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.

Giornata conclusiva della Clinica Urbana LabGov 2020

Giornata conclusiva della Clinica Urbana LabGov 2020

Save the date! Tuesday, May 5 at 4 pm, there will be the final event of the Interdisciplinary Urban Clinic of LabGov 2020 on the platform Cisco Webex.

For those who are discovering our project, this year we addressed the issue of fashion in relation to sustainability by developing an innovative and sustainable idea to the problem of the environmental impacts generated by this sector. The event will consist principally in the presentation of the final prototype of our project followed by some interventions of our special guests.

The production of the prototype by LabGovers 2020 wants to demonstrate that students can already be part of the answer to the growing demand for sustainable fashion if you cross technological innovation and social and environmental sustainability through circular economy platforms that connect companies, social start-ups, associations and creative digital communities with an urban rooting.

We will also talk about Covid-19, its impact on Made in Italy and the prospects of sustainability and digitalization in the field of fashion.

Guests of the event will be: General Manager Luiss, Giovanni Lo Storto; Rector Luiss, Professor Andrea Prencipe; Giacomo Santucci, President Camera Buyer Italy; Lorenzo Greco, CEO DXC Italy; Vincenzo Linarello, President of GOEL – Cooperative Group; Professor Maria Isabella Leone, executive director of the Master in Open and Innovation; Dr Elena Ciccarelli of NTT DATA and Claudia Giommarini, office ERS lab Luiss.

Don’t hesitate to ask for the link to the video conference room by writing a message to Labgov.city on Instagram or Facebook to participate to this beautiful presentation!

The fifth module of the interdisciplinary Urban Clinic LabGov 2020

The fifth module of the interdisciplinary Urban Clinic LabGov 2020

The fifth and last workshop and co-working of the Urban Clinic, held on the Luiss Webex Platform, had as guest Joaquin Santuber and Lina Krawietz, Co-founders of the start-up “This Is Legal Design” based in Berlin.

After introducing themselves, our guests presented us the world of Legal Design, which is, in the words of Joaquin: “a way of improving people’s lives and making their life easier”. In order to be clearer about the meaning of Legal Design, Joaquin divided the word into two concepts. First “Legal”, that is the legal system that regulates our interactions in our society. For example, legal industry businesses that are provided and work with the legal system (courts, legal firms, legal departments, etc..). Second, “design” is more complicated to define. There are many design notions. Very often we are familiar with the idea of product design. For instance, service design, such as the process and steps of using a computer. In our case, it represents a creative problem-solving approach to complex challenges. When “This Is Legal Design” was founded, they needed to find an original approach, new solutions to make people’s lives better and easier improving users experience. Since the legal side touches us in every aspect of our life, they applied this mindset to the legal system and decided to conceptualize their start-up with the purpose of solving problems from the legal world, such as access to justice or helping legal firms to identify with the businesses they work with.

After being updated on the advancement of the LabGov’s project “Ri-Made”, the Legal Design team presented us some case studies of projects they created for some firms in order to illustrate what types of results we are looking for. Then, they showed us that legal aspects are everywhere, especially on the Internet. A good example might be the use of cookies on webpages. it is important to be innovative to pursue our goal, in every aspect and not only the legal ones. “How can we find innovative ways to overcome legal barriers to our sustainable fashion project?” Joaquin explained that once again the solution is something that has to do with the attitude, by looking at things critically. He then introduced the concept of “legal touchpoints” with the example of the “terms and conditions” that we have to accept every time we register on a social network or on a platform. In fact, these privacy policies are created by lawyers, which do not adapt their content to be understandable for everyone. Often, if some legal aspects are too complex to understand, using visual supports like comics or videos can be very helpful. At the end of the workshop, he left us with some questions to reflect on as homework for the following day. How could this look like in our project? How to share an idea with collaborators? How can we communicate safely our business plan?

Let’s get started with Saturday’s co-working! The students were divided into two groups, one kept on working on the Webex Platform, while the second one held his meetings on the Zoom platform.There were four blocks of activities during the day. Each block started with the Legal Design team providing some inputs to guide the two teams in the realization of innovative legal touchpoints for the project, then both teams met for a brief meeting with Joaquin and Lina at the end of each block to have some feedbacks. The goal of the day was to identify the two main Legal Touchpoints of our project and find original and innovative ways to make them more understandable for our audience. The first group focused on finding an original way to present the “terms and conditions” to the user at the moment of the registration, while the second one worked to solve the legal barriers that may occur when a user’s order is damaged and he has to return it back to “Ri-Made”.

After lunch, Joaquin and Lina asked the students and the tutors of the two groups to prepare a short video that could make the solutions that they had found more comprehensible, in order to present their ideas in a creative and visual way.In the final part of the co-working, the students showed the videos that they created. To conclude the fifth co-working the students updated the tutors on how they are handling the making of video tutorials of sustainable activities that they are filming from home. Moreover, on this last day of co-working, the LabGovers and tutors talked about the planning of the final day of the Urban Clinic which will take place on May 5th from 4 pm to 6 pm with the participation of Director General and the Provost. They will have to present their project an audience of experts, so a lot of work is ahead of us to prepare this exciting day!

We post new content regularly on our social media, come back often to make sure you don’t miss anything!