evaluating sustainable development in the built …
TRANSCRIPT
EVALUATING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
in the Built Environment
SECOND EDITION
Peter S. Brandonand
Patrizia Lombardi
A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication
9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd iii9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd iii 9/1/2010 12:00:40 PM9/1/2010 12:00:40 PM
flast.indd xviflast.indd xvi 9/1/2010 2:59:37 PM9/1/2010 2:59:37 PM
EVALUATING SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT
in the Built Environment
9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd i9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd i 9/1/2010 12:00:39 PM9/1/2010 12:00:39 PM
This leading book is about one of the greatest challenges faced by human kind. Sustainable development impacts on everyone and all need to take ownership of, and get involved with, the concept. Universities are strongly engaged in this process, as recognised by both the Hokkaido and Turin G8 Summit Declarations. This book represents a reference point in the field, for both students and lecturers. It is clearly written and it illustrates evaluation approaches to, and frameworks for decision-making for, sustainable development. The book was selected to be circulated to the over 150 delegates who attended the G8 countries’ Turin University Summit on this important subject.
Professor Francesco Profumo – Rector of Politecnico di Torino,Italy, Chair of the 2009 G8 University Summit
This book addresses a key aspect of sustainable development. It asks what framework is required to answer the question ‘have we made progress?’ and it also suggests the mechanisms and methods which might be used in the assessment of such progress. The first edition of the book has been well received and this revision updates the reader and suggests in more detail how it might work in practice. It is an enormous issue and the authors have provided a very clear introduction to this complex subject. The book is fast becoming a standard text in the field and has an international readership. Practitioners, academics, students and universities will find it extremely useful in developing their thinking.
Professor Martin Hall – Vice Chancellor ofthe University of Salford, UK.
9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd ii9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd ii 9/1/2010 12:00:40 PM9/1/2010 12:00:40 PM
EVALUATING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
in the Built Environment
SECOND EDITION
Peter S. Brandonand
Patrizia Lombardi
A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication
9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd iii9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd iii 9/1/2010 12:00:40 PM9/1/2010 12:00:40 PM
This edition first published 2011© 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd © 2011 Peter Brandon and Patrizia Lombardi
Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing programme has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical, and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.
First edition published 2005Second edition published 2011
Registered officeJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ,United Kingdom
Editorial office9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, United Kingdom2121 State Avenue, Ames, Iowa 50014-8300, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks.All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any productor vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Brandon, P. S. (Peter S.) Evaluating sustainable development in the built environment / Peter S. Brandon and Patrizia Lombardi. – 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4051-9258-3 (alk. paper)1. Urban ecology (Sociology) 2. City planning–Environmental aspects. 3. Sustainable architecture. 4. Sustainable development. I. Lombardi, P. L. (Patrizia L.) II. Title. HT241.B73 2010 307.76–dc22
2010029191
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Set in 10/12pt Palatino by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, IndiaPrinted in Malaysia
1 2011
9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd iv9781405192583_1_pretoc.indd iv 9/1/2010 12:00:40 PM9/1/2010 12:00:40 PM
v
About the Authors ix
Preface xi
Acknowledgements xv
1 Setting the Context for EvaluatingSustainable Development 1The environmental perspective 1
The international policy debates 5
Extension of the debate 12
The impact of the built environment 13
The current response of the built environment community 16
Sustainability: a definition 20
Seeking a shared set of values 22
Striving for a common frameworkand classification system 24
The characteristics of assessment and measurementfor sustainable development 25
Management and intervention for sustainable development 30
Implementing management decisions 32
Summary 33
Contents
9781405192583_2_toc.indd v9781405192583_2_toc.indd v 8/24/2010 2:00:30 PM8/24/2010 2:00:30 PM
vi Contents
2 Time and Sustainability 35Innovation and stability 37
Perceptions of sustainable development 38
Critical failure points 42
Time in evaluation 47
Future aversion 48
Clever or wise? 50
Practical assessment of ‘time’ 50
The luxury of the ‘time’ horizon 52
3 Approaches to Evaluation 54The Natural Step 55
The concept of community capital 58
The ecological footprint 61
Monetary (capital) approach 64
The driving force-state-response model 65
Issues or theme-based frameworks 66
Accounting frameworks 67
Frameworks of assessment methods’ tool kits 67
Summary and conclusions 70
4 Indicators and Measures 73Why evaluate? 73
Traditional versus sustainable development indicators 75
Generic and specific questions 78
International indicators 80
Aggregated indicators 82
Discussion 84
Summary 87
5 Assessment Methods 89A directory of assessment methods 91
An outline summary of the main assessment methods, toolsand procedures in use 96
Summary and conclusions 118
9781405192583_2_toc.indd vi9781405192583_2_toc.indd vi 8/24/2010 2:00:30 PM8/24/2010 2:00:30 PM
Contents vii
6 A Proposed Framework for EvaluatingSustainable Development 122
The need for a holistic and integrated framework 123
The theoretical underpinning of the framework 126
The built environment explained by the modalities 128
The 15 modalities for understanding sustainabledevelopment in the built environment 129
Development of the multi-modal frameworkfor decision-making 138
Key questions for examining sustainable developmentwithin each modality 139
Synthesis of results 145
Summary 146
7 The Framework as a Structuring Tool: Case Studies 148
Case study 1: selection of a municipal wastetreatment system 151
Case study 2: evaluation of sustainable redevelopmentscenarios for an urban area 155
Case study 3: ‘multi-stakeholder’ urban regenerationdecision-making 163
Case study 4: social reporting of Modena City strategic plan 168
Summary and conclusion 173
8 Towards Management Systems and Protocols 176Who manages? 180
The planning framework 181
Management in a learning organisation 183
Soft system methodology 185
Wicked problems 187
Process protocols 188
A possible approach 191
The Vancouver study 192
The conclusions of the Vancouver study 196
Follow through on the Vancouver study 197
Resilience 199
9781405192583_2_toc.indd vii9781405192583_2_toc.indd vii 8/24/2010 2:00:30 PM8/24/2010 2:00:30 PM
viii Contents
9 Education and Research 203A research agenda 213
In conclusion 215
Appendix A: The Philosophy of the‘Cosmonomic Idea of Reality’ 217
References 223Websites 236
Bibliography 239
Index 255
9781405192583_2_toc.indd viii9781405192583_2_toc.indd viii 8/24/2010 2:00:30 PM8/24/2010 2:00:30 PM
ix
Professor Peter S. Brandon OBE was a pro-vice chancellor for research and postgraduate stud-ies at the University of Salford and the director of the University Think Lab and is now a profes-sor emeritus in the School of the Built Environment. He has played a major role in the devel-opment of research in the UK and internationally, and when head of the present School of the Built Environment at Salford, he led the school to the highest rat-ings for research in the UK, a position they have held ever since. He has written widely on a number of topics, including building economics, construc-tion management, construction information technology and sustainable development. He has over 30 books to his credit as author, co-author or editor, and has published over 150 papers in more than 30 countries.
Professor Patrizia Lombardi from the City and Housing Department at the Politecnico di Torino is a leading expert in the use of environ-mental assessment methods and an established figure in the field of evaluating sustainable development and has been active in the field for
About the Authors
fbetwe.indd ixfbetwe.indd ix 9/1/2010 2:56:30 PM9/1/2010 2:56:30 PM
About the Authors x
over 20 years. She has coordi-nated or served as lead partner in several pan-European projects on topics related to sustainable urban development, including the BEQUEST network, the INTEL CITY Roadmap, the INTELCITIES integrated pro-ject, the SURPrISE (Sustainable Urban Renewal Programs In Southern Europe) Interreg III C, the ISAAC (Integrated e-Services for Advanced Access to Heritage in Cultural Tourist Destinations) project and PERFECTION (Per-formance Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the Indoor Environment). She is the editor or co-author of about 10 books on sustainability evaluation and is the author of over 100 papers in specialised textbooks and international scientific journals.
fbetwe.indd xfbetwe.indd x 9/1/2010 2:56:32 PM9/1/2010 2:56:32 PM
xi
Five years is a long time in the development of an emerging subject, especially when it seems the whole world is now interested in its con-tent. Since the first edition, the concept of sustainable development has risen in the human consciousness and is beginning to change behav-iour around the globe. It is being driven by the concern about climate change and the impact this will have on human settlements. Individuals, governments, institutions and agencies are making their own contribu-tions to change the rate of global warming or at least to mitigate its consequences. The situation is considered to be extremely serious and every ‘foresight’ type exercise has placed ‘sustainable development’ at the top of its agenda. In 2008, the US National Academy of Engineers identified 13 ‘grand challenges’ for engineering and of these 5 were directly related to climate change and all of the remainder were related to human survival.
In fact, human survival is at the root of the whole debate on sustain-able development. The planet will look after itself and, indeed, it has for millions of years. It is life forms, sustained by the planet, which suf-fer as the surface is altered and changed by the natural evolution of planets and cosmic systems. It is estimated that 97% of all species that have lived on earth are now extinct. However, the human species is a relative latecomer to life on earth and is the first to begin to exercise conscious mediation of the planet’s subsystems. In previous millennia, ‘nature’ would have controlled human growth and its chance of sur-vival. As Derickson (2006) suggests ‘We are not dumb enough to sur-vive, but are we clever enough?’ In other words, if nature took its course then natural selection would take place and it is probable that the earth’s population of humans might well diminish. The current massive interest in what is often described as ‘the most important issue to ever have faced mankind’ is largely concerned with the human race
Preface
fpref.indd xifpref.indd xi 9/1/2010 2:58:48 PM9/1/2010 2:58:48 PM
xii Preface
attempting to prove it can be sufficiently clever to adapt to a change in climate which threatens a very significant proportion of the popula-tion. The question is still whether we can do it.
However, climate is not the only feature of sustainable development, important though it is. Within the subject is also the quality of life enjoyed by current and future generations. Survival is the most impor-tant factor but even without this threat there appears to be a moral duty not to impair the life of future generations by the actions we take today. Once we move into the quality-of-life dimension, the subject becomes exceptionally complicated. It is one reason why there are so many definitions of sustainable development. All aspects of life are interrelated and a decision in one area has impacts elsewhere, often without our knowledge. It is one of the reasons why we face climatic problems. Our decisions, particularly with regard to technology sup-porting economic development have resulted in consequences which were not foreseen. The subject becomes so complicated that simple definitions always appear inadequate in time (see Chapter 1). Perceptions change, needs change, the technological infrastructure changes, our scientific knowledge changes and what future genera-tions of humans will require is impossible to predict. However, we believe we can avoid creating an environment which destroys the capacity for future generations to respond positively to change; other-wise, the subject would be pointless.
The last 30 years have seen a plethora of measures, indicators and evaluations which attempt to make some assessment of what is hap-pening to our planet and the actions of human beings upon it. The origins of this book lie in trying to get a grasp on what we mean by ‘sustainable development’. The authors felt, in their research, that if they could measure it then they would be forced to define it, otherwise how would we know what to measure? In addition, the measure would allow us to discover whether we were making progress or not. However, the complexity of the problem makes an exhaustive meas-ure impossible. Whatever we do, it will be partial. That is not to say it will not be useful and provide potentially new insights. It will and it does. It can only be part of a recognition that our tools and our ‘clever-ness’ are often helpful but inadequate for the task as defined by most commentators.
So, how do we address this problem? At the heart of the issue is the interdependence between events, activities and processes. To address this, it is important to ask ‘why’ these events occur and where their behavioural relationship lies. This leads to a much more fundamental investigation of the problem and engages philosophy. Philosophy is ‘the academic discipline concerned with the nature and significance or ordinary and scientific beliefs, investigating the intelligibility of con-cepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications and inter-relationships’ (Collins English Dictionary, 2000).
fpref.indd xiifpref.indd xii 9/1/2010 2:58:48 PM9/1/2010 2:58:48 PM
Preface xiii
It should shed light on the key issues and how they emerge and evolve over time. It recognises that its work is almost never complete but it guides and directs our thinking towards solutions which are appropri-ate for the time, including our response to future events.
Like all emerging subjects for study there is a period of transition from the original concept to an established structure upon which knowledge can build. This structure needs to be robust yet flexible enough to accommodate new thinking. In Chapter 6, we have put for-ward a secularised view of one philosopher, Herman Dooyeweerd, as a possible basis for this structure. The background material for Dooyeweerd’s work is complex but rich and at an application level the authors and others have found it intuitive and enlightening particu-larly with regard to interrelationships between all the aspects of the cosmos which impinge on sustainable development.
This book will focus on two main issues. These are, firstly, how do we create a structure of knowledge and thinking which will allow us to develop a vocabulary which all participants in sustainable develop-ment can own and to which they will feel able to contribute and, sec-ondly, how do we assess progress in sustainable development? The first is important because it enables a dialogue to take place between all the stakeholders in such a way that the complexity of the problem can be exposed, structured and communicated in order to gain confidence from all the parties. The second is important because unless we can evaluate what contributes to sustainability it will be very difficult to know whether a sustainable environment has been created.
These are fundamental and important issues. Implied in the struc-turing is not only a recognition that many people are engaged but also that they come from a variety of backgrounds, disciplines and levels of commitment which all provide a different ‘filter’ for the individual or group to view the problems or issue through. For them to come to agreement requires a structure which they can all understand and to which they can contribute their particular view. It also requires mutual respect and a desire to come to a solution that may involve compro-mise. It involves education because all need to understand the position of the others and it needs a language, which is not exclusive, but which includes all participants wherever possible. In terms of technique, it requires a confidence that the techniques for evaluation are fair and transparent so that the inputs and outputs are not favouring one par-ticular view or, if they are, that all parties are aware of this limitation. There are very few, if any, techniques that are completely neutral in their advice.
This book is an explanation of some of these concepts and it attempts to provide an approach that can be built on and evolve over the ensuing years. There is a fast-developing subject known as ‘sustainability sci-ence’ which has been described by the Harvard University Centre for International Development as seeking to ‘advance basic understanding
fpref.indd xiiifpref.indd xiii 9/1/2010 2:58:48 PM9/1/2010 2:58:48 PM
xiv Preface
of the dynamics of human–environment systems; to facilitate the design, implementation and evaluation of practical interventions that promote sustainability in particular places and contexts; and to improve link-ages between relevant research and innovation communities on the one hand and relevant policy and management communities on the other’. Others have focused more on the practical application and have defined it as ‘use-inspired basic research that seeks to learn about the interac-tions among humans (including their cultural, political, economic, and demographic characteristics), their technologies and the environment’ (Burns & Weaver, 2008). Note that it is the dynamics of the human/technology interface which is central. One without the other will not result in a satisfactory understanding of the problem.
This subject is emerging and evolving as the subject matter becomes more of an established domain of study. Our understanding of what we mean by the term, and how it will be viewed, will change, but this book attempts to provide a contribution towards a structure and approach which will endure these evolving concepts and processes and provide a platform which allows the subject to grow and develop in a consistent and coherent way.
Peter S. Brandon and Patrizia Lombardi
fpref.indd xivfpref.indd xiv 9/1/2010 2:58:48 PM9/1/2010 2:58:48 PM
xv
The authors acknowledge the important contribution made to this book by a number of individuals, including:
❏ The members of the BEQUEST European Network (sponsored by the European Commission and led by Professor Steve Curwell of the University of Salford), who have debated many of these issues over the past 12 years. Their work has provided a useful source of infor-mation for many aspects of this book and we value the critique that they have provided of many of the ideas presented. In particular, we would like to thank Steve Curwell and Mark Deakin (of Napier University, Edinburgh) who have critically analysed and interpreted the results of the assessment methods survey reported in Chapter 5.
❏ Hanneke van Dijk, who has played a very important role in bring-ing this volume to print. Her patience, particularly in the later stages, was exemplary and we appreciate the task she undertook in conforming to the publisher’s requirements.
❏ Dr Andrew Basden, who provided guidance on the work of Herman Dooyeweerd and enabled us to create the structure pro-posed in Chapter 6.
❏ Our respective families, who suffered from the time demands but provided support throughout.
The sections “Monetary (capital) approach” (part of), “The driving force–state–response model”, “Issues or theme-based frameworks” (part of) and “Accounting frameworks” (part of) in Chapter 3 and “Aggregated indicators” (part of) in Chapter 4 are reproduced with permission from Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies © United Nations, 2007.
Acknowledgements
flast.indd xvflast.indd xv 9/1/2010 2:59:37 PM9/1/2010 2:59:37 PM
flast.indd xviflast.indd xvi 9/1/2010 2:59:37 PM9/1/2010 2:59:37 PM
1
The environmental perspective
The subject of sustainable development is one of the key research and policy issues as we enter the early years of the twenty-first century. This book takes the broad view, but the world focus at the time of writing appears to be the concerns on climate change and on pollution levels threatening the survival of the human species. The importance of this focus can be seen by the high regard that the global community places on these problems. At the Rio conference in 1992, 100 heads of states attended, representing 179 governments that committed themselves to an agenda for addressing the perceived problem. In 2002, 109 governments were represented at the Rio + 10 conference in Johannesburg and vowed to continue the focus on what they consid-ered to be an important area. More recently, the Kyoto Protocol regarding carbon emissions has been ratified by most of the countries of the world and the Copenhagen World Summit on climate change has committed itself to an accord to prevent the rise in global tem-perature going beyond a further 2°C (although this was not made legally binding). This is the maximum that experts feel the world can accommodate without major catastrophe, although many will still suffer. Over the past 5 years the European Union has committed a substantial proportion of its research and development monies to sustainability issues and the majority of governments that have a national research programme have also committed funds to the cause. So why the interest and why is it at, or near, the top of global policy for research and development?
1Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development
Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment, Second Edition By Peter S. Brandon and Patrizia Lombardi © 2011 Peter S. Brandon and Patrizia Lombardi
9781405192583_4_001.indd 19781405192583_4_001.indd 1 9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM
2 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment
With all new ideas, there is a long gestation period before they are taken up as policy or identified as a key issue for researchers to address. There is little doubt that the current interest in sustainable develop-ment has come from the pressure groups and particularly those associated with the green movement who saw the depletion of non-renewable resources (and particularly energy stocks), the pollution of the air and water and the breakdown of social conscience through glo-balisation as leading to the demise of mankind and the balance of nature (the ecosystem), which presently sustains living creatures. They considered that there was a moral imperative to take the long-term view and to consider the impact of decisions taken now on generations that would follow. It is true to say that within this general thrust there was, and probably will be, a variety of opinions on such matters as the extent of the damage being done to the environment, the responsibility for the current situation and the manner in which it can be remedied.
There is, however, a growing consensus that something is wrong and that mankind has a duty to do something about it. There has been a cre-scendo of concern from almost every quarter of human society led by some very significant figures in government, academe and pressure organisations. These are the new prophets, forecasting a calamity and demanding that the world turn from its fallen ways! In nearly all cases, their forecasts have been on the conservative side in recent years, partic-ularly with regard to global warming. It appears that the world is getting warmer at a faster rate than was expected, that it appears to be accentu-ated by the behaviour of mankind and that humankind is facing a losing battle to remedy the situation. Hence, the focus on resilience (i.e. the abil-ity to retain function through adversity) to assist in containing the prob-lem. Leading thinkers and politicians such as Gore (2006), Lovelock (2009), Rees (2004), Jackson (2009) and many others have brought to the attention of the world the potential plight which faces life on earth.
Knowing what to do is of course another matter and there is a spec-trum of views (see Fig. 1.1). At one end of the spectrum are those who suggest that we should conserve at all costs, change the way we live and seek a reduction in economic growth as a means of reducing consump-tion. At the other end are those who believe that necessity is the mother of invention and that a ‘technical fix’ will be found which will remove the need for such drastic measures to be taken. They believe that the markets will drive up the price of non-renewable resources and that this in turn will encourage innovators to provide sensible alternatives. Against this argument others would say that in the time it takes for the markets to realise what is happening, irreparable damage may have been done to the planet for which future generations may have to pay the full price.
These two extremes can also be viewed through the themes which arose from the Johannesburg Summit. There were two major schools of thought. One appeared to be arguing that man could exercise control and dominion over the earth, mainly by technological advancement. The other thought that humans must review their position as part of nature
9781405192583_4_001.indd 29781405192583_4_001.indd 2 9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM
Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 3
and seek to work in harmony and in empathy with the cycles of nature and the planet. This polarisation of view is often seen as detrimental to advancement and that much can be achieved by developing the technol-ogy whilst appreciating, respecting and recognising the second. There is a paradox in this dialogue because if we were not able to intervene then nature would probably have found ways to limit population growth (as it has with so many species) and avoid the excessive use of non-renewa-ble resources. Population growth is at the heart of the problem – we can-not sustain this number of people with the resources available.
Despite this, much of this debate is at the level of the planet. Saving spaceship earth is the clarion call and we must all be engaged in the earth’s preservation and its delicate ecological systems. This attitude may also be debated, for many would point out that the earth has been in turmoil ever since its formation and species have come and gone, climatic changes far outweigh the actions of mankind in terms of their devastation and in the very long term the earth itself will disappear and will probably be engulfed in a black hole or other stellar catastro-phe. The response to this would be that we are the first species able to create its own downfall and the first to be able to at least extend its sojourn on earth, so why should we not rise to the challenge and try to extend the life of the species? The focus is on the environment and it is through this filter that human activity will be judged. This does not seem unreasonable as future generations will probably judge the activ-ities of the current generation in the same way that we often judge the misdemeanours of the past: by the way they affect us now.
Figure 1.1 The spectrum of views on sustainability.
Conserveat allcost
Seektechnical
‘fix’
Sustainability
9781405192583_4_001.indd 39781405192583_4_001.indd 3 9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM
4 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment
The question of time is a key one and the text will return to this in due course. Over what period should we view sustainable develop-ment? It is a critical issue for the systems and techniques we employ to measure progress. If we take the very long term, the planet is probably doomed anyway. If we take the short term, we can probably muddle through and overcome or manoeuvre around the problems that we have created. How far ahead can we look? Is it one, two, several or hundreds of generations? Most commentators would suggest that our ability to make interventions that would aid future populations is lim-ited to two or three generations. Beyond this, we would probably need to be prophets or exercise witchcraft to know what to do. Predictions made 200 years ago, extrapolating the knowledge of the time, seem naive and stupid with the benefit of hindsight. For example, it was thought that London would be waist-deep in horse manure at the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth century because of the growth of horse-drawn transport! Would it have been sensible to ask the people of Europe 300 years ago to sacrifice their gruel in order that our genera-tion would benefit from having the asset of computer technology? Of course not.
There is perhaps one area where we can predict a potential problem and that is with the demise of non-renewable resources. Who knows of what value these resources will be to those who will follow? We do not know what benefits to health, to quality of life and to the supply of use-ful products these resources will bring, because our knowledge of their potential is still limited. We do not understand how they may be used in different, complex combinations linked to other knowledge, for example of the nature of genes, to the benefit of our children and beyond. If some of these resources disappear, what legacy are we leav-ing? We tend to view these resources in terms of what they can provide now and not what their potential benefit could be in the future. Our outlooks are determined by their impact on us and the horizons that science and technology have set for us at this point in time. Often these are limited to the human lifespan.
Since the mid-1970s, these debates have grown in intensity and have risen up the international agenda to the point where it is heads of gov-ernment who find themselves gathered together to address the prob-lem. Partly this is a recognition that it is a global problem. Most of the environmental problems are not confined within national boundaries. (A hole in the ozone layer or a leak from a nuclear energy plant does not respect the arbitrary limits of territory designated by human beings.) Partly it is because this subject is recognised as being an issue of morality in which all must cooperate if action is to be taken that will change the course of environmental well-being. No one wants to be seen to show a lack of commitment to such a key issue. Partly it is because in each country there is a political imperative to address these issues because the nature of the problem has permeated the public
9781405192583_4_001.indd 49781405192583_4_001.indd 4 9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM
Setting the Context for Evaluating Sustainable Development 5
conscience. It is unlikely that the subject will go away and indeed for some time to come it is likely to be a major item on the international agenda despite the fact that there are differences of opinion on how the matter should be tackled. For example, President George W. Bush of the USA refused to sign the Kyoto Agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in his first term of office because of the vested inter-ests of industry in the USA. It was not until President Obama came into office that a new narrative was created and the USA joined in the debate to limit the speed of climate change. Sometimes the rapidly developing countries such as China and India are criticised for following the devel-opment path of the developed nations but the signs are that they are more sensitive to this problem and are addressing the issue whilst still encouraging economic development. They face a dilemma in improv-ing the economic prosperity of their people whilst avoiding the pitfalls of the past. The developed nations such as Europe and the USA face the dilemma of maintaining what they perceive to be a high standard of living whilst at the same time addressing the kind of world they wish to leave for their grandchildren. They may have to decide to make sac-rifices now in order to protect the future. This may not be easy.
The international policy debates
Table 1.1 shows some of the key events in the development of the world approach to addressing the problems of sustainable development. All have made their contribution since the 1970s and it is this groundswell of views at the very highest levels of global governance that has begun to change the actions of government and the investment in research into sustainable development. Many of the world conferences and the publications were about the context within which the discussion should take place. This context included the debates on the reduction in non-renewable resources and the apparent pollution of land, water and air. However, at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (UNCED, 1992) a significant change took place. An agenda for change (Agenda 21) was agreed upon and signed up to by 179 world governments. Not only did they sign up, but they also defined sustainability in a new way, extending its boundaries beyond just environmental issues.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio princi-ples, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa, from 26 August to 4 September 2002. The Summit confirmed that significant progress has been made towards achieving a global consensus and part-nership among all the people of our planet. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development highlighted the important role placed by governance at all levels for the effective implementation of
9781405192583_4_001.indd 59781405192583_4_001.indd 5 9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM9/1/2010 11:54:41 AM
6 Evaluating Sustainable Development in the Built Environment
Agenda 21, the Millennium development goals and the Plan of Implementation of the Summit. The leadership of the United Nations was also reaffirmed as the most universal and representative organisa-tion in the world which is best placed to promote sustainable develop-ment, and a commitment to monitor progress at regular intervals towards the achievement of the sustainable development goals and objectives was undertaken under the slogan ‘Making it happen!’ (http://www.un.org/). Finally, it also acknowledged the key role played by education as the primary agent of transformation towards sustainable development, increasing people’s capacities to transform their visions for society into reality. In recognition of the importance of education for sustainable and responsible development, the United Nations General Assembly declared 2005–2014 the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development while UNESCO was requested to lead and to develop an International Implementation Scheme for the Decade.
The signatories of these various agreements embraced the notion that environmental issues often had their origins in the behaviour of the human race. When humans dump toxic chemicals or do not seek to conserve energy, or create social unrest leading to misuse or damage to existing resources, their behaviour has an impact on the environment. When the legal systems and regulations employed by governments make it difficult or even impossible to act in an environmentally friendly way, this aspect of human organisation has a detrimental impact on environmental issues. When the striving for economic growth results in poor use of the earth’s resources, this human action and policy lead to more degradation of the environment. When there are big differentials between those who have and those who have not, unrest can follow and the damage can be substantial. The threat of ter-rorists gaining access to nuclear bombs is now spoken of quite openly and the terrorists gain much of their support from those who are eco-nomically or politically disadvantaged.
A tangled web of issues leads to actions that eventually have an impact on the environment. The way we live affects the world on a global scale when we piece the whole of the jigsaw together. In the words of John Donne, ‘no man is an island entire of itself’ (Donne, 1623). The environment at one level is fairly robust, taking care of the events that occur over time in a very practical way which is often not apparent to a single generation. At another level, it can be presented as a very sensitive entity in which it is easy, through the interactions of man, to destabilise the whole superstructure and the interrelationships which provide the balance and allow the life forms that exist today to survive and prosper. It is the survival of what we have today, the bio-diversity, the climatic conditions, the level of water supply and so forth that provides the basis for the argument for sustainability. No one seems to be arguing for natural evolution which could see the demise of the human race in favour of some other life form.
9781405192583_4_001.indd 69781405192583_4_001.indd 6 9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM
Table
1.1
Si
gnifi
cant
inte
rnat
iona
l con
fere
nces
sho
win
g th
e gr
owin
g im
porta
nce
of s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent.
Date
Act
ion
Outp
ut
1972
: 6–1
6 Ju
neU
N C
onfe
renc
e on
the
Hum
an E
nviro
nmen
t, St
ockh
olm
Nee
d fo
r a c
omm
on o
utpu
t to
insp
ire a
nd g
uide
the
peop
le o
f the
wor
ld in
the
pres
erva
tion
of th
e hu
man
env
ironm
ent:
(a)
Act
ion
plan
for t
he h
uman
env
ironm
ent.
(b)
Educ
atio
nal,
info
rmat
iona
l, so
cial
and
cul
tura
l asp
ects
of e
nviro
nmen
tal i
ssue
s ha
ve to
be
face
d.(c
) C
onstr
uctio
n of
a fr
amew
ork
for e
nviro
nmen
tal a
ctio
n.(d
) Re
com
men
datio
n fo
r act
ion
at th
e in
tern
atio
nal l
evel
.(e
) Id
entif
icat
ion
and
cont
rol o
f pol
lutio
n of
bro
ad in
tern
atio
nal s
igni
fican
ce.
(f)
Dec
lara
tion
of th
e U
N.
1992
: 3–1
4 Ju
neU
nite
d N
atio
ns R
io d
e Ja
neiro
Con
fere
nce
The
Con
vent
ion
on C
limat
e C
hang
e w
as a
dopt
ed o
n 9
May
199
2 an
d op
ened
for
sign
atur
e a
mon
th la
ter a
t th
e U
N C
onfe
renc
e on
En
viro
nmen
t and
D
evel
opm
ent i
n Ri
o de
Ja
neiro
(Bra
zil)
Age
nda
21, t
he R
io D
ecla
ratio
n on
Env
ironm
ent a
nd D
evel
opm
ent,
the
Stat
emen
t of
Fore
st Pr
inci
ples
, the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Fra
mew
ork
Con
vent
ion
on C
limat
e C
hang
e an
d th
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns C
onve
ntio
n on
Bio
logi
cal D
iver
sity
. As
an o
utpu
t the
sub
sequ
ent
follo
w-u
p m
echa
nism
s w
ere
crea
ted:
(a)
Com
mis
sion
on
Susta
inab
le D
evel
opm
ent
(b)
Inte
r-age
ncy
Com
mitt
ee o
n Su
stain
able
Dev
elop
men
t(c
) H
igh-
leve
l Adv
isor
y Bo
ard
on S
usta
inab
le D
evel
opm
ent
1994
: 27
May
The
Firs
t Eur
opea
n C
onfe
renc
e on
Sus
tain
able
C
ities
& T
owns
, Aal
borg
(D
enm
ark)
A C
harte
r was
sig
ned
by E
urop
ean
Citi
es &
Tow
ns ‘T
owar
ds S
usta
inab
ility
’ whi
ch
prov
ides
a fr
amew
ork
for t
he d
eliv
ery
of lo
cal s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent,
and
calls
on
loca
l aut
horit
ies
to e
ngag
e in
Loc
al A
gend
a 21
pro
cess
es (h
ttp:/
/ec.
euro
pa.e
u/en
viro
nmen
t/ur
ban/
pdf/
aalb
org_
char
ter.p
df).
1995
: 7 A
pril
Con
fere
nce
of th
e Pa
rties
to
the
UN
Fra
mew
ork
Con
vent
ion
on C
limat
e C
hang
e 1
(CO
P 1)
, Ber
lin
The
Berli
n M
anda
te w
as a
dopt
ed a
t the
firs
t Con
fere
nce
of th
e Pa
rties
(CO
P) o
n 7
Apr
il 19
95. I
t ack
now
ledg
ed th
at th
e co
mm
itmen
t of d
evel
oped
cou
ntrie
s to
take
m
easu
res
aim
ed a
t red
ucin
g th
eir G
HG
em
issi
ons
to 1
990
leve
ls by
the
year
200
0 w
as n
ot a
dequ
ate
to a
chie
ve th
e C
onve
ntio
n’s
obje
ctiv
e. T
he m
ain
obje
ctiv
e of
the
Man
date
was
to s
treng
then
the
com
mitm
ents
for t
he d
evel
oped
-cou
ntry
Par
ties
afte
r the
ye
ar 2
000
with
out i
ntro
duci
ng a
ny n
ew c
omm
itmen
ts fo
r dev
elop
ing
coun
tries
, whi
le
reaf
firm
ing
exis
ting
com
mitm
ents
of a
ll Pa
rties
con
tain
ed in
Arti
cle
4.1
and
cont
inui
ng
to a
dvan
ce th
eir i
mpl
emen
tatio
n.
Con
tinue
s
9781405192583_4_001.indd 79781405192583_4_001.indd 7 9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM
Table
1.1
C
ontd
.
Date
Act
ion
Outp
ut
1996
: 3–1
4 Ju
neU
nite
d N
atio
ns In
tern
atio
nal
Con
fere
nce
on H
uman
Se
ttlem
ents
– H
abita
t II,
Istan
bul
This
was
the
seco
nd c
onfe
renc
e or
gani
sed
for d
iscu
ssin
g th
e is
sue
of h
abita
tion
(Hab
itat I
Con
fere
nce
was
hel
d in
Van
couv
er in
197
6). I
t spe
cific
ally
focu
sed
on
curr
ent b
uilt
envi
ronm
enta
l pro
blem
s in
rela
tion
to m
ajor
glo
bal c
hang
es
(e.g
. pop
ulat
ion
grow
th, m
igra
tion
tow
ards
urb
an a
reas
, tou
rism
, urb
an re
gene
ratio
n).
1997
: 8–1
9 Ju
lyC
onfe
renc
e of
the
Parti
es to
th
e U
N F
ram
ewor
k C
onve
ntio
n on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
2 (C
OP
2), G
enev
a
At t
he s
econ
d C
OP,
a la
rge
num
ber o
f min
iste
rs a
gree
d on
the
Gen
eva
Min
iste
rial
Dec
lara
tion,
whi
ch p
rovi
ded
polit
ical
impe
tus
to th
e Be
rlin
Man
date
pro
cess
.
1997
: 1–1
0 D
ecem
ber
Con
fere
nce
of th
e Pa
rties
to
the
UN
Fra
mew
ork
Con
vent
ion
on C
limat
e C
hang
e 3
(CO
P 3)
, Ky
oto
Prot
ocol
(Jap
an)
The
Kyot
o Pr
otoc
ol s
ets
up ta
rget
s to
redu
ce G
HG
em
issio
ns. T
he P
roto
col w
as in
itial
ly
adop
ted
on 1
1 D
ecem
ber 1
997
in K
yoto
, Jap
an, a
nd c
ame
into
forc
e on
16
Febr
uary
20
05. S
ince
the
UN
FCC
C c
ame
into
forc
e, th
e pa
rties
hav
e be
en m
eetin
g an
nual
ly in
C
onfe
renc
es o
f the
Par
ties
(CO
P) to
ass
ess
prog
ress
in d
ealin
g w
ith c
limat
e ch
ange
, and
be
ginn
ing
in th
e m
id-1
990s
, to
nego
tiate
the
Kyot
o Pr
otoc
ol to
esta
blish
lega
lly b
indi
ng
oblig
atio
ns fo
r dev
elop
ed c
ount
ries
to re
duce
thei
r GH
G e
miss
ions
. Fro
m 2
005,
the
Con
fere
nces
hav
e m
et in
con
junc
tion
with
Mee
tings
of P
artie
s of
the
Kyot
o Pr
otoc
ol
(MO
P), a
nd p
artie
s to
the
Con
vent
ion
that
are
not
par
ties
to th
e Pr
otoc
ol c
an p
artic
ipat
e in
Pro
toco
l-rel
ated
mee
tings
as
obse
rver
s. U
nder
the
Prot
ocol
, 37
indu
stria
lised
cou
ntrie
s (c
alle
d ‘A
nnex
I co
untri
es’)
com
mit
them
selv
es to
a re
duct
ion
of fo
ur g
reen
hous
e ga
ses,
in
the
hydr
oflu
oroc
arbo
ns a
nd p
erflu
oroc
arbo
ns p
rodu
ced
by th
em, a
nd a
ll m
embe
r co
untri
es g
ive
gene
ral c
omm
itmen
ts. C
ount
ries
agre
ed to
redu
ce th
eir c
olle
ctiv
e G
HG
em
issio
ns b
y 5.
2% fr
om th
e 19
90 le
vel.
The
prot
ocol
left
seve
ral i
ssue
s op
en to
be
deci
ded
late
r by
futu
re C
onfe
renc
es o
f the
Par
ties
(CO
P).
1998
: 2–1
4 N
ovem
ber
Con
fere
nce
of th
e Pa
rties
to
the
UN
Fra
mew
ork
Con
vent
ion
on C
limat
e C
hang
e 4
(CO
P 4)
, Bue
nos
Aire
s
At C
OP
4 (B
ueno
s A
ires,
Nov
embe
r 19
98),
Parti
es a
dopt
ed th
e so
-cal
led
‘Bue
nos
Aire
s Pl
an o
f Act
ion’
, ww
w.u
nfcc
c.in
t/re
sour
ce/d
ocs/
cop4
/16a
01.p
df, s
ettin
g ou
t a
prog
ram
me
of w
ork
both
to a
dvan
ce th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n an
d to
fle
sh o
ut th
e op
erat
iona
l det
ails
of th
e Ky
oto
Prot
ocol
. Thi
s pr
ogra
mm
e of
wor
k w
as
cond
ucte
d in
the
subs
idia
ry b
odie
s an
d at
CO
P 5
(Bon
n, O
ctob
er/N
ovem
ber
1999
), w
ith a
dea
dlin
e of
CO
P 6
(The
Hag
ue, N
ovem
ber
2000
). H
owev
er, P
artie
s w
ere
unab
le to
rea
ch a
gree
men
t on
a pa
ckag
e of
dec
isio
ns o
n al
l iss
ues
unde
r th
e Bu
enos
Aire
s Pl
an o
f Act
ion
at th
at s
essi
on. N
ever
thel
ess,
they
dec
ided
to m
eet
agai
n in
a r
esum
ed s
essi
on o
f CO
P 6
to tr
y on
ce m
ore
to r
esol
ve th
eir
diffe
renc
es.
9781405192583_4_001.indd 89781405192583_4_001.indd 8 9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM
1999
: 25
Oct
ober
–5
Nov
embe
rC
onfe
renc
e of
the
Parti
es to
th
e U
N F
ram
ewor
k C
onve
ntio
n on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
5 (C
OP
5), B
onn
Min
iste
rs a
nd o
ffici
als
from
166
gov
ernm
ents
agr
eed
on a
tim
etab
le fo
r co
mpl
etin
g th
e ou
tsta
ndin
g de
tails
of t
he 1
997
Kyot
o Pr
otoc
ol b
y N
ovem
ber
2000
in o
rder
to
inte
nsify
the
nego
tiatin
g pr
oces
s on
all
issu
es b
efor
e th
e si
xth
CO
P.
2000
: 13–
24
Nov
embe
r, Th
e H
ague
; 16
–27
July
200
1, B
onn
Con
fere
nce
of th
e Pa
rties
to
the
UN
Fra
mew
ork
Con
vent
ion
on C
limat
e C
hang
e 6
(CO
P 6)
, The
H
ague
and
Bon
n
Pled
ge to
con
tribu
te €
450
mill
ion
per y
ear b
y 20
05 to
hel
p de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s m
anag
e em
issi
ons
and
adap
t to
clim
ate
chan
ge. T
he C
onve
ntio
n on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
has
been
ratif
ied
by 3
7 co
untri
es.
2001
: 29
Oct
ober
–9
Nov
embe
rC
onfe
renc
e of
the
Parti
es to
th
e U
N F
ram
ewor
k C
onve
ntio
n on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
7 (C
OP
7),
Mar
rake
sh
Parti
es fi
nally
suc
ceed
ed in
ado
ptin
g th
e Bo
nn A
gree
men
ts o
n th
e Im
plem
enta
tion
of
the
Buen
os A
ires
Plan
of A
ctio
n, w
ww
.unf
ccc.
int/
reso
urce
/doc
s/co
p6se
cpar
t//0
5.pd
f, re
gist
erin
g po
litic
al a
gree
men
t on
key
issu
es u
nder
the
Buen
os A
ires
Plan
of
Act
ion.
The
fina
l Kyo
to r
uleb
ook
was
set
. Cou
ntrie
s m
ust c
ut 8
0% e
mis
sion
s. T
he
Mar
rake
sh M
inis
teria
l Dec
lara
tion
emph
asis
es th
e co
ntrib
utio
n th
at a
ctio
n on
clim
ate
chan
ge c
an m
ake
to s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent,
calli
ng fo
r ca
paci
ty b
uild
ing,
te
chno
logy
, inn
ovat
ion
and
coop
erat
ion
with
the
biod
iver
sity
and
des
ertif
icat
ion
conv
entio
ns. U
p to
Mar
rake
sh, 4
0 co
untri
es h
ad r
atifi
ed th
e Ky
oto
Prot
ocol
.
2002
: 26
Aug
ust–
4 Se
ptem
ber
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Wor
ld
Sum
mit
on S
usta
inab
le
Dev
elop
men
t, Jo
hann
esbu
rg
Key
obje
ctiv
es to
reac
h:(a
) A
revi
talis
ed a
nd in
tegr
ated
UN
sys
tem
for s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent.
(b)
A n
ew d
eal o
n fin
ance
– e
nabl
ing
a de
al o
n su
stain
able
dev
elop
men
t.(c
) A
n in
tegr
atio
n of
trad
e an
d su
stain
able
dev
elop
men
t.(d
) A
cle
arer
und
ersta
ndin
g of
how
gov
ernm
ents
shou
ld m
ove
forw
ard
natio
nally
in
impl
emen
ting
Age
nda
21.
(e)
A n
ew c
harte
r whi
ch c
ould
lay
the
foun
datio
ns fo
r cou
ntrie
s to
fram
e th
eir
susta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent p
olic
ies.
(f)
A re
view
of t
he w
ork
of th
e pr
esen
t set
of R
io c
onve
ntio
ns –
look
ing
at th
e ov
erla
ps,
gaps
and
obs
tacl
es.
(g)
A s
et o
f new
regi
onal
or e
ven
glob
al c
onve
ntio
ns.
(h)
A s
et o
f pol
icy
reco
mm
enda
tions
for t
he e
nviro
nmen
tal s
ecur
ity is
sues
that
face
the
wor
ld.
(i)
A c
lear
set
of c
omm
itmen
ts to
impl
emen
t agr
eed
actio
n by
the
UN
, gov
ernm
ents
and
maj
or g
roup
s.
Con
tinue
s
9781405192583_4_001.indd 99781405192583_4_001.indd 9 9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM
Table
1.1
C
ontd
.
Date
Act
ion
Outp
ut
2002
: 23
Oct
ober
–1
Nov
embe
rC
onfe
renc
e of
the
Parti
es to
th
e U
N F
ram
ewor
k C
onve
ntio
n on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
8 (C
OP
8), N
ew
Del
hi
The
usua
l div
ision
bet
wee
n de
velo
ped
and
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ry p
ositi
ons
on m
any
issue
s w
as
in e
vide
nce
at C
OP
8. P
artie
s co
nven
ed in
neg
otia
ting
grou
ps o
n a
num
ber o
f iss
ues
prev
ious
ly le
ft of
f the
age
nda
due
to th
e pr
essin
g ne
gotia
tions
und
er th
e Bu
enos
Aire
s Pl
an o
f A
ctio
n. T
he D
elhi
Dec
lara
tion
reaf
firm
s de
velo
pmen
t and
pov
erty
era
dica
tion
as o
verri
ding
pr
iorit
ies
in d
evel
opin
g co
untri
es a
nd im
plem
enta
tion
of U
NFC
CC
com
mitm
ents
acco
rdin
g to
Pa
rties
’ com
mon
but
diff
eren
tiate
d re
spon
sibili
ties,
dev
elop
men
t prio
ritie
s an
d ci
rcum
stanc
es,
but i
t doe
s no
t cal
l for
a d
ialo
gue
on b
road
enin
g co
mm
itmen
ts.
2003
: 1–1
2 D
ecem
ber
Con
fere
nce
of th
e Pa
rties
to
the
UN
Fra
mew
ork
Con
vent
ion
on C
limat
e C
hang
e 9
(CO
P 9)
, Mila
n
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
way
the
Kyot
o Pr
otoc
ol (K
P) w
as w
ritte
n, it
will
go
into
effe
ct o
nly
if 55
of
the
signa
torie
s ra
tify.
The
se s
igna
torie
s m
ust a
ccou
nt fo
r 55%
of t
he C
O2 e
miss
ions
at t
he
then
spe
cifie
d da
te –
199
0. T
here
is n
o pr
oble
m w
ith th
e fir
st co
nditi
on, a
s 12
1 co
untri
es h
ave
ratif
ied
the
KP b
ut th
e U
SA (t
he c
ount
ry a
t the
fore
front
of G
HG
em
issi
ons)
sta
ted
that
it w
as n
ot g
oing
to re
pres
ent t
he re
quire
d m
inim
um o
f 55%
of
emis
sion
s w
ithou
t a R
ussi
an ra
tific
atio
n of
the
KP.
2004
: 8–1
1 Ju
neTh
e A
albo
rg +
10
conf
eren
ce, A
albo
rg
(Den
mar
k)
One
obj
ectiv
e of
the
Aal
borg
+ 1
0 co
nfer
ence
was
to a
sses
s th
e 10
yea
rs o
f ex
perie
nces
sin
ce th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f the
Aal
borg
Cha
rter a
nd th
e Eu
rope
an
Susta
inab
le C
ities
& T
owns
Cam
paig
n. N
ine
hund
red
parti
cipa
nts
shar
ed th
eir
expe
rienc
es a
nd m
et in
ope
n di
scus
sion
s an
d di
alog
ues.
Cur
rent
ly th
e C
harte
r is
sign
ed b
y 27
64 c
ities
(see
: http
://w
ww
.aal
borg
plus
10.d
k/m
edia
/sho
rt_lis
t_18
-02-
2009
_1_.
pdf).
2005
: 28
Nov
embe
r–9
Dec
embe
rTh
e fir
st M
eetin
g of
the
Parti
es to
the
Kyot
o Pr
otoc
ol
(MO
P 1)
alo
ng w
ith th
e C
onfe
renc
e of
the
Parti
es to
th
e U
N F
ram
ewor
k co
nven
tion
on c
limat
e ch
ange
11
(CO
P 11
), M
ontre
al
It w
as o
ne o
f the
larg
est i
nter
gove
rnm
enta
l con
fere
nces
on
clim
ate
chan
ge. T
he e
vent
m
arke
d th
e en
try in
to fo
rce
of th
e Ky
oto
Prot
ocol
. Hos
ting
mor
e th
an 1
0 00
0 de
lega
tes,
it w
as o
ne o
f Can
ada’
s la
rges
t int
erna
tiona
l eve
nts
ever
and
the
larg
est
gath
erin
g in
Mon
treal
sin
ce E
xpo
67. T
he M
ontre
al A
ctio
n Pl
an is
an
agre
emen
t ha
mm
ered
out
at t
he e
nd o
f the
con
fere
nce
to ‘e
xten
d th
e lif
e of
the
Kyot
o Pr
otoc
ol
beyo
nd it
s 20
12 e
xpira
tion
date
and
neg
otia
te d
eepe
r cut
s in
gre
enho
use-
gas
emis
sion
s’ (W
ikip
edia
).
9781405192583_4_001.indd 109781405192583_4_001.indd 10 9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM
2005
: 6–7
Dec
embe
rTh
e EU
Min
iste
rs o
n ‘C
reat
ing
Susta
inab
le
Com
mun
ities
in E
urop
e’,
Bris
tol A
ccor
d (U
K)
The
2005
Bris
tol A
ccor
d sa
ys th
at: S
usta
inab
le c
omm
uniti
es a
re a
big
idea
for
a bi
gger
Eur
ope.
It o
ffers
a c
hanc
e to
cre
ate
thriv
ing
and
succ
essf
ul p
lace
s in
whi
ch th
e pe
ople
of E
urop
e w
ill h
ave
a m
ore
secu
re a
nd p
rosp
erou
s fu
ture
. The
Acc
ord
build
s on
the
wor
k of
pre
cedi
ng in
itiat
ives
in th
e ar
ea, s
uch
as th
e Ro
tterd
am u
rban
acq
uis
2004
(prin
cipl
es o
f com
mon
suc
cess
ful u
rban
pol
icie
s), t
he r
evis
ed L
isbo
n ag
enda
for
jobs
, com
petit
iven
ess
and
grow
th, t
he g
oals
of e
nviro
nmen
tal s
usta
inab
ility
agr
eed
at
Got
henb
urg
2001
, the
Lill
e Pr
ogra
mm
e (2
000)
(lon
g-te
rm c
oope
ratio
n on
urb
an
sust
aina
bilit
y w
ithin
the
EU) a
nd th
e ef
fect
ive
dem
ocra
tic g
over
nanc
e ag
reed
at t
he
War
saw
Sum
mit
in M
ay 2
005
(see
: http
://w
ww
.euk
n.or
g/bi
narie
s/eu
kn/e
ukn/
polic
y/20
06/5
/bris
tol-a
ccor
d.pd
f).
2007
: 24–
25 M
ayIn
form
al M
inis
teria
l mee
ting
on u
rban
dev
elop
men
t and
te
rrito
rial c
ohes
ion,
Lei
pzig
(G
erm
any)
The
‘Lei
pzig
Cha
rter
on S
usta
inab
le E
urop
ean
Citi
es’ s
ays
that
stre
ngth
enin
g Eu
rope
an c
ities
and
thei
r re
gion
s –
prom
otin
g co
mpe
titiv
enes
s, s
ocia
l an
d te
rrito
rial c
ohes
ion
in E
urop
e an
d in
its
citie
s an
d re
gion
s ar
e ke
y po
licy
issu
es
that
impa
ct o
n th
e Eu
rope
an C
ounc
il de
cisi
ons
on s
usta
inab
le d
evel
opm
ent t
hat
need
to b
e ap
plie
d in
con
cret
e te
rms
to th
e sp
atia
l dev
elop
men
t of u
rban
ne
ighb
ourh
oods
, citi
es a
nd r
egio
ns (s
ee: h
ttp:/
/ww
w.e
nerg
ie-c
ites.
eu/I
MG
/le
ipzi
g_ch
arte
r.pdf
).
2007
: 15
Dec
embe
rU
N C
onfe
renc
e on
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
(CO
P 13
), Ba
li (In
done
sia)
Agr
eem
ent o
n a
timel
ine
and
struc
ture
d ne
gotia
tion
on th
e po
st-20
12 fr
amew
ork
(a s
ucce
ssor
to th
e Ky
oto
Prot
ocol
) was
ach
ieve
d w
ith th
e ad
optio
n of
the
Bali
Act
ion
Plan
(Dec
isio
n 1/
CP.
13).
The
Ad
Hoc
Wor
king
Gro
up o
n Lo
ng-te
rm
Coo
pera
tive
Act
ion
unde
r the
Con
vent
ion
(AW
G-LC
A) w
as e
stabl
ishe
d as
a n
ew
subs
idia
ry b
ody
to c
ondu
ct th
e ne
gotia
tions
aim
ed a
t urg
ently
enh
anci
ng th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n, u
p to
and
bey
ond
2012
. The
se n
egot
iatio
ns to
ok
plac
e du
ring
2008
(lea
ding
to C
OP
14/M
OP
4 in
Poz
nan,
Pol
and)
and
200
9 (le
adin
g to
CO
P 15
/MO
P 5
in C
open
hage
n, D
enm
ark)
.
2009
: 7–1
8 D
ecem
ber
UN
Con
fere
nce
on C
limat
e C
hang
e (C
OP
15/M
OP
5),
Cop
enha
gen
(Den
mar
k)
The
over
all g
oal w
as to
esta
blis
h an
am
bitio
us g
loba
l clim
ate
agre
emen
t for
the
perio
d fro
m 2
012
whe
n th
e fir
st co
mm
itmen
t per
iod
unde
r the
Kyo
to P
roto
col e
xpire
s.
Min
iste
rs a
nd o
ffici
als
from
192
cou
ntrie
s to
ok p
art i
n th
e C
open
hage
n m
eetin
g an
d,
in a
dditi
on, p
artic
ipan
ts at
tend
ed fr
om a
larg
e nu
mbe
r of n
on-g
over
nmen
tal
orga
nisa
tions
. A la
rge
part
of th
e di
plom
atic
wor
k th
at la
id th
e fo
unda
tion
for a
po
st-Ky
oto
Agr
eem
ent w
as u
nder
take
n by
the
CO
P 15
. At t
he e
nd o
f the
con
fere
nce
an a
ccor
d w
as a
gree
d bu
t thi
s w
as n
ot to
be
lega
lly b
indi
ng a
t thi
s sta
ge. H
owev
er, i
t w
as s
igna
lled
that
this
wou
ld b
e th
e lo
nger
term
obj
ectiv
e.
9781405192583_4_001.indd 119781405192583_4_001.indd 11 9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM9/1/2010 11:54:42 AM