collection, analysis, and dissemination of geographically-based, community-collected, high-quality timely and reliable data, disaggregated by income, sex, age, race, ethnicity, migration status, disability, geographic location, and other characteristics relevant in national, sub-national, and local contexts.

Military for urban will continue strengthening mobilization efforts through partnerships, advocacy, and awareness activities on the implementation of the New Urban Agenda using existing initiatives such as World Habitat Day and World Cities Day, as well as considering establishing new initiatives to mobilize and generate support from civil society, citizens, and stakeholders. We recognize the importance of continuing to engage in the follow-up and review of the New Urban Agenda with sub-national and local governments associations represented at the World Assembly of Local and Regional Governments.

Military for urban action will foster and support the creation, promotion, and enhancement of open and participatory data platforms using technological and social tools available to transfer and share knowledge among national, sub-national, and local governments and other stakeholders, including non-state actors and people to enhance effective urban planning and management, efficiency, and transparency through e-governance, ICT-assisted approaches.

The list can go on…

Who will form / shape the New Urban Agenda, which parties can be trusted?

Growing mismatch when not all stake holders are present to offer sufficient inclusiveness in the NUA negotiations. Apart from the stereo typical urban societies as planners, architects, engineers, and scientists, we need them all, as well as an experienced urban demilitarized task force. Transformed with transferable civil skills, medical, mechanical, outdoor, HR, finance, intelligence, IT & comms, management, partnership/teamwork, logistics & support and musical, ceremonial. Committed to problem solving.

Local government – Quick cultural background

If we go back in time and compare with an interesting time in society development and who was the clergy let’s say 400 years ago?

The four social classes;

  • Chivalry and nobility, The stalls, the composition and activities first organized, was the Nobility. It maintained the obligation of every noble to appear before the national day, the obligation of the nobility periodically managed to get replaced by sending representatives, but in the deliberations and decisions of the Nobility would only be one of each family selected principal to participate. Aristocracy guaranteed a predominant influence through voting by classes, and the President, the so-called rural marshal, the king would appoint. Who is the King today?
  • Clergy, The Parliament stipulated that the first archbishop at the opening of Parliament would bring the word to all the noble estates, and he became the natural president of the clergy.
    The first general legislation on the untitled estates composition was given of Government : the clergy would be under this form of bishops and superintendents , two representatives of each dioesan and one for the clergy “of each two counties.” What is the faith today?
  • Burghers, Burghers would consist of a mayor and a bailie other distinguished citizens from each city.
  • The peasantry, The peasantry would be represented by a farmer from each district. No one got to be a member of parliament, who was not a resident.

The point is – all the same today as we have two groups, as above the landowners and then the landless residents, the people. We have had the above landowner groups who influenced all decisions and who have all used the military as an instrument. We have had this concerned groups as landless urban/rural city residents the people. What has changed in 400 years, is it the citizens, or..?

The New Local Government the new urban glue “connective matrix” (the mediators)

How does habitat III ensure BINGOS LGMAS FARMERS RINGOS ENGOS IPOS W&GS YOUNGOS TUNGOS and many more give inclusive sufficient voice and influence (in Togethernessship). Where in the NUA and What is the Urban/Rural role of the military, representing millions of engineers and an army of soldiers?  How can a modern military force fill the capacity gap missing in forming an inhabitable globe?

Partners, stakeholders, actors, military etc. all to be inclusive anywhere the global smart (clever) city network. New city structures more resettled populations. The mixed-use trick is how to shuffling population groups between territories to benefit and trigger responders to sustainable develop the ultimate Net-Zero society!

Will Habitat IV have army support for safeguarding urban development or will there be a territorial army multi-function?

A good showcase example is Ecuador where the military has stepped in, not only to protect and rescue but are now a big part of its modernisation of a whole nations infrastructure planning, offering solutions and helping supporting urban reconstruction development upgrading in different environments. Education opportunity at the very spot in Quito!


Many thanks! /
contest manager/umbrella task

#Goal13 City Levels Green, Amber or even Red

#Goal13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

The highly developed industrialized nations’ responsibility to combat climate change is obvious and cannot be overestimated. Similar to the issue of sustainable consumption and production patterns, the rich countries need to become leading examples if the goal of combating climate change and its consequences is not to remain mere lip service. Effectively reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is imperative in this regard. The data displayed in figures 13.1 and 13.2 show how far many OECD countries are still lagging behind compared to the respective benchmark countries of the sample.


Click on the picture to enlarge

Figure 13.1 provides information on production-based CO2 emissions per capita. “Production-based” means that emissions refer to gross direct CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, emitted within the national territory excluding bunkers, sinks, and indirect effects. In the fi ve leading countries, Mexico, Turkey, Sweden, Portugal, and Hungary, as well as in sixth-ranked Chile, production based CO2 emissions are below 5 tons per capita. These countries’ performances stand in stark contrast to the respective emission levels of countries placed at the bottom of the list, such as Canada, the United States, Australia, and Luxembourg. Here, CO2 emissions range from 15.3 (Canada) to 19.47 tons per capita (Luxembourg).


Click on the picture to enlarge

The second snapshot indicator links emission levels to the size of a country’s economy, and refers to total greenhouse gas emissions per GDP. Greenhouse gas emissions include land use, land-use change, and forestry, and are measured in CO2 equivalents as a percentage of GDP (tons per million constant 2005 int. USD PPP). The findings are remarkable: While Sweden is by far the top-performing country with an amount of 66.75 tons, Estonia comes in last place with 680 tons – more than ten times as much as in the case of the leading country. Moreover, Sweden is the only country ranked among the top five on both indicators chosen here.

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions per GDP, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, and France follow in places two to five. In fifth-ranked France, however, emissions are already nearly four times as high as in Sweden. At the negative end of the spectrum, Canada and Australia again find themselves in the bottom group. Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions per GDP amount to 641 tons, which means that the country ranks second to last on both indicators of goal 13.

Source: SDG Index and Dashboards – Global Report