by Beatrice Sigurtà | Jan 26, 2024 | The Urban Media Lab
With the rise in the global average temperature and the effects this has and will increasingly bring on the earth’s climate with serious consequences for society and the economy, the European Union and in particular the European Commission has approved The Green Deal. A package of measures aimed at transforming the European economy in a way that immediately addresses challenges related to climate change, environmental protection and long-term sustainability by identifying priorities and actions. As part of this ambitious process, industry plays a crucial role, accounting for more than 20 percent of the EU economy, and industry is also responsible for emitting 20 percent of all pollutants to air and water and 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. So to reach the ultimate goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 (as written in the Green Deal), changes are needed in all industries, including pharmaceuticals, which must review its production processes to ensure sustainability, preserve the environment, and maintain strong global competitiveness.
Improvements will need to be made in various segments of the new drug development process, with a focus on the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), targeting innovation to achieve environmentally sustainable and climate-neutral processes. In the context of API synthesis, green chemistry has gained more and more ground in recent decades. This approach considers environmental and health factors, with a focus on process sustainability. The move toward greener industrial processes has involved an analysis of the impact of solvents, which make up most of the total mass of a process. The increased use of synthetic procedures based on flow chemistry is a significant step toward greater environmental and energy sustainability in API preparation. Further improvement in the sustainability of production processes could come from mechanochemistry, which involves synthetic procedures conducted without the use or minimal amount of solvent. The latter two techniques are critical to the development and growth of an increasingly sustainable pharmaceutical industry.
Indeed, flow chemistry represents a widely explored technology whose inherent features not only facilitate but also offer reproducible access to a wide range of otherwise inefficient or problematic chemical processes. At its core, a flow chemistry module constitutes a stable set of conditions, traditionally conceived of as an externally applied means of activation or control (e.g., heat or light), through which reactants flow. In an attempt to simplify the teaching approach and popularization of this discipline, we envisioned that the main advantages of this technique, such as reproducibility and correlation between reaction time and position in the reactor, would allow a redefinition of the flow module in more synthetically relevant terms, based on the overall induced effect.
On the other hand, mechanochemistry encompasses the physicochemical transformations promoted by mechanical energy, resulting from phenomena such as compression, shear, impact, extension, and others. Experimentally, these mechanical inputs can be applied to a chemical system through mechanochemical techniques such as manual grinding, mechanical milling, twin-screw extraction, pulsed ultrasonication, and single-molecule force spectroscopy techniques, among others.
It is important to note that although mechanochemical reactions have been known since ancient times and the number of recent studies in the field is steadily growing, mechanochemistry is still considered to be in its early stages when compared with its potential for advancement in chemical synthesis. This potential has been discussed and highlighted in reviews that focus on specific aspects of mechanochemical processes, including, for example, the ability of mechanochemistry to modify established chemical reactivity.
In conclusion, the EU Green Deal is an urgent response to climate change, committing to transform the European economy to address environmental challenges and ensure long-term sustainability. Industry, central to the EU economy, is called upon to play a crucial role in the transformation process. In pharmaceuticals, significant changes are needed to achieve climate neutrality goals by 2050, with a focus on innovative approaches such as green chemistry and flow chemistry technology. In parallel, mechanochemistry offers promising prospects for improving process sustainability. In summary, sustainable innovation in industrial processes is essential to successfully realize the goals of the Green Deal and ensure an environmentally sustainable future for the pharmaceutical industry and the entire European economy.
BIBLIOGRAFIA
K.J. Ardila-Fierro and J.G. Hernández, “Sustainability Assessment of Mechanochemistry by Using the Twelve Principles of Green Chemistry”, ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 2145–216
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/ priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en
Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe, 2020,
https://ec.europa.eu/health/system/ files/2021-02/pharma-strategy_report_en_0.pdf
Guidi, P. H. Seebergerab and K. Gilmore, “How to approach flow chemistry”, Chem. Soc. Rev., ,49, 8910, 2020
Bandiera, “Sostenibilità nell’industria Farmaceutica”, LA CHIMICA E L’INDUSTRIA online, anno vi, 2, 2022
Una nuova strategia industriale per l’Europa. Comunicazione della Commissione al Parlamento Europeo, al Consiglio Europeo, al Consiglio, al Comitato Economico e Sociale Europeo e al Comitato Delle Regioni. COM/2020/102 final, Bruxelles 10.3.2020.
by chiaragentile | Jan 16, 2024 | The Urban Media Lab
Climate litigation haw been growing exponentially before both national and international courts. It mainly addresses state responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions and climate (in)action, as proven by the international data-bases on climate litigation of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Italy itself has not been exonerated by climate cases: after A Sud et al. v. Italy, i.e. the first Italian “climate-case”, brought by an NGO and more than 200 plaintiffs before the civil court of Rome in 2021, other cases have been filed before national judges as well as administrative authorities (for further details, see https://climatecasechart.com/non-us-jurisdiction/italy/). Most recently, climate litigation against Italy has also reached the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others, application no. 39371/20, and two “twin complaints”, Uricchio v. Italy and 31 Others, application no. 14615/21, and De Conto v. Italy and 32 Others, no. 14620/21. The first one was brought by Portuguese youth, whereas the twin complaints were filed by two Italian young citizens. All three of them address more than 30 defendant states, including Italy.
The claimants of Duarte, De Conto and Uricchio argue that the defendants have not implemented proper measures to hinder climate change and contain global warming, as provided by the Paris Agreement of 2015, especially with respect to the obligation to reduce the emissions of GHG. According to them, their physical and mental health, the environment, and the rights of future generations are at risk. Therefore, they claim the violation of Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, Art. 14 ECHR in regard to the discrimination between present and future generations, as well as Article 13 ECHR for the lack of effective remedies at the national level.
As well known, the Paris Agreement of 2015 set the goal of limiting the raise of global temperatures under 2°C, preferably 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. To reach such goal, its Parties are required to adopt mitigation measures, aiming, inter alia, at reducing the emissions of GHG, and adaptation measures, in order to adjust the ecological, social, and economic systems in response to climate change. The Agreement – thus fur signed and ratified by 196 Parties, including Italy and the European Union – is the first international binding instrument to reach almost the whole international community, which contributes to more than 98% of the GHG emissions globally.
In the above mentioned climate litigation pending against Italy, two main issues arise at the procedural level: whether the claimants will be recognized as “victim” under Article 34 ECHR, which implies a sufficiently direct link between the claimants and the alleged violation, and whether the non exhaustion of national remedies under Article 35 ECHR will be considered by the ECtHR as a cause of inadmissibility.
On the merits, Duarte (followed by De Conto and Uricchio) addresses for the first time two issues before the ECtHR: the responsibility of states for their climate (in)action vis-à-vis future generations, and their extraterritorial responsibility for the GHG emissions originating from their territory. With regard to the former, the claimants base their arguments on Article 14 ECHR, which however does not mention the intergenerational principle as a criterion to assess discrimination. The basis for the protection of future generation may nonetheless be found in other provisions: an extensive interpretation has already led the ECtHR to recognize rights not explicitly declared in the ECHR. With regard to the latter issue, in order to establish the responsibility of one (or more) state(s), the violation of human rights must fall under its (or their) jurisdiction pursuant to Article 1 ECHR. According to the case-law of the ECtHR, the general rule is that states exercise jurisdiction on their territory; as an exception, their jurisdiction reaches extraterritorially if they exercise their effective control on the place abroad or on the person(s) addressed by the violation (see Banković and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other States, application no. 52207/99, and Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom, application no. 55721/07). GHG emissions transcend national borders and affect people (and the environment) worldwide, as proven by scientific reports such as the ones from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As a consequence, they potentially impair human rights of people in countries other than the one(s) of origin. However, it is still unclear whether states can be held responsible for the GHG originating from their territory (under their territorial jurisdiction) but whose effects take place beyond it (outside their territorial jurisdiction).
On 27 September 2023 the ECtHR held the hearing of Duarte; Uricchio and De Conto have been adjourned until the Grand Chamber decides the climate litigation already pending before it (i.e. Duarte, Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, application no. 53600/20, and Carême v. France, application no. 7189/21). What seems certain is that the outcome of these three cases will have an impact on Italy and its internal climate litigation, as well as on all the other defendant states and, most likely, the whole international community, which is awaiting the decision of the ECtHR on Duarte. It would be the first time for the ECtHR to address two delicate issues such as the intergenerational responsibility principle and the extraterritoriality of human rights vis-à-vis state climate (in)action.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
H. Keller, C. Heri, The Future is Now: Climate Cases Before the ECtHR, in Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 2022, No. 40.1, pp. 153 ss.
T. Eicke, Climate Change and the Convention: Beyond Admissibility, in ECHRLRev, 2022, No. 3, pp 1 ss.
C. Heri, The ECtHR’s Pending Climate Change Case: What’s Ill-Treatment Got To Do With It?, in EJIL:Talk!, 22 December 2020
Amicus Curiae Brief by D.R. Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, and M.A. Orellana, UN Special Rapporteur on toxics and human rights, available at
Third party intervention by Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, available at
https://bit.ly/3qEvty9, 5 May 2021
by sofiaeliodori | Dec 20, 2023 | The Urban Media Lab
By Dr. Sofia Eliodori
Innovating the European democracies and democratic practices around Europe is considered one of the main challenges to driving our system and values in the XXI century, renewing our institutions, and making them able to face the issues of our times. This task is integral to perpetuating our system and its underlying values, which are foundational to our identity and way of life. A crucial aspect of this innovation involves the revitalization of our institutions, ensuring that they are equipped to address the multifaceted issues that characterize our era (Macq & Jacquet, 2023). These institutions, irrespective of their size, embody a principle of paramount importance: they provide a thread of continuity for governance and legislative frameworks within the dynamic environment of human societies. As our societies continue to evolve, marked by shifts in needs, cultural landscapes, technological advancements, and the collective aspirations of our people, we are confronted with the ephemeral nature of generational change. Despite this constant evolution, there’s a tendency to perceive our institutions as immovable monoliths, bastions of permanence in a sea of change. This perspective underscores a commitment to the idea that continuity and change are dichotomous, and it posits stability as the cornerstone for the enduring success of our institutions. Yet, as we forge ahead, it is imperative that we reassess this viewpoint. During the past years, also thanks to programs like Horizon2020, the European Union has recognized that the vitality of our institutions lies not in their immutability, but in their ability to adapt, to be resilient yet responsive to the progressive cadence of societal transformation. Only by embracing this can we ensure that our democratic structures remain robust and relevant, capable of safeguarding the collective well-being of current and future generations.
Building upon the need for innovation in European democratic practices, the implementation of participatory and deliberative tools has been recognized as an antidote to the growing disengagement of citizens from political institutions and the democratic process. These tools serve a dual purpose: they not only rekindle the public’s interest in democracy by fostering involvement at the grassroots level within their communities and neighborhoods, but they also act as a cohesive force, bridging the divide created by disaffection. The rationale for these initiatives is straightforward yet profound: by encouraging citizens to partake in the decision-making processes that directly affect their lives, we are essentially inviting them to take ownership of their democratic rights and responsibilities. This approach is expected to counteract the sentiments of alienation that often lead to populist movements, which thrive on polarization and disenchantment. By involving people in the governance of their communities and the stewardship of commons, in the minds of promoters, these tools offer a tangible ‘reality check’ that underscores the impact of collective action. This, in turn, can prompt a renewed sense of solidarity and mutual respect among citizens, promoting civic pacification through compromise and collaborative problem-solving (Fischer, 2006).
Having accepted these premises, the problem now turns to the ‘how to’ do it, and that’s when the analyses of participatory and deliberative tools intervene. The first peculiar characteristic of participatory and deliberative democracy tools is that they can be placed at different moments of the policy cycle. When local governments are involved or frequently are the actors that boost a certain participatory process, we can see the choice of a specific participatory tool as the beginning of the process while it is actually already placed at some specific point in policy formulation. In addressing any given issue or problem through a participatory or deliberative approach, one must acknowledge the impossibility of completely extricating politics from policy. The desire for solutions that are technical, objective, and rational is understandable, yet recognizing the political nature (‘politicità’) of policy can greatly simplify and elucidate the policy formulation journey, challenging the populist notion of a mechanical and managerial approach to democracy. Despite the positive connotations traditionally associated with ‘democratic,’ the term ‘political’ has, paradoxically, acquired a pejorative undertone, often being obscured in the context of policy-making. This sentiment is especially pronounced in the realm of participatory and deliberative tools, which aim to foster community involvement, enhance citizen representation, and bolster inclusivity and diversity in the policy-making process. Contrary to the trend of veiling the political aspects, policymakers and practitioners ought to embrace this intrinsic characteristic of democracy. Such a perspective acknowledges that democracy thrives on the confluence of varying actors and interests, all converging to devise solutions that reflect the collective will and advance the common good.
The initial objective of a public administration and local government seeking to start a participatory process through a participatory or deliberative tool can vary but is frequently connected to the necessity of consensus building, collecting information on a particular problem, consolidating agreement on policy options, and doing community engagement to assess the success of the policy initiative. Forms of participative and deliberative democracy are therefore intended frequently as complementary to traditional forms of governance (Turpenny, Jordan, Benson, & Rayaner, 2015). Considering the enormous amount of variables in the social, juridical, economic, political, and cultural landscape of real-life societies placed in European cities and villages, the adaptation of a specific participatory or deliberative tool in a specific context is crucial for its success: a tool that was effective and extremely positive change-making in one place can be totally useless or even damaging in another context. The risk analysis of how a tool can be detrimental in a particular context goes from the waste of economic and human resources to the balkanization of society and public interest, to the disruption of the trust relationship between citizens and institutions, but also to unfitting and improper policy formulation. Therefore, once the tool is selected to pursue determined policy objectives, it is crucial to verify and ensure the financial, technical, and political feasibility of the process (Papdopoulos & Warin, 2007).
During the most recent decades, a great assortment of participatory and deliberative tools and approaches emerged, promising to bring change at various levels of governance (Geissel, Michels, N., Schauman, & Grönlund, 2023). Some of these tools exist to suggest the idea that there can be ‘ready to use’ solutions to complex problems, while it is important to stress that democracy is a process: once embarked on it, we might know where we want to go but not know where we will arrive.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bibliography
Fischer, F. (2006, March). Participatory Governance as Deliberative Empowerment: The Cultural Politics of Discursive Space. American review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19-40.
Geissel, B., Michels, A., N., S., Schauman, J., & Grönlund, K. (2023). Public Deliberation or Popular Votes? Measuring the Performance of Different Types of Participatory Democracy. Representation, 59(4), 573-595.
Macq, H., & Jacquet, V. (2023). Institutionalising participatory and deliberative procedures: The origins of the first permanent citizens’ assembly. European Journal of political Research, 62, 156-173.
Papdopoulos, Y., & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political research, 46, 445-472.
Turpenny, Jordan, Benson, & Rayaner. (2015). The Tools of Policy Formulation: An Introduction. (A. J. Jordan, & J. R. Turpenny, A cura di) Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar publishing.
by edoardomollo | Dec 13, 2023 | The Urban Media Lab
Introduction
Blockchain is a revolutionary technology that has transformed several industries, including financial transactions, supply chain management, healthcare, electronic voting systems and even the sustainable energy sector. Blockchain is essentially a decentralized and immutable digital ledger, which records transactions transparently and securely. Unlike traditional databases, which are centralized and managed by a central authority, blockchain is distributed across a network of computers (nodes) that work together to verify and record transactions. Each block of data is cryptographically linked to the previous one, forming a chain of blocks, hence the name “blockchain”. This structure makes it extremely difficult to alter existing data, ensuring the integrity and security of the information. In recent years it has been clear how the concept of blockchain is playing an increasingly important role in the field of sustainability. An example could be green cryptocurrencies. These are cryptocurrencies or digital assets that have been created or designed with the specific goal of being environmentally sustainable. This category of cryptocurrencies focuses on aspects such as energy efficiency, reduction of carbon emissions and global environmental impact, in response to growing concerns regarding the intensive use of electricity associated with the mining and operation of cryptocurrencies. However, the most relevant example in the field of sustainability are the so called “Smart contracts” or programs that run autonomously according to transactions when certain conditions are respected.
Blockchain
The blockchain technology stands as a groundbreaking innovation, revolutionizing various facets of computing, economics, and society. It represents an inventive solution with the potential to reshape multiple industries, enhancing security, transparency, and efficiency in both transactions and processes. Its adoption continues to surge across diverse sectors, ushering in fresh prospects and complexities for technological progress.
Key attributes of blockchain include:
Decentralization: In stark contrast to centralized databases overseen by a singular authority, blockchain operates across a distributed network of computers (nodes), collaborating to validate and record transactions. This decentralization eliminates the necessity for a central governing body.
Immutability: Once information is securely inscribed within a block and incorporated into the blockchain, it attains a state of immutability. This means that it cannot be modified or eradicated without the consensus of a majority of network participants.
Security: Blockchain employs cryptographic techniques to safeguard transactions and data, rendering it highly secure and resistant to manipulation.
Transparency: All transactions conducted on the blockchain are observable by every participant in the network. This transparency serves as a bulwark against fraud and manipulation.
Smart contract
Smart contracts, or intelligent contracts, represent one of the most exciting innovations in blockchain technology, and their sustainability implications are equally interesting. These automated contracts allow agreements and transactions to be executed autonomously and transparently, eliminating the need for intermediaries and ensuring the immutability and security of operations. A question arises spontaneously: how can smart contracts contribute to greater sustainability? Smart contracts can improve efficiency across multiple industries by reducing resource consumption and associated costs. An example can be found in the supply chain management sector where these contracts can automate the monitoring and recording of product origin, helping to reduce waste and prevent fraud. All of this promotes sustainability through better management of resources and the promotion of greener products and services. This form of contracts can be used, for example, in the energy sector for the management of renewable energy sources. These contracts can automate the production, distribution and sale of energy from sustainable sources, helping to reduce the use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions. In this way, smart contracts play a key role in the transition to a more sustainable future. Carbon markets are another area where smart contracts can promote sustainability as they can monitor and verify carbon emissions and enable the trading of carbon credits in a transparent and efficient manner. This creates incentives for businesses to reduce their emissions, contributing to climate change mitigation efforts. Another important aspect is traceability and responsibility. In fact, they allow information on the origin of products to be recorded in a secure and immutable way, ensuring that they are produced in a sustainable way and this transparency can push companies to adopt more environmentally friendly and responsible practices. It should be underlined that, despite the positive potential of smart contracts in the field of sustainability, there are also challenges to face. The growing adoption of blockchain and smart contracts has raised concerns about the energy use associated with extracting and validating transactions, especially in cases where energy-intensive consensus algorithms such as Proof of Work (PoW) are used and therefore the need arises to develop more energy-efficient consensus algorithms. Smart contracts represent a powerful lever to promote sustainability in various sectors by automating processes, increasing transparency, improving efficiency and creating incentives to adopt more sustainable practices.
Conclusion
We can therefore say that smart contracts represent a significant step towards a more sustainable future, with the power of blockchain technology redefining our view of transactions and agreements. Albert Einstein’s words seem more relevant than ever: “Crisis is the best thing that can happen to people and entire countries because it is precisely the crisis that brings progress.” The emergence of smart contracts use and their integration into the sustainability space are a concrete example of how challenges can be transformed into opportunities, helping to improve efficiency, transparency and accountability in various sectors. Using this technology to track, validate and automate sustainable transactions paves the way for greater environmental and social responsibility. However, it is essential to remain vigilant and address the challenges inherent to energy consumption and large-scale adoption. With a constant commitment to optimization and innovation, smart contracts can become a key pillar in promoting global sustainability, helping to create a future in which technology serves not only economic interests, but also the common good of our planet and future generations.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Bibliography
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2018/05/26/an-introduction-to-smart-contracts-and-their-potential-and-inherent-limitations/
https://www.consob.it/web/investor-education/criptovalute
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9979138/
by Manohar Patole | Nov 27, 2023 | The Urban Media Lab
Urban affordability is an issue cities all over the world grapple with. Emerging from first the foreclosure crisis in 2008 and now COVID-19, many cities are facing an ongoing and more severe problem: the lack of quality affordable housing. Compounded by unemployment, structural inequity and inequality, and evictions, many political and community leaders are looking toward alternative approaches to housing in urban areas. In response, the concepts around varios community ownership models have emerged as a transformative strategy to advance an equitable recovery. The Plank Road Community Land Bank and Trust is a novel institution developed by Professors Sheila Foster & Clayton Gillette, along with Project Manager Manny Patole that focuses on co-creation and co-governance of local community assets to facilitate community-driven economic development. The growing work around alternative equity models for affordable housing provide cities a new opportunity.
CCBR commenced its collaboration with BBR as a key partner in the Imagine Plank Road master planning project in Spring 2019. As an integral part of the planning team, we played a crucial role in facilitating extensive community and stakeholder consultations, extracting foundational values that would guide the development of Plank Road. These insights not only shaped the plan’s benchmarks but also influenced specific catalytic development projects. The planning team prioritized engagement with residents, businesses, and essential stakeholders, employing various channels such as surveys, immersive in-person events like a food truck roundup and street festival, a community roundtable, and collaboration with trained community ambassadors. The culmination of these efforts was presented in a community town hall at Southern University in November 2019, drawing a substantial audience, both in-person and remotely. Despite the challenges posed by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, there was a silver lining: Build Baton Rouge secured a $5 million JPMorgan Chase 2020 AdvancingCities grant in October 2020. This marked a significant milestone for the Plank Road master plan’s implementation. Collaborating with TruFund Financial, Metromorphosis, and the Co-City Baton Rouge Project, Build Baton Rouge aims to utilize these funds for programs that combat blight, foster small business growth, and preserve housing affordability in North Baton Rouge.
Building on the work of Center for Community Progress and Grounded Solutions and many organizations globally, CCBR wanted to provide a unique approach to the message echoed throughout the master planning process: we need affordable space and place. Many wanted affordable housing but it didn’t stop there… they wanted a more comprehensive solution that would provide additional assets that make a house part of a community. Things like parks, sidewalks, small businesses, better infrastructure, and overall agency on what that looks like. CCBR set forth on creating something new and something different that would encapsulate these ideas. That became the Plank Road Community Land Bank and Trust. To understand the PR CLBT first you should understand what is a land bank, a land trust, and how this is a first of its kind.
The shared equity model is a housing approach that aims to increase access to affordable homeownership by allowing multiple stakeholders, such as individuals, nonprofit organizations, and government entities, to collectively invest in and share the equity of a property. This model typically involves a partnership between a homebuyer and a housing provider, where the home buyer purchases a portion of the equity in a home while the housing provider retains ownership of the remaining portion. As the property appreciates in value, the homebuyer and the housing provider share the equity gains proportionally based on their initial investment percentages. Shared equity models often incorporate mechanisms to ensure long-term affordability, such as resale restrictions or buyback options, thereby preserving the affordability of the property for future buyers and promoting sustainable homeownership opportunities for individuals with lower incomes. A land bank and a community land trust are leveraged in shared equity models to in real estate and urban development build up quality affordable housing but they serve different purposes and operate under different structures.
Generally speaking, a land bank is a governmental or nonprofit entity that acquires, manages, and repurposes vacant, abandoned, or tax-delinquent properties for future development or community revitalization. Land banks typically focus on acquiring and holding properties for strategic purposes, such as eliminating blight, promoting affordable housing, or supporting economic development initiatives. They often work closely with local governments and community stakeholders to identify and prioritize properties for acquisition, redevelopment, or reuse. They may also collaborate with developers, nonprofits, and community organizations to implement revitalization projects that align with the community’s long-term goals and vision for the area.
Community Land Trust (CLT) however, is a community land trust is a nonprofit organization that acquires and holds land in a trust for the benefit of the community. The primary goal of a community land trust is to ensure long-term affordable housing and community development by separating the ownership of land from the ownership of the structures built on the land. In a CLT, residents or tenants typically own the structures (such as houses or buildings) on the land, while the trust retains ownership of the land itself. This model allows for the creation and preservation of permanently affordable housing, as the trust can control the resale and leasing of the land to maintain affordability for future residents.
Land banks and CLTs are often perceived as antithetical tools that may not work or compliment each other. Ironically, these two entities are sometimes conflated as one and the same. Neither perception, however, reflects reality. After the 2008 foreclosure crisis, the Center for Community Progress (US convening authority on land banks) and Grounded Solutions Network (US convening authority on CLTs) saw an opportunity to educate the public on the differences between the two as well as how these entities can coordinate to optimize equitable development outcomes. (For additional information, see the National Land Bank and CLT Map) Taking it a step further beyond the two entities having institutional agreements, a community land bank and trust is a hybrid approach that combines elements of both a land bank and a community land trust. This model integrates the strategies of acquiring, holding, and managing land, as well as promoting long-term affordability and community development. It aims to address a range of community needs, including affordable housing, sustainable development, and the revitalization of distressed or underutilized properties within a locality.
The Plank Road CLBT it operates as a nonprofit organization that collaborates with local governments, community stakeholders, and residents to acquire and manage land for various community purposes. It may acquire vacant, abandoned, or tax-delinquent properties with the aim of repurposing them for affordable housing, community gardens, parks, or other public amenities. The PR CLBT (working) mission is to Contribute to the revitalization of the Plank Road community by putting vacant properties, vacant land, and tax-delinquent properties …back into productive use in a manner that promotes neighborhood stabilization and anti-displacement of existing residents.
The development of the institutional design, articles of incorporation, bylaws, operating documents, model land leases and budgeting is and on-going, multi-pronged approach that integrates legal scholarship, interviews with subject matter experts, and desk research to understand industry best practices and challenges in key areas: Institutional Leadership, Operating Processes and Procedures, Composition and Integration of the Community Advisory Board, Strategic Roadmap, and Timeline. The process yielded great information that aided the development of the PR CLBT.
The complexities arising from the amalgamation of Napoleonic, Common Law, and Civil Law codes have introduced an unexpected challenge in the clearance of property titles. Specifically, the timing and conditions for the initiation of prescription on these properties pose a notable hurdle. In essence, the countdown for these VAD properties only commences when the property is in the possession of a non-state entity. However, it’s important to note that only entities sanctioned by the state are permitted to function as a land bank, and no independent entity can serve as one. Consequently, the PR CLBT acts as the required non-state entity, triggering the commencement of the countdown. This allows us to initiate the title-clearing process.
As of October 2023 the PR CLBT is a fully incorporated 501(c)(3) with an interim board, established articles of incorporation and bylaws. Looking ahead to the first quarter of 2024 the PR CLBT is researching innovative financing options and processes that will attract real estate developers to this work and researching land leases that incorporate the values and innovative design of the PR CLBT. The PR CLBT and its local institutional partners will also convene its first Community Advisory Board to review the PR CLBT processes and procedures as well as the plans of the institution for the next six to 12 months.
The PR CLBT should be seen as a new tool in the toolbox of cities experiencing similar issues to Baton Rouge: to serve as a comprehensive mechanism for promoting community-driven development, fostering affordable housing initiatives, and addressing various social and economic challenges within a specific locality. By combining the strengths of both land banks and community land trusts, this model aims to create sustainable and inclusive communities while ensuring the responsible management and use of land resources for the benefit of the residents.
by marijanakrstic | Nov 9, 2023 | The Urban Media Lab
By Marijana Krstić
Water shapes every facet of our world: it is essential part of life we use daily – life giving, and sometimes a brutal force of nature – contested and destructive. As a shared resource, it could both unite and divide us. Management of this precious Earth resource can be multifaced, as this element itself.
In the face of pressing global challenges, the issue of water scarcity and its impact on communities and economies cannot be overstated. The alarming statistics of billions of people lacking access to safe water supplies, coupled with the dire consequences of climatic disasters, rapid urbanization, and aging infrastructures, underscore the urgency for effective water governance mechanisms. The year 2021 witnessed[1] 2.2 billion people without access to safely managed water supplies, emphasizing the critical need for comprehensive strategies to ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all. Additionally, the detrimental effects of water scarcity are not limited to humanitarian concerns, they extend to economic dimensions, with significant anticipation of $5.6 trillion reduction in global GDP. Water demand is projected to increase by 55% by 2050. Alarmingly, over 80% of wastewater is released back into the environment without being recycled or treated and about 40% of the world’s population lacks access to sufficient water to meet their needs.
There is undoubtedly the urgent need for effective implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 (SDG 6): “Clean Water and Sanitation”[2] of the established UN 2030 Agenda, which covers eight targets pertaining to the social (equitable access), economic (integrated water resources management), and environmental (protect and restore water-related ecosystems) elements of sustainable development, with their 10 indicators.
Amidst these challenges, there is a growing recognition that diverse governance models of water utilities are instrumental in achieving sustainable water management. The dynamic interplay between operational activities within water utilities and the broader water governance framework presents an intricate web of interactions, including structures, processes, and traditions. These interactions not only shape the way authority is exercised and decisions are made but also determine how citizens and stakeholders are engaged in the decision-making process.
Therefore, by investigating the role of water utilities as those who provide water services worldwide, and by identifying novel and sustainable governance models, based on unique corporate governance dynamics, this article underscores the evolution of sustainable governance in water utilities sector, emphasizing the existing transition from a State-centric-hierarchical approach to Problem-solving model of “good” governance characterized by transparency, accountability, broad participation, decentralization, and deliberation.
This shift is guided by the evolution of EU Laws, including Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)[1], the emergence of ESG[2] within the United Nations and directives such as: the Non-Financial Report Directive, The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, proposed Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence, and EU Taxonomy.
Moreover, this article highlights that not only the long-standing debate on public versus private management of water resources is enough, and proposes the new and more sustainable governance debate, hence sustainable water management within the ESG framework (“E of ESG”). This innovative approach to so called sustainable governance would consider not only the Governance materiality issue (“G” of ESG), as it derives from mainstream literature, but would reevaluate it, firstly, by redesigning corporate governance practices of water utilities, defined by its : ownership structures, shareholder/stakeholder rights, transparency, accountability, board structure, voting procedures, anti-takeover measures, executive compensation schemes, profitability aims, and then secondly, by bringing it together with redesigned Social materiality issue (“S” of ESG) in the context of community-consumer-based relations within water utilities.
Therefore, drawing from theories such as “the corporation as a commons” and urban commons studies, the article proposes Co-governance model for water utilities, asking a question if there is a room for reconceptualising water utilities` corporate structures as commons, and for rethinking property rights, towards more efficiency in securing a sustainable management of water. Would these novel and improved forms of governance of water utilities may be possible if the idea of corporate ownership would have been redesigned as a common and could those help execute and accomplish sustainable use of water and contribute to preventing water scarcity and water pollution.
Moreover, could consumer-owned water utilities help closing the existing gap of water service providers and supplement publicly-owned or/and privately-owned water utilities, towards accounting for SDG 6 implementation and reaching the emerging ESG performance objectives. The water utility’s ownership proved to be crucial factor, since it determines how much is consumer`s participation in governance and management acceptable and this participation makes direct contributions to achieving long termism. The idea of viewing customers as partners in private utilities helps developing a feeling of ownership and dedication.
Clearly, the water debate leaves a lot of space for innovating water governance, which means applying our knowledge to assure the correct priorities at the right time and support wise decision-making by contextualizing solutions which encourage transparency and accountability, and by demonstrating forward-thinking and long-term planning capacity-building initiatives to all water stakeholders through collaborative partnerships.
__________________________________________________________________________
[1] Contributing to the UN Sustainable Development Goals with ISO standards (2023). doi: https://www.iso.org/home.html.
[2] Goal 6 Targets and Indicators | Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2023) United Nations. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal6
[3] Intersection between S and G. “Policymakers must decide whether companies must meet their obligations to prevent, identify, manage, and mitigate any potential negative impact on society (and thus human rights, health, the environment, and so on), including impacts produced along their global supply chain. This is referred to as ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR), which we use as a synonym for ‘responsible business behaviour’ (RBC).” – Noti, K., Mucciarelli, F. M., Angelici, C., Dalla Pozza, V., & Pillinini, M. (2020). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its implementation into EU Company law. European Parliament.
[4] The “E” in ESG stands for environmental factors. This includes evaluating a company’s environmental impact, such as its carbon footprint, energy usage, waste management, pollution, resource conservation, and attempts to mitigate climate change. Environmental concerns also include biodiversity, deforestation, water management, and the use of renewable energy.
The “G” in ESG stands for governance factors. The systems, processes, and structures that influence how a firm is managed, directed, and controlled are referred to as governance. It entails assessing the company’s leadership, board structure, executive compensation, transparency, ethics, risk management, legal and regulatory compliance, shareholder rights, and overall accountability. Good governance guarantees that a business is handled in a responsible, ethical, and transparent manner.
The “S” in ESG stands for social factors. This focuses on assessing a company’s societal and stakeholder impact. Labor practices, human rights, employee welfare and diversity, community participation, consumer protection, supply chain ethics, product safety, and customer pleasure are examples of social elements. It also entails assessing a company’s contributions to societal concerns and long-term development.
Bibliography:
- Krstić M. MSc Thesis on “Sustainable governance in the water utilities sector. Shades of Blue S.r.l. as a way to improve the ESG “. Graduated from Luiss Guido Carli University, Department of Law, MSc in Law, Digital Innovation and Sustainability Rome, Italy, October 17th, 2023.
- Deakin, S. (2011). The corporation as commons: rethinking property rights, governance, and sustainability in the business enterprise. Queen’s LJ, 37, 339.
- Foster, S.R. and Iaione, C. (2022) Co-cities: innovative transitions toward just and self-sustaining communities. Cambridge, Massachusetts London: The MIT Press (Urban and industrial environments
- Pollman, E. (2022). The making and meaning of ESG. U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper
- Kocmanova, A., Nemecek, P., & Docekalova, M. (2012). Environmental, social and governance (ESG) key performance indicators for sustainable reporting. In The 7th International Scientific Conference
- Moslein, F. and Sorensen, K.E., 2017. Nudging for corporate long-termism and sustainability? Regulatory instruments from a comparative and functional perspective. Colum. J. Eur. L.
- Adams, E.A., Zulu, L. and Ouellette‐Kray, Q., 2020. Community water governance for urban water security in the Global South: Status, lessons, and prospects. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water
