#Principle10 and the Bali Guideline – #NuevaAgendaUrbana

Principle10

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: http://www.unep.org/civil-society/Implementation/Principle10/tabid/105013/Default.aspx

 

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

conflict

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. https://www.habitat3.org/prepcom3/papersmart

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

/YUNUS ARIKAN

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.
Draft-New-Urban-Agenda-27-J
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

Remarks
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?

Background 

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!
CCCRdg.org.uk / HabitatCO2lutions.org
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.

13_1

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).

13_2

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

First glance at the Zero Draft New Urban Agenda 18 July

Extract from Zero Draft 18 July 2016 New Urban Agenda #NUA #NuevaAgendaUrbana #AgendaBaruPerkotaan #NouvelAgendaUrbain

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. There is a need to address the way cities and human settlements are planned, developed, governed and managed.

”18. We resolve to implement the New Urban Agenda as a key instrument for national, sub-national, and local governments and all relevant stakeholders to achieve sustainable urban development.”

”23. We 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.”

”51. We commit to recognize the working poor in the informal economy, particularly women, as contributors and legitimate actors of the urban economies, including the unpaid and domestic workers. We further commit to develop a gradual approach to formalization with a view to facilitating the transition from the informal to the formal economy, extending access to legal and social protections to informal livelihoods, as well as support services to the informal workforce.

”57. We commit to facilitate the sustainable management of natural resources in cities and human settlements in a manner that protects and improves the urban ecosystem and environmental services, reduces greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and promotes disaster risk reduction and management, while fostering sustainable economic development and all people’s well-being and quality of life, through environmentally sound urban planning, infrastructure, and basic services.

”58. We commit to promote the creation and maintenance of well-connected and well-distributed networks of open, multi-purpose, safe, inclusive, accessible, green, and quality public spaces to improve the resilience of cities to disasters and climate change, reducing flood and drought risks and heat waves, and improving food security and nutrition, physical and mental health, household and ambient air quality, reducing noise, and promoting attractive and livable cities and urban landscapes.”

67. We commit to make sustainable use of natural resources and focus on the resource-efficiency of raw materials like concrete, metals, wood, minerals, and land, establish safe material recovery and recycling facilities, and promote development of sustainable and resilient buildings, utilizing local non-toxic and recycled materials and lead-additive-free paints and coatings.

68. We 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.

69. We commit to shift from reactive to more proactive risk-based, all-hazards and all-of-society approaches, such as raising public awareness of the risk and promoting ex-ante investment, while also ensuring timely and effective local disaster response to address the immediate needs of inhabitants following a disaster, as well as the integration of the ‘’Build Back Better’’ principles in the post-disaster recovery process to integrate resilience-building measures and the lessons from past disasters and new risks into future planning.

70. We 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.

”73. We 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.”

”89. We 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”

”92. We will develop and implement housing policies at all levels incorporating participatory planning, and applying the principle of subsidiarity, as appropriate, in order to ensure coherence among national, subnational, and local development strategies, land policies and housing supply”

”123. We 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.”

”131. We will explore and develop feasible solutions for climate and disaster risks in cities and human settlements, including through collaborating with insurance and reinsurance institutions and other relevant actors, with regard to investments in urban and metropolitan infrastructures, buildings and other urban assets as well as for local populations to secure their shelter and economic needs.”

”136. We 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.”

”142. We 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.”

”154. We 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.”

 

Source: revised Zero Draft

Togethernessship, why the world is changing!

Over the past few years, with the explosion of startups, thousands of entrepreneurs turned their garages in offices to bring their billion dollar ideas to life. The vortex of entrepreneurship was to find an investor and get funded. To be funded was like winning the World Cup, or the Super Bowl.

But what happens after you get funded?

You get back to being an employee. You may have brought in people not sharing your dream, not in agreement with your purpose and soon it’s all about the money. The financial end becomes the main driver of your business.

People are suffering with it. Excellent startups began to tumble because the money seeking model is endless.

A new way to endeavour is needed. Good people are doing it already.

Many people have figured out that it doesn’t make any sense to go on by yourself. Many people have awakened from the “each man for himself” mad mentality.

Stop, take a step back and think. Isn’t it absurd that we, 7 billion of us living in the same planet, have grown further apart from each other? What sense does it make to turn your back on the thousands, maybe millions, of people living around you in the same city Fortunately, things are changing. Sharing, collaborative economy concepts are being implemented, and it points towards a new direction. The direction of collaborating, of sharing, of helping in togethernessship.

This is beautiful to watch. It touches me/
There is something extraordinary happening

/Gustavo Tanaka Co-creator, Baobba’ Lab

Source: medium.com

Very Important PrepCom3

Second glance at the Zero Draft New Urban Agenda 18 June

Extract from Zero Draft New Urban Agenda #NUA #NuevaAgendaUrbana #AgendaBaruPerkotaan #NouvelAgendaUrbain

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. There is a need to address the way cities and human settlements are planned, developed, governed and managed.

“32. We commit to recognise 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.”

“52. We commit 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.”

“53. We commit to promote 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.”

“64. We commit 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 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.”

“77. We will encourage applying the principle of subsidiarity in the implementation of national housing policies through subnational and decentralized structures in order to ensure the coherence between national and local urban development strategies, land policies, and housing supply.”

“121. We 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.”

“129. We 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.”

“133. We 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.”

“136. We will foster 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.”

 

Source: revised Zero Draft

Help support Urban Cratzer Design Competition (#HabitatCO2lutions)

UrbanCratzer2

Date: 09/06/2016

#UrbanCratzer Design Competition launch campaign on Crowdfunder to raise £3,937 for Urban Design Competition #URBANCRATZER To give protection & shelter to people from climatic catastrophic disaster events

Reading based HabitatCO2lutions have launched a Crowdfunder campaign to raise £3,937 for #UrbanCratzer Design Competition.

“Dealing with a climate crisis has now gone planetary – planners and policy makers alert the importance for vulnerable citizens of having an Urban Climatic Emergency Evacuation Plan (UCEEP) policy in place for the outcome of the New Urban Agenda, proven realistic in an actual emergency. Considering the general policies of the national government a first draft #UCEEP to complement the 2030 agenda, for urban settlement equipped with detailed evacuation plans for facilitating and handling a climate crisis as seen in every continent on the planet.”

The URBAN CRATZER Design Competition is really important because If steps are taken to recognise preparations for evacuation areas and urban craters in dense city areas this can be a just and fair transformative transmission, perhaps then cities can be lucky with a #DisasterResponse plan/program due to coming climate change impacts.

Crowdfunder is the UK’s largest rewards-based crowdfunding network having launched more than 4000 projects and raised over £2m – helping people make their great ideas a reality. Crowdfunder works by offering the crowd the opportunity to pledge to a project in return for a reward.

The URBAN CRATZER Design Competition are offering gratitude, t-shirts and more in return for pledges towards their campaign.

Phil Geraghty, Crowdfunder MD, said: “Crowdfunder is about bringing communities together to make great ideas a reality.”

First-responder supporter said: “I’m really excited to support the #HabitatCO2lutions crowdfunder campaign and looking forward to receiving my reward in return for my pledge.”

For more information on the project and to pledge visit
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/urbancratzer-design-competition
ENDS

Local governments need to draft Urban Climatic Emergency Evacuation Plan/Programme (#UCEEP)

Local governments need to draft Urban Climatic Emergency Evacuation Plan/Programme (#UCEEP) (.pdf-document for download here)


Dealing with a climate crisis has now gone #planetary — planners and policy makers alert the importance for vulnerable citizens of having an Urban Climatic Emergency Evacuation Plan/Programme policy in place for the outcome of the New Urban Agenda, proven realistic in an actual emergency. Urban havocs in the footsteps of climate change require for the first time to mainstream disaster relief planning.

Considering the general policies of the national government a draft UCEEP to complement the 2030 agenda, for urban settlement equipped with detailed evacuation plans for facilitating and handling a climate crisis as seen in every continent on the planet.

− FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT, AN URBAN EXTREME CLIMATIC EVENT IS DEFINED AS ANY ACTUAL CLIMATIC EVENT REQUIRING EVACUATION.

Most urban population living within 30 km of a climate change emergency centre area, and about 10% within 5 km of it. Of the total affected, about 1/3 reside near outside the emergency centre and another 2/3 are within disaster area in the neighbouring urban habitat prefecture. All would have to be evacuated in the event of a disaster, senior citizens (to think through more carefully how to support the evacuation of older people and perhaps include them in future drills, which should be carried out in each district area) and children. The evacuation should be preceded by skilled and realistic capacity building effectiveness drills due to post-evacuation considerations and evaluation.

Urban Climatic Emergency Evacuation Plan/Programme first draft
Based on three different urban extreme (increasingly frequent and intense) climatic event scenarios

1.1 – In the first scenario, known as Operational Response Level (ORL) 1, sudden impact disaster detected. In the second scenario, ORL 2, between 36 and 60 warning alerts per hour, with a base level between 12 and 24 warning alerts per hour set for ORL 3.

Catastrophic – urban extreme climatic events of potentially catastrophic proportions that severely disrupt health and social care and other functions (mass casualties, power, water, etc.) and that exceed even collective capability with the support-hub structure. Additionally there are pre-planned major events that require planning, for example, demonstrations, sports fixtures, air shows etc. and may also require a “speedy and effective” climate disaster response. There may also be events occurring on a national scale such as unrest, riots, fuel strikes, pandemic or multiple events that require the collective capability of the healthcare nationally.

CATASTROPHIC IMPACT INCIDENT

First responders, an expandable force will be notified that an urban extreme climatic event has been declared by emergency bleep. Responders would automatically clear routes into cities and establish distribution and medical-hubs (triage centers). Also:

The nature of the Operational Response Level (ORL) 1 Declared may dictate the immediate areas with increased pressures (ie: Hospitals, Government Services, Armed forces). The focus of the Municipality Outreach Team will be to support the rest of the key stakeholders and to assist with critically injured casualties flows where possible.

  • Respond to emergency bleep and high priority calls in the normal way
  • Liaise with the Municipality Outreach Team Manager
  • Liaise with ORL co-ordinator

In addition to loss of life, the emergency plan calculates that as many as 1/10 of the populated emergency centre will require medical attention. Wind, fire and water are estimated to destroy hundreds of structures, with an additional thousands buildings expected to collapse or suffer severe structural damage.

With global disaster relief planning it is possible to estimate and double the additional manpower resources to complete the evacuation civil citizens may also be asked to facilitate movement of casualties from further immediate danger in the disaster district zone to support the first responders. Or to retrieve critically injured from the emergency centre to an area suitable for their comfort and treatment.

Contact members of the Municipality Outreach Team and assess availability over the next 48hrs.

Instant updates and call 24-hour help lines within local authority community website for Emergencies and Public Safety. Information to keep your family, your home and your community safe.

  • Establish emergency contact procedures among friends and family, including checking how to use Disaster Emergency Dial, a disaster voice message board provided by telecommunications company.
  • Stock three days of emergency supplies of food, water, and other daily necessities.
  • Be prepared to evacuate quickly if fires break out.
  • Refrain from moving about outside or driving unless absolutely necessary.
  • Refrain from buying up available stocks of emergency items.

Warning alerts combined with urban calamites alert levels for Storm wind speed, dust level, Rural/Landscape fire smoke plume, flames, Fluvial flooding rain level, Heat wave temperature, dry conditions / nitrogen dioxide level etc.

In ORL 1, evacuation procedures would be put into place immediately of confirming the first shock hazard level. For ORL 2, the time frame is within hours. The plans call for sending more than 1/3 of the emergency centre residents within 5 km to 30 km of the disaster area, towards the nearest preventive evacuation area urban crater, via urban evacuation corridors and tunnels designed for people and multimodal transportation.

Ideally, it would not take 1,000 residents more than 0.5 hours per evacuation corridor to be re-routed to their dedicated preventive urban crater, city arena or support-hub destination (e.g. offices and schools etc).

disaster-support-hubs-sign2

About 2000 UCEEP cities could offer protection and shelter and give post-disaster support to roughly 200,000,000 residents who also live between 5 km and 30 km of the predestined disaster district zone, and would have to be evacuated. Within the urban habitat prefecture, the flow would be directed to an evacuation area urban crater, to a regenerative city arena or to a disaster support-hub, as well as to peri-urban areas outside the emergency centre area and disaster area. Knowledge of how to avoid and safeguard Disaster response routes (helps emergency responders get to people who need help quickly and to ensure that shipments make it to destinations quickly and smoothly), these are not evacuation routes for use by the general public.

“The inclusion of Ministry of defence (MOD) sites is considered necessary to complete the picture, although it is understood there are difficulties in authorising the use of these sites and that their use cannot be guaranteed. However, it is also understood that the incident that causes the requirement for a large scale evacuation may be of such magnitude, that the MOD would be willing to authorise their use. A database of MOD sites and their potential capabilities is held by the Joint Regional Liaison Officer (JRLO).”

Most of the roughly 10% of residents living within 5 km of climate change emergency centre area would be evacuated to neighbouring towns.

1:2 – A key concern local officials have is how the regional government will initially respond to a sudden impact disaster. The plan for dispatching the first responders and relief goods from the provincial capital calls for Air Self-Defense Force transport planes at dedicated Air Base to fly to nearest local open Air Base in the local habitat Prefecture (a one-hour flight), where their cargo will be transferred to helicopters and ferried over the disaster area to the emergency centre, 30 minutes away.

Yet all the detailed plans are all based on the assumption that the roads leading out of the emergency centre — which perhaps lies in a remote area on the Sea — to the disaster district zones in other parts of the evacuation centre, as well as to neighbouring urban habitat, will not have been damaged; that there will not be mass panic that clogs/paralyse the roads; and that there will be enough time for residents within 30 km of the plant to get to safety; that people won’t be stranded throughout the region also Keeping Level Heads.

Facility Explosion Risk (FER)

Long term evacuation happens if the climatic event has triggered an earthquake or other natural disaster that has destroyed the roads. Or, what happens if an accident occurs in the midst of a blizzard, where icy roads and hazardous driving conditions can lead to accidents that block or paralyse the roads and create long traffic jams?

The Cabinet Office’s plans state that, in the event of a severe natural disaster that makes fleeing by road impossible, and residents will be evacuated by sea from the neighbouring port, which has a Maritime Self-Defense Force base (Although several Prefecture plans to use ships for evacuation, it’s not clear that all harbours will be safe or operable). Helicopters will land at about a dozen designated areas along the main roads in the emergency centre and in the disaster area that lie within the 30-km evacuation radius.

Short term evacuation take place in major cities equipped with up to six preventive evacuation area urban craters, holding stock enough to protect its evacuees for one month. Before it’s safe enough for the inhabitants and residents of emergency centre and disaster area to return to their habitat. Relief supply will include meals, blankets, infant formula, disposable diapers and extra supply of drinking water.

1:3 – It is the central government’s duty to take responsibility in the event of an urban climatic emergency in order to protect the lives of people and their property

For some local politicians outside local community, the evacuation plans represent a challenge and an opportunity. For small towns mayors meet with regional ministers of the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry asking the provincial capital to provide funding in next year’s fiscal budget for improving roads etc.

Hard copy Action Cards are necessary for the municipality due to its size and particularly where temporary staff change fairly frequently. It is not possible for every person employed in the council to know and be completely familiar with the Urban Climatic Emergency Evacuation Plan/Programme in its entirety. Each part in the Urban Climatic Emergency Evacuation Plan/Programme is therefore described on action cards that can be easily obtained and read. These cards are stored within relevant departments in the municipality, which will ensure that the support-hub and evacuation area urban crater of activity during a catastrophic event can respond.
Action cards have been prepared for staff to follow during an urban extreme climatic event. The action cards contain the individual’s responsibilities in performing that role, a checklist of tasks and titles and locations of key contacts. Other members of staff likely to be involved will also work to action cards.

There are a lot of issues in regards to infrastructure for areas of evacuation (inclusive urban vertical evacuation aids) and safeguarding of evacuation routes, pointing out that funding for road improvements had yet to be guaranteed.

#ClimateAction #UNEA2 #NewUrbanGovernance #Cities4Climate #FortMacFire #yeg #ymmfire #NAZCAportal #climatechance #Listen2Cities #SB44 #APA1 #Bonn #COP22 #G7EMM #C40Awards #AOSIS #GUANXI