Comparative Urban Commoning

Comparative Urban Commoning

U!REKA Lab

In 2016 five European universities of applied sciences, located in Frankfurt, Ghent, Edinburgh, Oslo and Amsterdam, set up the U!REKA consortium. In 2020 partners from Lisbon and Ostrava joined Universities involved in the U!REKA Lab: Urban Commons are Frankfurt Hochschule, Metropolia (Helsinki), Hogeschool Gent, and Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Ostrava and Lisbon will join soon. More information on U!REKA: www.ureka.eu.

The universities partner in various ways to educate, shape and empower the European professionals of tomorrow. One of the key elements within this network is the joint program U!REKA Lab: Urban Commons, which kicked off its online curriculum at the beginning of this year.

In search of an actual, relevant and interdisciplinary topic that would ‘fit’ and ‘make a difference’ in all the U!REKA partner cities, the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS) suggested Urban Commons as the main theme. Amsterdam has had the privilege of hosting Christian Iaione and Sheila Foster several times and several urban professionals, including myself, got inspired by their work. Other cities, except for Ghent (Bauwens, 2017), were not yet familiar with the term Urban Commons. This of course does not mean that they do not have commoning initiatives.

The U!REKA cities are united in searching for (new) answers to complex and persistent challenges, like poverty, mobility, housing, energy, and so on. To deal with these challenges, they create innovation hubs, transition grounds and democratic renewal spaces. But, how do we keep our cities and neighborhoods livable in a situation of growing economic polarization and social fragmentation and how do we create a transition towards a truly democratic and sustainable society? (Majoor, et al., 2017; Raworth, 2017).

Behind these challenges is an underlying governance question: what kinds of arrangements are needed to ‘guide’ these transitions? In most cities, like the U!reka ones, there is a growing interest in (and practice of) new forms of governance that aim to work from the principle of common ownership. A shared community garden, a local car-sharing program, a program of local neighborhood assistance, a local currency, etc. How are they organized? What kind of values will be added to the community and place, when a more collaborative governance is introduced? How does this kind of cooperation support the societal and ecological transitions and foster the Sustainable Development Goals?

Common goal

In the U!REKA Lab: Urban Commons, we want to find out how Urban Commons manifest themselves in the different cities. We will not only identify, study and critically assess these initiatives in the context of changing economic, social and political settings, we also aim to create co-learning between these practices to optimize their performance. An important perspective is for example how these initiatives are connected to, or interfere with, existing local and national government and market regulations.

For the U!REKA universities, this forwarding international cooperation and the exploration of new e-learning methods help to contribute to the important political, cultural and economic role of the practice-oriented universities in the respective cities and countries.

What happens in the lab?

Since the concept of the common applies to many sectors and issues, the U!REKA Lab has decided to integrate it into already existing courses from participating lecturers, ranging from social work to art, urban governance, urban planning and housing, on both Bachelor and Master level. In this way, students not only learn more about Urban Commons, but they also experience how it appears in other fields and disciplines and develop new interdisciplinary perspectives.

The lab is set up in two interlinked streams: education and research. The education aspect consists of interdisciplinary blended learning through screencasts from each university of applied sciences and online forums. Each screencast consists of a few fixed components, including basic commons theory, an introduction of the city, university and course, local policy on citizens’ initiatives, and a showcase of a local initiative.)

The research aspect focuses on joint assignments and projects by students and researchers to study and compare local initiatives in the participating cities. Since the U!REKA Lab is a university-based initiative we want to focus on the role of knowledge institutions in the development of Urban Commons and our future cities. As universities, we can not only do research on urban commons and co-creation, we can also play a role in initiating, facilitating and monitoring these practices. Also, we can train our students, the future (urban) professionals, on co-ownership, sharing and collaborative governance and educate experts in this new sustainable and truly democratic form of collaborative governance.

The results of this year U!REKA were presented during the digital U!RCommons Day, which was attended by 70 students from our universities. Part of the program was a presentation of student’s field research. These videos were also shown in the Forum of the Deutsche Werkbund in Frankfurt (summer 2020) and in November will be part of a virtual exhibition during the U!REKA Annual Meeting.

The U!REKA Lab: Urban Commons will continue its approach of co-learning, co-teaching and co-researching  and expand with more transnational partners and online exchanges between students, lecturers and researchers on different aspects of the Urban Commons. Looking forward, the project team is participating in the Erasmus+ virtual exchange advanced training course to gain the skills needed to further develop the program and preparing a U!REKA Summer School on Urban Commons in 2021 in Frankfurt.

Literature list

Bauwens, Michel, A Commons Transition Plan for the city of Ghent, 2017. https://commonstransition.org/commons-transition-plan-city-ghent/

Foster, Sheila, Iaione, Christian (2016) ‘The city as a commons’ in: Yale Law & Policy Review vol. 34 (2).

Majoor, Stan, Morel, Marie (eds) (2017) Lab Amsterdam. Working, Learning, Reflections. Thoth Publishers: Bussum.

Ostrom, Elinor (1990) Governing the commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action,Cambridge University Press.

Raworth, Kate, The Doughnut Economics. Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (Random House UK, 2017)

www.sustainabledevelopment.un.org

www.U!reka.eu

www.urekalab.com

SensJus: Citizen sensing as a source of evidence in litigation and as a tool for environmental mediation

SensJus: Citizen sensing as a source of evidence in litigation and as a tool for environmental mediation

Since June 2020 the SensJus project’s website is online! 

You can find the website at this link https://sensingforjustice.webnode.it/

SansJus stands for “Sensing for Justice”. The project was born after a landmark court decision released in Texas, on June 27th 2019, in which a judge found the petrochemical company Formosa Plastics Corporation, liable for violating the Clean Water Act because of plastic discharge into local waters. The case was brought by a civic group based in part on citizen sensed-evidence which involved volunteer observations performed over years. This practice entailing grassroots-driven environmental monitoring could be qualified as ‘Citizen Science’ and, more specifically, ‘Citizen Sensing’. The contamination could not be proved through existing data held by competent authorities since the company never filed any record of pollution with the competent authority. Rather, the monitoring and data collection was almost entirely conducted by local residents. 

The key objective of the Sensing for Justice project is to fill the knowledge gap to avoid a possible scientific and legislative vacuum and provide newly required research capacity in the EU. The research will be hosted by the European Commission Joint Research Centre, currently the leading actor in the research on Citizen Science for environmental monitoring and reporting, which will allow us to play a crucial role in the enactment of measures to release Citizen Science for litigation and mediation’s potential across the EU.

Nowadays it is essential to redefine Citizen Sensing as a manifestation of the broader Citizen Science practice having a potential source of evidence acceptable in environmental litigation, as an exercise of the right to contribute to environmental information and even as a method to foster environmental mediation.

Give a look to SensJus website to discover the news and upcoming actions of the project!

https://sensingforjustice.webnode.it/project-news/

Urban Science for City Challenges – City Science Initiative

Urban Science for City Challenges – City Science Initiative

The City Science Initiative aims to strengthen how science and research can help address the urban challenges and to develop a structured approach to evidence-informed policy-making at cities’ level. 

Recently, the report reflecting on the CSI pilot phase has been finalized and published, by the name of ‘City Science for Urban Challenges’. The report of the mission board for climate-neutral and smart cities is accessible through this link.

“The introduction of a Climate City Mission is a radical new way of achieving climate neutrality – and of doing so faster, by 2030. The Mission aims to promote system innovation across the value chain of city investment, targeting multiple sectors such as governance, transport, energy, construction and recycling, with support from powerful digital technologies. As such, it requires a change in regulations, approaches and instruments combined with the willingness to go beyond existing schemes and habits. The Mission also demands a change of attitude towards practical aspects of implementation, but also as concerns people and organisations working together: citizens, local governments, central and regional governments, and European institutions. We expect citizens, city administrations and political leaders to show commitment, imagination and determination. We expect you to implement this Mission with the same determination as the Americans did with their Moonshot. The climate minded transformation of cities goes far beyond the idea of the Man on the Moon. This is The Mission of our times!” (Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz, Chair of the Mission Board for Climate Neutral and Smart Cities)

Emerging urban food governance: the case of London

Emerging urban food governance: the case of London

Food policy has not usually represented a mainstream domain for urban planning. However, as Professor Kevin Morgan argued now ten years ago, this “puzzling omission” is not justifiable anymore given the multifunctional character of the food system with his effects on different policy sectors and the now recognized belief that it cannot be automatically relegated to the rural policy domain (2010: 341). Accordingly, Thomas Forster et Al. collected best practices from cities around the world to demonstrate the breadth of food policy and programmatic work that is occurring in urban areas, proposing a wide range of solutions for Mayors (2015). Their collection of policy solutions showed how “cities are moving towards an integrated approach to food systems and there are wide interest and experimentation in inter-departmental institutional mechanisms” (Forster et Al. 2015:17)

London Mayor Sadiq Khan buying food in a London Market (source Sustain)

In this context, the city of London shows a complex governance system (Travers 2002: 787) which at a first sight does not seem to leave much space to food policy. Thus, London has a two-tier structure with 32 boroughs plus the City of London representing local interests and the Greater London Authority (GLA), consisting of the Mayor and the Assembly, in charge of the London region (Travers 2018: 340). The London boroughs are responsible for local services delivery. In terms of policy competences, they run social care, environmental policies, road management, public health, social housing, waste management and they can supervise local schools (Travers 2018: 348). Whilst the Mayor establishes the strategic framework for the boroughs and the London plan, he also holds executive powers over transport – chairing the executive board of Transport for London – policing, fire, emergency services, London’s growth and economy. He even has a shared competence in housing and regeneration policy (Burdett and Rode 2015). By contrast, food policy in the UK appears fragmented amongst different policy sectors and layers. In particular, the multilevel nature of the food sector led food to be considered a “wicked issue” for policymaking and apparently unable to fit the policy system (Parsons, Barling and Lang 2018: 212). Consequently, an evident policy opportunity emerged for urban food policy, with the city of London experimenting new policy structures and promoting policy change.  

In the last years, the city of London has strengthened its commitment to food policy. The increased powers of the Mayor and the GLA enabled them to find new policy opportunities and address relevant issues for the capital, even in absence of strategic responsibilities. And food is one of these cases. Indeed, the Mayor and the GLA “consult widely and work closely with London organizations – boroughs, the private sector and voluntary bodies, in a new inclusive style of politics” (Pilgrim 2006: 226). Moreover, the Mayor has to enhance residents’ health and wellbeing, by also promoting social and economic development (Halliday and Barling 2018: 186). Hence, food policymaking can be enlisted within this duty. However, the creativity of Mayors in using their powers (Blick and Dunleavy 2017: 4) explicitly manifested concerning food. In fact, the current Mayor Sadiq Khan promoted a very interventionist policy campaign banning junk food advertisements from Transport for London, relying on its strategic direction over transport policy (Hawkes and Parsons 2019: 5). This policy action was firstly developed on-the-ground knowledge released by London boroughs (Hawkes and Parsons 2019: 5) and it showed how the complexity of London governance provides several policy opportunities encouraging the emergence of a complex urban food governance system. Additionally, the current London Plan provides support for food growing, local food production, encourages food waste management, aims to improve Londoners’ access to quality and healthy food (GLA 2016). Moreover, the plan intends to tackle food poverty by increasing the provision of land for food growing in London (GLA 2016: 323). Finally, it calls for the implementation of a new London Food Strategy (GLA 2016: 323). This strategy exemplifies the pan London commitment to food policymaking. The most recent – promoted by Mayor Sadiq Khan – was finally approved in 2018 (Hawkes and Parsons 2019: 4). It openly aims to guarantee that “all Londoners have access to healthy and sustainable food” (GLA 2018: 9) and “highlights how food is connected to everything we do as a society: it affects the environment, it drives our economy, affects our health and it is a central part of our cultural life” (GLA 2018: 7). Among its policy objectives, it differs from past food strategies in its promises to “tackle food poverty, child obesity and unhealthy food environments” (Hawkes and Parsons 2019: 4).

The implementation of the London Food Strategy has been supported by the London Food Programme, which is part of the GLA Regeneration and Economic Development Policy Unit. The Food Programme team also cooperates with food partners in the private, public and third sectors to deliver and monitor a wide range of projects which may concern public health, social welfare and environmental policy issues. It also works closely with the London Food Board. The board counsels the Mayor on food priorities for London and it is composed of experts from academia, the third and the private sector. Finally, London boroughs’ voice is heard through the Borough Food Sub-Group of the London Food Board (BFSG), which is primarily composed of officials from London boroughs’ public health teams (Hawkes and Parsons 2019: 5). It aims to strengthen the relationship between the GLA and London boroughs as regards food policymaking and reduce policy fragmentation. Since the Mayor has limited powers on food-related issues and boroughs have no obligation to follow his recommendations, the subgroup offers a more democratic arena for discussion (Halliday and Barling 2018). Moreover, the London Food Programme works in partnership with Sustain, an alliance of food and farming organizations, which supports London boroughs developing Food Poverty Action Plans (GLA n.d.). Sustain also releases every year the report “Beyond the Food Bank” to assess boroughs’ signs of progress in meeting food objectives over the year. The report shares every year what each London borough is doing on food to generate positive competition among each other. 

In this context, London Boroughs – like other local authorities in the UK – have a wide range of policy levers to produce long-term food policy change, and address social, economic and environmental issues as well (Marceau 2018: 3). Food Poverty Action Plans represent one of these levers through which local authorities can work with local partners to tackle food poverty at the local level (Marceau 2018: 3). Here, the limited Mayoral powers and resources as regards food policymaking explain how several food policy networks and partnerships emerged, especially in London, to fill the gaps that neither city nor local politics managed to compensate. Thus, a food partnership represents a consortium of organizations, ideally from the public, voluntary, faith and community sectors, who locally commit to working together and tackling food poverty (Sustain 2020). In 2017 around 50 cross-sector food partnerships have been set up in the UK as part of the Sustainable Food Cities movement (Davies 2017: 3). Once established, they are generally constituted by cross-sector bodies. Davies reports that food partnerships may take different shapes, relying on a more formalized or more informal structure. Some are directly housed by public sector organizations and are generally staffed by government’s employees. Others may be staffed and funded by third sector organizations or even fully independent, with minimal available resources and mostly composed by volunteers (Davies 2017: 3).  

Ultimately, the complexity of London’s urban governance represented a fertile environment for food policymaking, especially considering the policy vacuum left by the UK central Government as regards food. Thus, food policies have been recently added to London’s local and city-region agendas. Firstly, the Mayor made food a relevant component of its London Plan and launched the third London Food Strategy. Then, London boroughs started implementing local food policies as food poverty action plans and cooperating with local food partnerships. Evidently, if urban planning neglected food policy for a long time, the case of London shows how an increasing number of local actors from the public, private and third sector have finally recognized the strategic significance of the food system for urban areas and, more in general, of food for communities’ health and wellbeing

References

Blick, A. and Dunleavy, P. (2017), Audit 2017: How democratic is the devolved government of London? London: Democratic Audit UK.

Burdett, R. and Rode, P. (2015), Who runs our cities? How governance structures around the world compare, The Guardian, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/nov/25/who-runs-our-cities-how-governance-structures-around-the-world-compare

Davies, S. (2017), Food Partnership Structures: Stories from Sustainable Food Cities, Sustainable Food Cities, available at: https://www.sustainablefoodplaces.org/Portals/4/Documents/Governance%20and%20Structures%20Guide%20FinalAM.pdf

Forster, T. et Al. (2015), Milan Urban Food Policy Pact: Selected Good Practices from Cities, Utopie/29 Globalizzazione, Milan: Giangiacomo Feltrinelli Foundation.

GLA (2016), The London Plan: the spatial development strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011, available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/the_london_plan_2016_jan_2017_fix.pdf.

GLA (2018), The London Food Strategy, London: Greater London Authority, available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/final_london_food_strategy.pdf

GLA (n.d.), Food Poverty Action Plans , The Greater London Authority, available at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/food/our-projects-food-london/food-poverty-action-plans.

Halliday, J. and Barling D. (2018), The Role and Engagement of Mayors in Local Food Policy, In Rethinking Food Policy: A Fresh Approach to Policy and Practice. London: Centre for Food Policy.

Marceau, A. (2018), Good Policy for Good Food: A toolbox of Local Authority food policy levers, Sustainable Food Cities, available at: https://www.sustainablefoodplaces.org/Portals/4/Documents/Good%20Policy%20for%20Good%20Food%20FINAL.pdf

Morgan, K. (2010), Feeding the City: The Challenges of Urban Food Planning, International Planning Studies, 14: 4, pp. 341-348.

Parsons, K. and Hawkes, C. (2019), Brief 4: Embedding Food in All Policies, In Rethinking Food Policy: A Fresh Approach to Policy and Practice, London: Centre for Food Policy, pp: 1-8.

Parsons, K., Barling, D. and Lang, T. (2018), UK Policymaking Institutions and their implications for integrated Food Policy (Chapter 7), Advances in Food Security and Sustainability, Volume 3, pp. 211-251.

Pilgrim, M. (2006), London Regional Governance and the London Boroughs, Local Government Studies, 32:3, pp.223-238.

Sustain (2020), Help tackle the root causes of food poverty with Food Power, Available at: https://www.sustainweb.org/foodpower/get_involved/

Travers, T. (2002), Decentralization London-style: The GLA and London Governance, Regional Studies, 36:7, pp. 779-788.

Travers, T. (2018), London: government and politics in the boroughs, in Dunleavy, P et al (Eds.), The UK’s Changing Democracy: The 2018 Democratic Audit. London: LSE Press.

XXIII National Congress A.I.D.U “Rethink the city and its right”

XXIII National Congress A.I.D.U “Rethink the city and its right”

“Urban Experimentalism and the relationship between Science, Innovation and Cities”

Tomorrow on October 2nd, there will be the 23rd national congress of A.I.D.U. “Ripensare la città e il suo diritto” (Rethink the city and its right). The congress will forsee the participation of Christian Iaione, Professor of Regulatory Innovation, Land Use, Urban Law & Policy and
Director of the MSc in Law, Digital Innovation and Sustainability and Elena De Nictolis, research fellow of LabGov.City.

The object of discussion will be the new approach of the relationship between the city and its territory and community in light of the Covid-19 outbreak⁣.

You can download tomorrow’s program in Italian by the following link: http://www.dirittourbanistico.it/2020/09/09/xxiii-convegno-nazionale-aidu-online-programma/