Urban Policy for the Greens

A few days ago as I bumped and bustled my way out of North Sydney station, I accepted a newsletter from a bearded, middle-aged, concerned-looking gentleman, looking lost amid the primped and preened flyer hander-outerers for the newest manicure parlour, and the harried and hurried businessmen and women on their morning commute. He was as though from another age, when being a concerned citizen-activist held social currency, and I felt for him with every turned head, or irritable brush off from the all-to-preoccupied iPhone-reading commuters.

The NSW Greens newsletter - Green Voice - shouted the anti-coal-seam-gas (CSG) message on its front page, in bold letters, showing off the resolute farmers standing up to the dirty energy sector. An important message for sure, but I couldn't help feeling that the whole package - from first encounter (I had noticed him the day before and felt guilty for not taking a paper then) to final skimming of the publication - that the Greens have a much more socially powerful message than they are currently telling; an ace up their sleeves.

The Australian Greens need solid, progressive, urban policy to take advantage of the seemly inevitable global trend in the demographics and sensibilities of urbanising populations.

The most compelling argument for the environmental movement is that in the long run, it makes real-world sense to care for the systems that sustain us. Unfortunately the feedback loops in most natural systems are slow, and the systems themselves very resilient, so full effects are not always immediately obvious. This means that the great majority of environmentally sensitive policy must be sold on future benefits, or the mitigation of future consequences.

Cities, however, are one sphere where the benefits of progressive, environmentally sound policy show almost immediate, and entirely tangible benefits to constituents. It is also a sphere where the tide of history is inexorably moving towards clear winners (and also clear losers): cities that get compact design, mass transit, affordability, liveability and resilience right will out-compete those that remain locked into a sprawling, car-driven, concrete-jungle  not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) mindset in the very near future. The effects of high quality urban policy could even be felt within a single political term, something that cannot really be said for many campaign promises.

But to appeal to urban voters, the Greens must shift tack somewhat in how they portray themselves. The efforts to save the Tasmanian forests and the Great Barrier Reef and their advocacy for energy transition, biodiversity and biosecurity have framed the party primarily along rural lines - a party to save our natural resources. As populations urbanise though, the coal-face of meaningful environmental policy is increasingly becoming the form and governance of our cities. To better reflect these leverage points for progressive action, the Green's message needs to appeal to an urban audience as strongly as it does the rural environmental and conservation activists that have laid the party foundations.

The focus on conservation and resources also misses one of the primary battle lines of the major battle on the environment: that between ex-burb, NIMBY interests and next generation, compact urban interests. Busses vs cars. McMansions vs Apartments. Highly leveraged old money vs affordable housing and amenity. The form and governance of cities is a bit of a zero-sum game on this front, and choosing to bet on the long-term success of cars (and associated planning systems and outcomes) is unlikely to be a winning one.

The beauty of the environmental story for cities is that it embraces people across the full spectrum of society by providing tangible benefits that are felt in the near term. It can be told to property developers (compact cities increase land value), infrastructure planners (next generation infrastructure for mixed use neighbourhoods), commuters and first home buyers... Most importantly, it particularly benefits those who will be coming into the voting booths for the first time in the coming half decade.

Australia's cities are possibly it's most valuable asset, and I would have thought the opportunities in cities for new models of resilience and sustainability would be central to any 'green' party.

I'm no political scientist, nor am I well versed in the Green's policy - they may well have a truly extraordinary urban vision... But right now in Australia, in the lead-up to a federal election, there is awfully little attention paid to how our cities are governed, invested in and supported. This means there an awfully big opportunity being missed for a party whose central message can so well be served by good urban policy.

Poo Wars - Sanitation in Cape Town's Informal Settlements

The 'poo wars' are taking Cape Town by storm... again. They are politically charged, indelibly tied to Apartheid planning but ultimately about giving people (yes, people) the dignity to poo; safely, in private and without compromising the health of their community - something most people reading this blog take for granted.

On current evidence, it seems the truth of the matter is that providing basic sanitation services to South Africa's poor seems too big a challenge for our major cities, regardless of who governs them (unpalatable as that might be to many DA supporters). In their defence though, delivering effective sanitation services to informal settlements is a tough ask, with few successful precedents globally.

This post is a response to a 'conversation' with WC premier, Helen Zille on Twitter (@helenzille) about the failure of The City of Cape Town to commit to a process of getting the problem solved. My biggest grievance is that the current approach has not even begun to test the possible innovative options and is desperately lacking in compassion - neglecting the dignity granted to all people by the bill of rights.

Informal settlements - slums - are a feature of nearly every emerging city. In many ways they provide an optimal, self-organising strategy for allowing people to escape rural poverty within whatever means they have and access the social and economic opportunities of cities. Slums are not, in and of themselves, a problem.

But they are devilishly difficult to service with municipal infrastructure - water, sanitation, waste collection and transport. They're also a challenge for essential services like health, education and security. In essence this is because our traditional approach to delivering services is that infrastructure comes first and people come later. When dwellings come first, we don't have good models for fitting infrastructure in afterwards.

With specific reference to the Cape Town saga, the difficulty is not in providing flush toilets in slums. That bit is rather easy actually. The difficulty is in connecting those toilets to the water, sewer and treatment plant infrastructure that make them work. A conventional flush loo with no sewer is of little use to anyone... And to retrofit sewer systems into informal settlements is nearly impossible without displacing thousands of people... Displacing people has been shown to be a universally bad idea, and especially so in a country with the political history of South Africa.

The result is that local government throw their hands up, claiming to be in a ‘lose-lose’ situation. Unable to deliver the service they are comfortable with (sewer connected, water-borne sanitation) and facing the demand for flushing toilets (rather than the all-too-prevalent bucket or pit latrine systems), they deliver Portable Flush Toilets (PFTs).

These are the sort of thing you may be used to using at a construction site or music festival and are delivered as a flushing 'solution' to the demands of settlement citizens, without really understanding their underlying needs at all... It's not really about flushing; but rather safety, dignity and health.

This 'solution' inevitably falls apart - when inadequately maintained, the PFTs, not designed for the task of full-time service in the first place, end up broken, unsanitary and unsafe... And children end up playing in a cesspit, adding to the already overburdened public health system. PFT's are no real solution, just cynical a political band-aid to keep the opposition on the back-foot.

So it would seem that with a status quo approach to sanitation, cities are fundamentally unable to deliver effective sanitation services to their constituents. Decision-makers get focused on technology, and few give serious considerations to reforming the system. If ever there was a challenge which required a 'systemic' response rather than just a technology response, this is it.

A systems approach to sanitation might start with function - dignity, safety and health. Then it might consider resource cycles: the water cycle, treatment demands, nutrient availability (and potential use), durability and privacy. It might demand a solution that is cyclical, as there is no 'away' for waste to be sent, and no resource to carry it there (being disconnected from conventional water infrastructure too). It might also consider input from all the stakeholders - professionals, entrepreneurs, citizens, health departments and civil society (I'm sure there are others too).

Given the inherent limitations of informal settlements spatially, a permanent solution that meets the requirements of private, hygienic and safe is necessarily independent of conventional sewer infrastructure. This means that we are in the territory of dry-toilet systems (composting toilets), bio-digesters or wet-toilet systems with stand-alone bio-mechanical water treatment (or the band-aid PFT solution)...

In practice, it will probably be a combination of each. The most important thing though is that the function of the system be kept foremost in mind, not the technology.

That being said, a quick review of the tech is in order.

Dry toilet systems abound, but are usually dependent on relatively low loading. They are also quite expensive, and don't work well when used inappropriately (i.e. putting non-biological effluent down them). However, they work very well when combined with a composting system and provide a cyclical approach to nutrients without relying on extensive water use. Perhaps most importantly, once the effluent has been digested by bacteria in the sump, it is sterile and can be used for fertiliser or fuel - potentially even providing a source of income.

Decentralised wet systems (membrane bio reactors for instance) are tech-heavy and require attention, maintenance and energy. However, they are able to treat water to a very high standard so that it can be re-used. In theory, a well-designed packaged plant could fit into a shipping container, be run off a PV array on the roof and connected to an ablution block to deliver sanitation services. Tanked water could be provided occasionally to make up for the losses (typically in sludge drying) but most water would be circulated around the system. It could conceivably be augmented with some level of biogas collection and management of dried sludge for fuel purposes.

Bio-digesters are vessels which generate biogas through the bacterial digestion of organic waste. Industrial scale systems are typically aligned with pig farms, but again the potential exists for small or medium scale systems to be linked with municipal sanitation services. Again, the 'waste' becomes a resource for the generation of energy.

Moving on from the technology though, the engagement of end-users is essential, and civil society has an important role to play. Communities in Cape Town have rejected dry-toilet systems as inferior - an understandable viewpoint given the 'aspirational' nature of a white, porcelain, flushing loo. But I wonder if there were an income stream from the provision of sewage (as fertilizer to a community garden or as feedstock to a bio-digester operator) whether those perceptions could be shifted.

Based on what I have seen in successful strategies for renewable energy in informal entitlements in India using micro-finance (like Pollinate Energy), I am convinced appropriate solutions for sanitation can be found, with sufficient humility and willingness to engage.

I haven't done the design work and I'm not a waste-water specialist, but I have been seen a wide range of design processes that challenge the status quo, and the options are always wider than we first imagine.

I believe a first step for Cape Town might be to get some heads around a table - World Design Capital 2014 might be a good forum to do this in. There are bio-tech specialists at UCT (and almost certainly elsewhere), world class engineers and an engaged civil society in the City. Perhaps get a facilitation specialist to manage the process – a team like Meshfield... But put experienced, innovative people around a table, with a brief and a budget and get them thinking, designing and working.

For what it's worth, my approach would be:

Trial a range of dry-toilet systems aligned to community gardens (Cape Town has poor soil, so nutrients are a limitation); not as a strategy to deliver the services to all, but to showcase how the tech works.

Do your best to secure buy-in and support from civic, health and community organisations.

Finance some of the investment from your health budget as the payback on 'prevention' will always top that on 'cure'.

If it is possible to build a business case around the production of local food, and the stigma (and actual safety and health) of waste-to-food can be managed (which they can), then do so. Frame the venture as a business exercise for value creation from a waste product, and better health and sanitation or a by-product.

Then, commission a packaged plant design with ablution facility, intended to be permanent, that runs a cyclical water re-use system. The system spec should be:

- energy neutral (i.e. powered by renewables)

- cycle water

- provide sterilised, dry sludge that can be used for fuel

This could be a university research project or paid design commission from an innovative engineering firm or start-up. The technology is largely proven and the challenges are cost, durability and scalability.

I would suggest a business plan competition at UCT or UWC business schools, with seed finding from the City for the winner for either. The most critical thing is to look at new models for finance, governance and ownership to view the utility as a community asset rather than an entitled service (which can only happen with a business plan and finance strategy).

Finally, get a feasibility study of the critical mass of bio-gas from effluent and value the waste in terms of energy production. If it is viable, let an operator strategize the collection of waste, with a requirement for safe, hygienic and private systems...

I know there are no easy solutions to this challenge, if there were, it would be commonplace by now. However, I also know that we have become complacent in our design of municipal infrastructure and that alternative opportunities do exist.

By acknowledging that the status quo (conventional sewers) is impossible in informal settlements, and temporary solutions are not in fact solutions, you create a challenge that must seek new answers.

I believe the challenge of innovative delivery of municipal services to informal settlements is one of the chief global challenges of this decade. I also believe it will prove crucial to the future competitiveness of emerging market cities.

I would hope there sufficient free thinkers, practical innovators and enlightened governors in Cape Town to at least attempt a fully integrated, multi-level, multi-tech approach to this challenge. 

400 PPM

For the first time in recorded history (and perhaps as long as 3 million years), the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has been measured at greater than 400 parts per million (ppm). It is points like this, of seemingly minor immediate significance, that we may look back on as the road signs on our journey of stupidity.

Signs that we may have heeded, and didn’t.

I am increasingly impacted by the apparent indifference to climate change (or anthropogenic global warming - AGW) that I observe in my engineering colleagues, precisely because ours is a profession supposedly founded on science.

To me it is quite straightforward:

1.    Do you believe in science?

Yes: Please proceed.

No: Either go back to school or join your nearest Conservative party. An engineer who does not believe in science really has no business being an engineer: scientific inquiry is the basis of engineering application.

2. Do you believe climate science is good science?

Yes: Please proceed.

No: Explain why the G8 science academies and all institutions not aligned with the fossil fuel industry agree that it is good science - in short, explain why the global consensus is wrong. Then go out and publish, in peer reviewed journals, good science about the climate to improve our broad understanding.

3. Do you understand the implications of the global consensus on AGW?

Yes: Please proceed.

No: go and read the IPCC 4th assessment report (the 5th is due imminently). Also refer to Nature Geoscience, NOAA or NASA for further information. In summary, AGW is the greatest challenge of our age and poses a threat to human prosperity and existence at a scale matched only, perhaps, by the threat of nuclear warfare.

4. If you've got this far, are you doing everything in your power to mitigate and adapt to the threats of AGW?

Because if you believe the science, and understand the implications, there is no condoning an approach which does not prioritise mitigation and adaptation as the absolute highest priority in every decision we make.

History will judge our engineers for inaction nearly as harshly as it will judge our politicians. Short-term self-interest will not prove an acceptable excuse.

Talent, competitiveness and liveability

To be successful, cities must attract investment. To attract investment cities must attract talent. To attract talent, cities must offer a desirable quality of life for a broad range of needs. All this must be done while introducing resilience and ruggedness to city systems in the face of environmental stresses, particularly climate change.

This post explores the links between competitiveness, liveability, resilience and design in the built environment.

Many urban analysts are focusing on competitiveness as a defining characteristic of successful future cities.... Yet what makes a city competitive is a complex question - economic activity, culture, infrastructure or natural assets?

While the considerations are wide and varied, perhaps its ability to attract investment is a useful indicator, which leads to an interesting quote from Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York:

“I’ve always believed that

talent attracts capital more effectively and consistently than capital attracts talent.”

So if the ability to attract investment is directly linked to the ability of a city to attract those globally mobile knowledge workers, who represent Richard Florida's 'creative class' elite, then framing cities in terms of securing talent provides a new perspective on design and policy priorities.

It means that to be competitive, a city must be attractive, desirable and liveable.

The issues become even more challenging when considered in the context of climate change and resource scarcity - summed up by urbanist Alex Steffen's tweet:

"The greater your community's structural demands for energy and materials (off-site or off-shore), the greater its vulnerability."

So future competitiveness expands to include resilience and self-sufficiency to some degree. These social, environmental and economic considerations make planning for competitiveness a tricky task - identifying leverage points which achieve outcomes aligned with all three must be a priority for cities with global aspirations.

One of the challenges in conceptualising cities is their complexity. However cities are not the first (and certainly not the last) complex system to attract the attention of designers and analysts. Indeed, economists have built an entire field of study around models for considering complexity. The Economist Intelligence Unit - the consulting business associated with The Economist magazine - has developed a number of indices for assessing cities:

- Hot Spots - The Competitive Cities Index (for Citigroup)

- The Green Cities Index (for Siemens)

- The Liveable Cities Index

The ranking of cities on these indices has attracted a fair amount of press and tapped into the competition for global recognition (itself a measure of competitiveness). However, more so than the results, the metrics for these indices offer some insight into the leverage points for cities to become more competitive.

And perhaps more importantly, it provides some insight into the factors in the immediate control of city authorities that could make it more competitive?

Looking at the index metrics more closely, the majority relate to external or institutional factors or issues of national policy - all of which are challenging to address with short-term actions. Issues such as economic strength, global appeal, stability, culture and health and education sector strength are critical, but often beyond the capacity of city decision-makers to support directly.

However, beyond the broad institutional criteria, the largest area of overlap between all three indices is the built environment. Physical capital and resilience to natural hazards contribute 25% of the competitive cities index, physical infrastructure contributes 20% of the liveable cities index and six of the seven of the green cities index criteria relate directly to the built environment (carbon emissions, energy, buildings, transport, air quality, water and land use). The physical fabric of the city is also directly within the sphere of influence of metropolitan authorities and so should represent a cornerstone to city strategy.

My experience of design in the built environment is that often projects - even big projects - forge ahead with little recognition to the broader city context. The thought process appears to be:

"we'll focus on being a commercial success first, and then use the money from that to make the spaces between buildings somewhat better or make allowance from investment in some discrete piece of public infrastructure".

We go forward as though the financial performance gives us licence to invest in social infrastructure, not understanding that the social (and by extent environmental) infrastructure is what makes cities desirable in the first place.

Concluding this post, I urge city authorities and precinct developers to consider the patterns of liveability, competitiveness and sustainability when considering strategies for improving investment in their city.

They may realise that they have more agency to contribute to all three than they thought: next generation infrastructure and a smart built environment have greater potential to address these issues in an integrated fashion an any other area of policy or public investment.

2013 – What you don’t know, can hurt you

I have just finished reading George Monbiot’s (@georgemonbiot) final post for 2012 – Annus Horribilis (here) – a fine, but deeply depressing piece. It details such astounding disregard for the biosphere by governments and corporates (and little sign of wide-spread popular protest from the rest of us) that one can only assume that they (we) have no understanding of humanity’s reliance on the biosphere or the speed with which things could change.

The substantial steps towards the loss of some of our remaining mega-fauna species (rhinos and blue-fin tuna among others); continued degradation of critical habitats (forests and coral reefs in particular); and the record-breaking ice melts, droughts, hurricanes and (maximum) temperatures of last year are just some of the screams of a biosphere under supreme stress. And in the face of these, policy shifts in precisely the wrong direction - the abject failures of Rio and Doha, oil-drilling in the arctic, record-breaking carbon emissions and always the primary focus on the trivial wrangling of wholly preventable, largely inconsequential, short term economic issues (like the current “fiscal cliff” fiasco).

All this must surely indicate a profound lack of appreciation of complex systems and not just an uncaring or selfish attitude (which is, however, undeniable). Marching forward, guessing, but not really understanding the peril – not really, deeply grappling with what life might be like on a changed planet.

And one of the characteristics of complex, resilient systems (like the biosphere) is that a great deal of disturbance can be absorbed by the system with little outward sign of stress. While this may sound like a good thing, it also means that by the time you start to see things going wrong, the system is probably quite close to rapid decline or collapse. So these evident signs of distress are even more disturbing given our biosphere’s resilience, not less so.

It is so easy to be blasé about the fall-out of a stressed planet when supermarkets stock everything we need, and the latest piece of iStuff is our only care or aspiration. So easy to cast our vote on taxes, jobs and prejudice that perhaps it is understandable that we don’t really engage with the difficult, poorly understood, sometimes imprecise and occasionally contested world of science and the environment.

But 2012 was also a year when many of the world’s wealthiest countries realised on quite a wide scale that perhaps life under a changing climate and stressed biosphere might be a little tougher than anticipated. Hurricane Sandy and the severe drought in the mid-west of the USA were perhaps a wake-up call to the wealthy, but perhaps not enough to push people to change? The 350.org disinvestment campaign is the one beacon of light in an otherwise bleak year, and it points us in the right direction.

Unfortunately, in many cases (and here I number soil degradation and biodiversity loss before climate change), we are already in for a bumpy ride globally. And if we have truly given up on limiting climate change to 2° rise this century, then that unholy trifecta is going to cause a lot of misery, the like of which residents of the Jersey Shore have had but a taste.

And so for me, 2013 may be the year that quite a substantial number of people learn that disengaging from the debate is no insulation to its effects; that what you don’t know can, in fact hurt you. And I only hope that this learning leads to the sort of mass action called for in George's review of 2012: Annus Horribilis.