REGENERAT IVE URBAN DEVELOPMENT:

A ROADMAP TO THE C I TY WE NEED

C l i m a t e a n d e n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n

FOREWORD

Humanity has become a predominantly urban species. This historic development represents a fundamental,systemic change in the relationship between humans and nature. For thousands of years, humanity’s relationshipto the land was both enduring and one of huge respect. With the discovery and mass combustion of fossil resourcesand the self-perpetuating cycle of automation, humankind began to extract more and more utility from naturewith increasing disregard for its ability to regenerate. We ignore at our peril the fact that human development andprogress has and will always depend on the earth.

Nobel Laureate and atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen described our modern era as the Anthropocene, a termthat captures the evidence and extent of human activities and its overwhelming global impact on the earth’secosystems. This is indeed reflected in our cities and our huge levels of personal consumption. Apart from a nearmonopoly on natural as well as manufactured materials, an urbanising humanity now consumes nearly half ofnature’s annual photosynthetic capacity as well.

Human impacts on the world’s landscapes are dominated by the ecological footprints of urban areas that nowstretch across much of the globe. The World Future Council’s Regenerative Cities programme seeks to identifyconcepts and policies that help cities to harness their own regenerative capacity in order to reconcile the theirecological footprints with their geographical magnitude. The planning and management of new cities as well asthe retrofitting of existing ones needs to undergo a profound paradigm shift. The urban metabolism must betransformed from its current operation as an inefficient and wasteful linear system into a resource-efficient andcircular system.

The annual Future of Cities Forum was initiated by the World Future Council’s Expert Commission on Citiesand Climate Change as a modern platform for trans-disciplinary dialogue between scientists, policy makers andpractitioners. Its aim is to re-examine what it means for cities to be truly sustainable. The Forum enables policydialogue on comprehensive implementation strategies that foster an enhancing and mutually beneficial relationshipbetween urban systems and the ecosystems they depend on. It seeks to crystallise controversial aspects and toidentify technical and policy solutions.

The overwhelmingly positive feedback of many participants and the fact that they feel “inspired and empoweredto unlock and accelerate concrete actions” encourages us to continue and constantly improve upon our work.Because as Jane Jacobs, the iconic thinker of modern cities said:

“Dull, inert cities, it is true, do contain the seeds of their own destruction and little else. But lively, diverse, intense cities contain the seeds of their own regeneration, with energy enough to carry over for problems and needs outside themselves.”

Stefan SchurigDirector, Climate and EnergyWorld Future Council

­­­­­

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This report documents the main discussion outcomes of the 3rd Future of Cities Forum that took place September4-7, 2013 in Hamburg, Germany. Organised by the World Future Council, it brought together over 150 mayors,ministers, parliamentarians, city councillors, academics, business and civil society representatives, architects andurban planners from 31 countries around the world to debate and develop effective tools and policies forregenerative urban development.

The two-and-a-half-day event was composed of keynote addresses, rich panel discussions, constructive smallerparallel workshops and a study tour of local project sites. The Forum is based on the following structure:

The vision of regenerative cities and communities was first developed by the international Expert Commission onCities and Climate Change, convened by the World Future Council jointly with HafenCity University in 2008.Since then, policy workshops and forums in Delhi, Dubai and Hamburg in addition to an ongoing national seriesin Germany have served as interactive platforms to spur discussion and action between key policy makers andother stakeholders.

The World Future Council will continue facilitating policy dialogue on regenerative cities in 2014 with the 4thFuture of Cities Forum.

For further information please visit www.futureofcitiesforum.com.

CMYK: 15.100.90.10CMYK: 0.80.95.0CMYK: 0.40.53.0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

1. INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS A REGENERATIVE CITY? 5

1.1. Going beyond urban sustainability 5

1.2. Resource flows in an urbanising world 5

1.3. The regenerative vision 6

1.4. Cities: Part of the solution 7

2. WHERE CAN WE OBSERVE REGENERATIVE URBAN DEVELOPMENT IN PRACTICE? 8

2.1. Renewable Wilhelmsburg in Hamburg, Germany 8

2.2. ‘A Quarter for Everyone’ in Hamburg-Altona, Germany 9

2.3. Symbiotic industry in Kalundborg, Denmark 10

2.4. 100% renewable power in San Francisco, US 11

2.5. Food security in Belo Horizonte, Brazil 13

2.6. Decentralised spatial planning in Indonesia 14

3. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS AND VALUE CREATION RESULTING FROM REGENERATIVE URBAN DEVELOPMENT? 16

3.1. Environmental benefits 16

3.2. Economic benefits 17

3.3. Social & human benefits 18

3.4. Resilience benefits 18

3.5. Democratic benefits 19

4. WHAT ARE THE BARRIERS TO REGENERATIVE URBAN DEVELOPMENT? 20

4.1. Short-termism 20

4.2. Silo approaches 20

4.3. Lack of mandate & financing 20

4.4. Corruption 21

5. WHAT ARE THE TOOLS FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION? 22

5.1. Vision & leadership 22

5.2. Citizen & multistakeholder participation 23

5.3. Good governance 24

5.3.1.Decentralisation & multi-level dialogue 24

5.3.2.Cross-sectoral coordination 25

5.4. Communication & education 26

6. CONCLUSION 27

ENDNOTES 28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 29

City

City

ExECUTIvE sUMMARy

At the core of the regenerative vision is ensuring that futuregenerations inherit a robust and intact world in whichindividuals can realise their full human potential and thatcities continue to provide opportunities for all people toimprove their quality of life. Even as cities increasingly relyon goods and resources from all around the world,knowledge and prioritisation of ensuring the long-termavailability and vitality of these supplies is lacking.

The road to regenerative urban development beginswith a switch in our thinking so that by-productsconventionally considered ‘waste’ can be reframed andreused as resource inputs. Regenerative cities are productivecentres that help to regenerate the materials and resourcesthey use and foster a mutually beneficial relationshipbetween urban areas and their surrounding territories.

Case studies presented in this report showcase therenewable energy developments in Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg, the socially inclusive and participatoryplanning process in Hamburg-Altona, the mutuallybeneficial industrial cooperation in Kalundborg, the100% renewable power ambitions of San Francisco, thefood security in Belo Horizonte and decentralisedspatial planning in Indonesia.

While there are no examples of a fully regenerative city,many cities and urban regions around the worlddemonstrate that regenerative urban development is alreadya reality in certain sectors and areas. The shared characteristicof these examples is the desire for a new narrative on whatthe urban landscape can and should look like.

Cities that close their resource loops and source anincreasing share of the resources they consume from

their local and regional territory create social, economicand environmental value in their communities.Regenerative cities:

Benefit the environment and naturalecosystems;

Drive the local economy;

Improve neighbourhood cohesion and health;

Increase their own resilience; and

Enhance participatory decision making.

Despite these benefits, barriers embedded in ourpolitical, financial and social institutional structuresremain. The biggest challenges are a lack of political willand short-term horizons of policy makers. Furtherobstacles to progress include single-sector approachesto problem solving, a lack of coordination betweendifferent governance levels, a lack of mandate for localpolicy making and financing, and a lack of accountability.

Overcoming these challenges and achieving a newurban paradigm require policymakers and communityleaders to envision a better future for their cities that isdifferent from the past and act to realise their vision.This requires long-term perspectives, leadership andstrong political commitment. It is also necessary toinvolve all stakeholders and to leverage publicparticipation to legitimise the planning and developmentprocess, increase acceptance and accelerate change.

Regenerative urban development is enabled bygovernance structures that support decentralisation and multi-level policy dialogue and cross-sectoralcoordination. Effective communication also plays acentral role in successful implementation.

4

1. INTRODUCTION: WHAT Is A REGENERATIvE CITy?

1.1.GOING BEYOND URBAN SUSTAINABILITY

The original definition of sustainable development isoften attributed to the Brundtland report of 1987:“Sustainable development is development that meetsthe needs of the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet their own needs.1”But the term has since become like a rubber band thatcan be stretched in all directions and has been used –and misused – by governments, institutions andcorporations alike. ‘Sustainability’ has been appropriatedby every interest group as a catchall phrase to meansomething positive but the exact meaning is often unclearand it is no longer enough to only look at sustainabledevelopment because the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs is already compromised.

“It is time to re-examine the concept ofsustainable development.” – Herbert Girardet, Co-founder, World Future Council, at FCF 2013

Humanity is currently depleting the natural capitalstocks of the planet and eroding its resilience when itshould be living off the income it regenerates. In 2013,by August consumption worldwide had already overshot

the earth’s annual natural production2. For the rest ofthe year humanity was incurring resource debt. Notsurprisingly, cities and urban areas were major contributorsto this trend. It is clear, then, that in order for cities todevelop sustainably, they must not only stop theirextraction of natural resources faster than ecosystems canrecover, but reverse the trend by improving the regenerativecapacity of ecosystems. This is the only way continuingurbanisation can be sustained in the long term.

1.2. RESOURCE FLOWS IN AN URBANISING WORLD

“We are using 50 per cent more resourcesthan the Earth can provide, and unless wechange course that number will grow veryfast. By 2030, even two planets will not beenough.” – WWF Living Planet 20123

An urban revolution is sweeping the planet and istransforming the lives of billions of people. Citiesdominate human economic activities and, amplified bynew communication networks, they are at the heart ofglobal human interactions. In order to exist, citiesrequire vast amounts of resources that are drawnincreasingly from nature’s global bounty rather thanfrom their own backyard. Yet knowledge andprioritisation of ensuring the long-term availability ofthese existential supplies is lacking.

5

Most modern cities have a linear metabolismResources flow through the urban system with littleconcern for their origin or the destination of waste by-products. Inputs and outputs are treated as largelyunrelated. Fossil fuels are extracted from rock strata,refined, transported and burned, and the waste gasesare discharged into the atmosphere. Raw materials areharvested and processed into consumer goods thatultimately end up as rubbish which cannot be easily orbeneficially reabsorbed into living natural systems. Treesare felled for their timber and pulp and too often forestsare not replenished. Similar linear processes apply tofood: Nutrients and carbon are removed from farmlandas food is harvested, processed and eaten. The resultingwaste – with or without treatment – is discharged intorivers and coastal waters downstream from populationcentres and usually not returned to farmland. Riversand oceans all over the world are contaminated bysewage, toxic effluents and mineral run-offs. Theecological, economic and social externalities of oururban systems need to be addressed in new ways.

1.3. THE REGENERATIVE VISIONThe unprecedented scale and scope at which citiesconsume and discard resources calls for a new urbanagenda in order for cities to positively enhance theecosystems they rely on. If urban areas are to continueto offer individuals around the world the prospect ofan improved quality of life and ability to realise theirpotential and aspirations, they must recognise andembrace their role in ensuring that the earth’s lifesupport systems remain healthy and sound. This meansgoing beyond the ambiguous notion of sustainabilitytoward regenerative urban development with theobjective to improve the currently degraded conditionof our ecosystems.

The road to regenerative urban development requires aswitch in paradigm away from the old linearmetabolism – which allows cities to operate within anisolated segment of the resource cycle – to a newcircular metabolism. In nature there are no landfills; allwaste becomes organic nutrients for new growth.Regenerative urban development seeks to mimic thecircular metabolic systems found in nature. Closing theurban resource cycle means finding value in outputsthat are conventionally regarded as waste and usingthem as resource inputs in local and regional

production systems. Specifically, a regenerative cityreintroduces treated water into the hydrology cycle,increasingly sources food from urban and peri-urbanproducers, captures the nutrients from its sewage andwaste to be applied to surrounding agricultural land,dramatically reduces its dependence on petroleumproducts and boosts the deployment of renewableenergies in its power, transport and heating sectors.Closing resource loops in this way is the first steptoward regenerative development.

“Most of us, especially those of us on thelocal level, think in a linear manner. Nowwe have to think in a cyclical manner. Forexample, in our solid waste problem, wehave to think of ways of making use of thewaste water, of treating it, and capturingthe nutrients.” - Betty Tabanda, City Councillor,Baguio, the Philippines, at FCF 2013

The second step is to actively work to regenerate thematerials and resources the city uses, making theregenerative city a node of production. This can beaided by developing ecosystem service infrastructurewithin the urban area. While many cities, especiallymegacities and those located in resource-poor regions,may not be able to meet all their needs within their ownborders, they can employ a concept of subsidiarity: toseek opportunities to optimise urban and peri-urbanproduction as much as possible before relying on thesurrounding region, only after which they would lookfurther afield.

Establishing and nurturing a symbiotic link betweenurban areas and their surrounding areas lies at the heartof the regenerative vision. Unlike too many moderncities that heavily depend on their hinterland withoutgiving back anything except waste that cannot bereabsorbed, regenerative cities have a mutuallybeneficial relationship with their peri-urban and ruralterritory. They work to improve their health and thehealth of the ecosystems they rely on, in part by reusingwaste as resources of value. This entails returningorganic nutrients to soils, tree planting, crop rotation,replenishing watersheds and developing ecosysteminfrastructures within the city to encourage urbanbiodiversity. Doing so helps to strengthen theregenerative capacity of ecosystems on the local,regional and global levels.

6

1.4.CITIES: PART OF THE SOLUTION

“Cities and their mayors are in a position totake action even when the nations to whichthey belong do nothing.” – Benjamin Barber,Author, ‘If Mayors Ruled the World’, at FCF 2013

On the one hand, poorly planned and managed urbandevelopment exacerbates global problems of climatechange, loss of soil carbon and of the natural fertilityof farmland, and the depletion of biodiversity aroundthe world. On the other hand, cities are hubs of intensehuman interaction and creativity that incubateinnovation and solutions. Cities are active agents thatcan positively impact their environment when designedand managed with care and when they are guided by along-term, holistic vision. With high concentrations of

human capital, they have tremendous potential to bean asset in tackling the pressing challenges of our time.

Cities are already proving to be leaders in the fightagainst climate change. Cities in the global networkC40, which collectively house 8% of the world’spopulation, are reducing greenhouse gas emissionsthrough policies addressing sectors from transport tobuildings and waste management. By 2020, thesestrategies are projected to reduce emissions by 248million tonnes per year compared to a business-as-usualscenario4. The trailblazers in the transition to renewableenergy are also local areas: From Fukushima, Japan, toGreensburg and San Francisco, US, Skellefteå, Swedenand 138 municipalities and regions in Germany, officialtargets of 100% renewable energy have been set and, inmany cases, already reached.5

7

2. WHERE CAN WE OBsERvEREGENERATIvE URBAN DEvELOPMENT IN PRACTICE?

The case studies presented in this chapter are a selectionof cases discussed at the Future of Cities Forum 2013.They demonstrate what regenerative urban developmentcould look like in practice. They are by no meanscomprehensive but serve to illustrate importantelements of regenerative cities

2.1. RENEWABLE WILHELMSBURG IN HAMBURG, GERMANY

The districts of Wilhelmsburg and Veddel are locatedon the Elbe Islands in Hamburg and have historicallybeen on the social outskirts of the city. Deciding thatthis formerly industrial area was ripe for redevelopment,the city framed its new urban development as anInternational Building Exhibition (IBA). IBA is aformat of packaging urban planning initiatives that hasbeen used throughout Germany in the past, mostfamously at Emscher Park in the Ruhr region.6

Redevelopment of former industrial district:Roadmap to 100% renewable electricity and heat

Improved energy efficiency

Ownership through public participation

Involvement of local businesses

The six-year IBA Hamburg project ran until 2013 andcomprised over 60 sites and projects involving localenterprises and residents. The city’s overall goal was touse IBA Hamburg as an urban planning tool to generatenew initiatives that would transform the area into amixed-use space and integrate it into the rest of the city.One priority of the project was to respond to theclimate challenge, resulting in the formulation of urbansustainability goals that have a strong focus on energyefficiency and renewable energy. An overall target of theRenewable Wilhelmsburg concept was to supply the ElbeIslands with 100% renewable energy. In order to reachthis target, the district of 50,000 inhabitants introducedhigh energy efficiency standards for new buildings,energy saving retrofits of old buildings, combined heat

and power plants, and local renewable energy production.Following a step-by-step strategy, local renewable energyis expected to meet all electricity requirements of the ElbeIslands by 2025 and 85% of heating demands by 2050.

Integrating local companies and institutes that willcontinue their work in the long run after the IBA endedin 2013 was an important consideration. Gettingpartners like local energy supplier Hamburg Energie toinvest in renewable energy projects was one of the stepstaken to help ensure progress towards 100% renewableenergy and other goals would continue.

IBA Hamburg tried to incorporate a high level of publicparticipation by establishing platforms like the IBA Laband IBA Forum, through which residents were giventhe chance to discuss specific topics with internationalexperts. In the district ateliers, citizens elaboratedconcepts together with IBA staff. This participationprocess allowed Wilhelmsburg’s residents to feel greaterownership of the renewal of their district that helpedmediate opposition to the development.

One well-known project was the transformation of aflak tower from the second world war into a solar powerplant as well as a biogas-fuelled central heat and powerstation that provide 800 local households withrenewable electricity and heat. Renamed theEnergiebunker, this former symbol of war has become alarge and visible symbol of climate action.IBA Hamburg formed a basis for Wilhelmsburg toreach its ambitious and necessary goal of 100%renewable energy supply. It demonstrates how a majorproject to redevelop an entire district in a regenerativeway – by focusing on local and renewable resources –can be successfully accepted and implemented. It is anexample of future just urban development that reducesthe district’s dependence on its region by generatingrenewable energy locally.

8

IBA Dock, Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg

2.2. ‘A QUARTER FOR EVERYONE’ IN HAMBURG-ALTONA, GERMANY

The socially inclusive and participatory approach inHamburg-Altona is a good example of the kind ofplanning process that enables cities to develop in aregenerative way. The old freight yard in Altona is theobject of a planning process in Hamburg, Germany,with the emerging quarter of Altona Centre projectedto eventually contain 3,500 flats.7

Socially inclusive planning process:Citizen participation enshrined in Federal Building Code

Transparent and open process

Attention from media and local politicians

Community input into urban policy making

Germany’s urban land use planning is regulated in theFederal Building Code and mandates early publicparticipation of citizens in all planning processes. In 2012 the Alsterdorf Evangelical Foundation’s districtdevelopment project ‘Q8’ joined the participation processin Altona Centre by organising an open meeting on thedevelopment of the freight yard which over 200 peopleattended, indicating strong public interest in the project.

“This bottom-up approach created opennessand transparency.” – Michael Preuss, ‘A Quarter for Everyone’ Forum, at FCF 2013

The outcome of the event was a forum called ‘AQuarter for Everyone’ that was facilitated in thesubsequent process by members of Q8. Efficientorganisation as well as an external moderation of theforum guaranteed a democratic alignment in theplenum, a non-hierarchal entity and a focused and goal-oriented forum. By this means the process reached ahigh level of acceptance of the citizens, legitimacy andenabled the realisation of consensus.

The participatory process resulted in a constantpresence in the media, online and at political and publicevents. Most notably, the media coverage and theforum’s transparency interested investors and motivateda large number of citizens to participate.

A characteristic of this bottom-up approach was a fluidand shifting set of goals, which eventually settled on afocus on social inclusion, social sustainability and therights of people with disabilities. The participants ofthe forum agreed to 30 goals for the districtdevelopment; covering issues of residence, mobility,healthcare, employment and economy, the goalsspecifically refer to human rights and the UNConvention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilitiesas a foundation.

Local politicians paid attention and when the goalswere presented to the district assembly it unanimouslydecided to support them and called on the district andstate government to consider these goals in futurebuilding projects. Currently, the Urban Developmentand Environment Authority of Hamburg (BSU) isconducting research on implementation of the proposals.

The case of ‘A Quarter for Everyone’ in Altona showshow the enormous potential of citizen participation canbe mobilised to initiate change within urban planning

9

Energy Hill Georgswerder, Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg

and development processes. It is an inspiring exampleproving that people can serve as a vehicle of change bycollectively deciding ambitious goals of how to developtheir own living environment. The forum alsodemonstrates how the rights of marginalised andvulnerable groups were taken into account and thatsocial inclusion is already present in the heart of society.Regenerative urban transformations are facilitated bysuch participatory approaches that lead to equitableoutcomes which are more accepted by citizens. ‘AQuarter for Everyone’ shows how bottom-up andcommunity-driven initiatives and plans provide inputinto the local policy-making process.

2.3. SYMBIOTIC INDUSTRY IN KALUNDBORG, DENMARK

Kalundborg is a city in the heart of Denmark and ishome to some of the country’s largest industries. In1961, a local oil company cooperated with themunicipality to pipe water from a nearby lake to itspower plant– a project that would later become thebasis of a circular system of resources that include water,heat, gypsum, lime, fly ash, sulphur dioxide, straw andorganic waste.8

Economically driven mutual cooperationin industry:

Closed multiple resource loops in several industries

Reduced waste

Reduced input costs

Economically attractive to remain in local area

In the 1970s, a handful of companies started discussinghow to collaborate in a way that would reduce theiroperational costs. Their initial motivation was to reducecosts by seeking income-generating applications forindustrial by-products. They each agreed to pass theirunwanted by-products – some of which are named inthe previous paragraph – to another company thatwould view them as resources. Central to this systemwas the participation of the municipal government,particularly in closing the water and heat cycles. Byoffering an all-around economic benefit, the systemgrew. Over time, the industrial enterprises ofKalundborg evolved into a cluster of companies thatrelied on each other for material inputs.

10

In Kalundborg, one company's waste is another's resource

“Every project within this network iseconomically viable. Otherwise there wouldbe no incentives for the companies.” – Mette Skovbjerg, Project Manager, KalundborgSymbiosis, at FCF 2013

Today, the municipality and 20 enterprises cooperatein a symbiotic and circular system with advantages foreach. The overall efficient use of resources benefits thelocal economy and ensures an economic locationaladvantage. This makes it financially attractive to stay inthe region despite lower labour costs elsewhere in theworld. In 1993, plasterboard manufacturer Gyprocplanned to relocate abroad to be closer to gypsummines, but a cooperation with local power stationDONG Energy – which produces gypsum as a by-product – made it economically viable for Gyproc andthe jobs it created to remain in Kalundborg.

Beside the economic and social advantages, thesymbiosis found in Kalundborg also leads to a numberof ecological improvements. By way of example,capitalising on the waste by-products of the powerstation – namely steam – has led to reductions in oilconsumption of 20,000 tonnes and water consumptionby 25% per year in the system, and heat waste is placedin water used to optimise the conditions of a fish farmrather than being flushed away. Finally, a decrease inwaste discharge reduces environmental pollution in theregion surrounding this industrial base.

Kalundborg is an example of how one aspect ofregenerative development could come to life. Themunicipality and the companies do not try to dumptheir ‘waste’ but rather see it as a cost effective resourcefor another process. Resources are thus reused severaltimes and formerly degraded ecosystems are given thechance to recover. Furthermore, supply chains remainon the local level rather than being outsourced globally.

The Kalundborg approach evolved organically – ratherthan being intentionally planned – over the course offive decades primarily due to commercial interests. Itserves as a best practice example to other communitiesof how to keep resources in a closed loop cycle andthereby reduce waste generation.

2.4. 100% RENEWABLE POWER IN SAN FRANCISCO, US

Making 100% renewables a reality:Mayor set 100% renewable electricity target

Enabling policy framework on municipal and state levels

Multistakeholder task force

Local and decentralised electricity generation

11

Energy Hill Georgswerder, Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg

In 2010 the mayor of San Francisco, US announced a100% renewable electricity target to be achieved withinten years. The target – building on the 51% RenewablePortfolio Standard set in 2007 for 2017 – can be seenas one instrument to fulfil the Climate Change GoalsOrdinance, adopted in 2008, which set highgreenhouse gas reduction targets. While the ordinanceonly stipulates greenhouse gas-free electricityproduction by 2030, the 100% goal goes one stepfurther.9

“We need public participation andengagement to make the programmework.” – Danielle Murray, Renewable EnergyProgram Manager, Department of the Environment,San Francisco, US, at FCF 2013

The mayor initiated a task force to create strategies toreach the 100% by 2020 aim. It sought to involve allrelevant stakeholders like local renewable energyleaders, business and community actors, representativesfrom environmental NGOs, labour, utilities, andrelevant city departments. This participatory approachfacilitated a higher level of co-determination andthrough that helped to raise public support for theproject as well as involved the necessary technicalexpertise from Stanford University and UC Berkeley.

The task force first conducted a feasibility study andthen identified three tools the city should use to become100% renewable:

(i) Increased energy efficiency, which reduces energy demand;

(ii) Increased local and decentralised energy production, which improves energy security and strengthens the local economy; and

(iii) Option for customers to purchase 100% renewable electricity where locally generated renewable electricity is not available.

It also recommended that the funding of new renewablepower plants be backed by private sector investments.In order to achieve implementation, the task forceproposed a local feed-in-tariff, the adoption of a rooftopsolar policy, net metering and an up-to-date planningand permitting process. As the city has a very high solarpotential, on the task force emphasised policies forrooftop solar installations on newly constructed andrenovated buildings as well as solar water heating.

Between 2010 and 2011 the share of renewables in SanFrancisco was raised by five percentage points, reachinga 46% renewables mix in electricity. The municipalityis taking a leadership role by running all municipaloperations and San Francisco International Airportentirely on renewable energy.

These developments were made possible by an activeand involved mayor, engaged stakeholders and supportfrom an enabling policy environment on the state level:

12

Maximising San Francisco's high solar potential

California state legislation passed in 2002 led to thecreation of a Community Choice Aggregationprogramme in San Francisco that allows localauthorities to aggregate the buying power of individualcustomers in their constituencies in pursuing renewableenergy supplies.

San Francisco’s bid to reach 100% renewable energyshows how regional conditions can be optimised to tapthe full potential of renewable energies. It is becominga more regenerative city by prioritising local generationof renewable electricity, thus decreasing its dependenceon fuel and electricity imports as well as private utilities,which allows the city more control in steering towardsits 100% target.

2.5. FOOD SECURITY IN BELO HORIZONTE, BRAZIL

Ensuring the right to food in the city:Market space in city for local and regional producers

30% of programme funding to purchase food from family farms

Near elimination of hunger with just 2% of city budget

75% reduction in child malnourishment

The city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil has made significantadvances in securing food for its 2.5 millioninhabitants, thanks to its comprehensive policyframework for food sovereignty, which won the FuturePolicy Award 200910 of the World Future Council. Thepolicy was based largely on a municipal law stipulatingthe right to food and the duty of the government touphold this right. The Secretariat for Food Policy andSupply was founded to help reach the goals of the BeloHorizonte Food Security Programme.11

“Regenerative cities need regenerative foodsystems.” – Dr Cecilia Rocha, Director and AssociateProfessor, School of Nutrition, Ryerson University, at FCF2013

A central tenet was reinforcing support for local andregional farmers and family farms in particular. Thepolicy attempts to reduce food prices by directly linkinglocal producers and consumers and diminishing the roleof wholesalers in the supply chain. Local producers aregiven market space to sell their products within the city,resulting in more customers. Government purchase isalso encouraged to stimulate local and diversifiedagricultural production as well as income generation.

The secretariat developed several programmes to tacklehunger and malnutrition and simultaneouslystrengthened family farm-based food production in thesurrounding areas. To support local production, themunicipal government provides subsidised agricultural

13

credit, crop insurance and technical assistance. TheFood Acquisition Programme supports thecommercialisation of products from small farms bycreating institutional markets for them, thus ensuringsufficient sales potential. This is also guaranteed by arequirement – though as yet unmet – that at least 30%of funding for the national school meals programmemust be spent on purchasing food from family farms.

By promoting urban gardening in schools through theFood Security Programme, the children and youth ofBelo Horizonte gain experience in self-sufficient resourceprovision and learn about locally based and healthynutrition. Triggered by the programme, the city alsostarted to plant fruit trees in public space, demonstratingthat squares could serve as food sources as well.A central result of the policy framework was the nearelimination of hunger in Belo Horizonte at a cost of amere two percent of the city’s annual budget. Inaddition, the policy has had multiple positive sideeffects as there is now a closer interaction between smallrural producers and urban consumers. The programmeis also reducing rural-urban migration by giving familyfarmers fresh prospects to continue their work.

While many modern cities may not have the ability tofeed all their inhabitants, Belo Horizonte is evidence thatit is possible to enhance nutrition by making use of familyfarms on the urban periphery. This kind of farmingcontributes to a regenerative food system and in so doingto overall regenerative urban development. While the city

is not food self-sufficient, policy support for local andregional farms allows it to reduce the radius of its foodsources. This strengthens the linkage of the city with itssurrounding area by increasing their interdependence.

2.6.DECENTRALISED SPATIAL PLANNING IN INDONESIA

Successful implementation of regenerative urbandevelopment requires national governments to givelocal levels the authority to plan development of theirconstituencies that is suited to local conditions and theresources to realise the plans. The case study ofIndonesia demonstrates the importance of coherencebetween national and local policies in order to connectpolicy making and implementation.12

Stronger mandate for local authorities:sustainability principles adopted on local level

Zoning permits issued by local government

30% urban space must be open areas, including 20% public space

Indonesia is a rapidly urbanising country: Over half ofthe country’s population lives in urban areas, a fifth ofwhich lives in the metropolitan area of Jakarta, whichis expected to house 11 million residents by 2020.Urban beltways connect the large cities of Indonesia

14

Indonesia is a predominantly urban country. Metropolitan Jakarta will be home to 11 million people by 2020

and blur the boundaries between urban and rural in theregion, in both the physical and socioeconomic sense.

“Now, local governments have more powerthan previously. Coordination and localpublic participation are key.” – Eko Kurniawan,Deputy Director for Metropolitan Spatial Planning andDevelopment, The Directorate General of Spatial Planning,The Ministry of Public Works, Indonesia, at FCF 2013

A new law in 2007 and regulation in 2010 spurred aprocess towards decentralised planning in Indonesia,allowing local governments to have more power thanpreviously. In an attempt at a clean break from theprevious authoritarian regime, the Indonesianparliament passed the Spatial Planning Law 26/2007 –a replacement of the Spatial Planning Law 24/1992 –which explicitly lays out the mandate of provincial anddistrict governments in spatial planning. In the past,spatial planning that crossed provincial borders fellunder the jurisdiction of the national government,whereas with the new law, the responsibility lies withthe governments of the respective provinces tocoordinate with each other. Zoning and spatialplanning permits are now issued by local governments.The spatial planning authority of the centralgovernment is thus curtailed and decentralised to thesubnational level, allowing for urban spatial plans to bemore readily implemented.

In this way, the central government is encouraging localgovernment initiatives. In 2011, mayors helped financegreen spatial planning in their cities by presenting plansto the central government and joining its green citydevelopment programme. Adoption of sustainabilityprinciples are done at the city level. The localgovernment of Jakarta now has more decision-makingand implementation tools and power, allowing it toconsequently expand flood-protected.

The law mandates that a minimum of 30% of urbanareas must be open spaces, with at least two-thirds beingpublic open space. In addition, the law also includes aprinciple of accountability and a minimum standard ofbasic service provision, including provisions on allocationof public transport networks and pedestrian traffic. Mostcities, however, have not reached the 30% threshold yet.

A move away from rigid centralised decision making inregenerative urban planning is important, as localauthorities are more sensitive to the needs of theirconstituents, understand the latent opportunities in theirconstituencies, and are more nimble in adapting to change.The national government, however, still plays animportant role in creating an enabling environment andframework that spurs the right kinds of policy and actionon the subnational level facilitating networks betweendifferent cities and regions. Multi-level dialogue andcooperation in building regenerative cities are thereforecrucial in ensuring coherent policy and coordinated action.

15

3. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITs AND vALUE CREATION REsULTING FROM REGENERATIvE URBAN DEvELOPMENT?

Regenerative cities:1. Enhance the environment and natural

ecosystems;

2. Drive the local economy;

3. Improve neighbourhood cohesion and health;

4. Increase their own resilience; and

5. Enhance participatory decision making.

The case studies in section 2 demonstrate the variousbenefits of regenerative urban development. Cities thatclose their resource loops and source an increasing shareof the resources they consume from their local andregional territory create social, economic andenvironmental value in their communities. This sectionoutlines these benefits in greater detail.

3.1. ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

At the core of the regenerative vision is ensuring thatfuture generations inherit a robust and intact world inwhich they can realise their full human potential andthat cities continue to provide opportunities for allpeople to improve their quality of life. Despitechallenges of degraded land, rising sea levels andpolluted watersheds and air, cities can still progresstowards this vision by regenerating, to the best of theircapacities, the resources they consume and strengtheningthe health and generation capacity of the ecosystemsthey depend on.

As regenerative cities seek to mimic the circularmetabolic systems found in nature, the transition to100% renewable energy is inevitable. In aiming for atarget of 100% renewable energy in all sectors,regenerative cities reduce their demand for fossil fuelsand energy imports and, consequently, greenhouse gasemissions, which not only mitigates climate change butalso has a direct positive impact on the cities’ air quality.The transition to renewable energy is also an adaptationmeasure because decentralised renewable energytechnologies disperse energy production pointsthroughout the city and region. This reduces the negativeimpact on overall energy production should any one

16

plant or area be affected, for example by flooding,technical malfunction or sabotage. Furthermore, mostrenewable energies require less if any cooling water ascompared to conventional power plants.13

Regenerative cities that rely increasingly on theirsurrounding territory rather than on the rest of theworld to meet their resource needs reduce energy useby shortening the distance over which resources aretransported. Promoting urban and peri-urbanagriculture to feed the urban population also results inincreased efficiency in water and nutrient use as well asa smaller energy demand through a lesser need for foodstorage and packaging.

Regenerating raw materials such as timber by replantingtrees not only ensures the continued availability oftimber but also creates benefits for the ecosystem.Afforestation holds topsoil together and in so doingimproves soil fertility and prevents soil erosion. Forestsalso act as carbon sinks by absorbing carbon dioxideand adding to soil carbon.

Closing resource loops to enable a circular urbanmetabolism was identified as the first step ofregenerative urban development in section 1.3. To closethe water loop, cities have a cascading use of recyclingand reusing, capture nutrients embedded in wastewater,and treat the remaining wastewater before dischargingit into rivers or coastal waters. Doing so helps prevent

rivers from drying up or becoming contaminated andreduces the amount of warmed water from industryfrom being dumped into river courses, which wouldimpact the habitat conditions for fish and other river life.

Soil fertility benefits from regenerative urbandevelopment through soil application of the organicnutrients extracted from wastewater and waste asfertiliser. This is the case in Calgary, Canada where amunicipal programme operating within a provinciallevel policy framework transforms biosolids intoorganic fertiliser for peri-urban farms.14

3.2. ECONOMIC BENEFITSRegenerative cities optimise the biocapacity potential ofits urban area and local hinterland. Local production ofenergy, food, and other inputs that flow into a city createslocal jobs and residents employed in these productionprocesses spend their incomes in their local communities,which allows tax revenue to remain in the area and keepseconomic wealth circulating locally and regionally.Furthermore, as decentralised resource provision enablesparticipatory urban governance that often results in moresocially equitable cities, increased economic prosperityresulting from regenerative urban developmentpotentially benefits more stakeholder groups in society.

Looking around the world, we observe that harvestinglocal renewable energy resources results in socio-economic development for the city, communities andregion through local job creation, tax revenues andlower energy prices. According to deENet, a Germannetwork promoting distributed energy technologies, themain reasons communities switch to 100% renewableenergy are economic development and the creation oflocal value as well as independence from fossil fuels. Thetransition in Germany from fossil and nuclear energytowards renewable energies like solar and wind – for themost part, decentralised and community-based –created 370,000 new jobs in the country from 2000 to2010.15 Many of these jobs, such as assessment,installation and maintenance, are local and cannot beoutsourced, thus allowing the economic benefits ofemployment to remain within the local community.

A regenerative city shifts policy priority from highwaysand multi-lane arteries that accommodate cargo trucksand encourage private motorised vehicles to public and

17

Urban farming in an organopónico in Santa Clara, Cuba

non-motorised transport and mobility, which has apositive effect on real estate values.

As the cheapest kilowatt-hour is the one not consumed,the most cost-effective way to meet demand for energy,especially in an era of peak oil, is to decrease energyconsumption by increasing energy efficiency. The samelogic can be applied to water, food or any otherresource. Regenerative urban development is easier toimplement if urban resource consumption is low; thiscan be achieved through increased factor productivity,which also lowers operating costs.

Moreover, reducing and eventually eliminating wastein pursuit of a circular metabolism means lessening theburden on municipal waste collection and disposalservices, thus creating savings in the municipal budget.In addition, the case study of Kalundborg (section 2.3)shows that it was economic reasons that drove thesearch for ways to transform industrial by-productsfrom their conventional classification as waste toresources that can be used as inputs in the productionprocess: Increasing efficiency within the overall systemhelped the companies involved to reduce theiroperational costs which, in the case of Gyproc, made iteconomically viable enough for it to stay instead ofrelocating overseas.

Finally, regenerative development is attractive tobusinesses which see the long-term vitality of the cityas lower-risk, more capable of withstanding externalshocks, and thus reflective of long-term prosperity forthe businesses themselves. A clear policy frameworkcreates the kind of stable investment environmentsought by investors.

3.3. SOCIAL & HUMAN BENEFITSClosing the resource loop on a community levelprovides opportunities for human interaction asresidents seek mutually beneficial ways to find value inwhat their neighbours consider to be waste and to havetheir own waste to be regarded as a resource by others.This can help create social bonds and enhance culturalvalue within the city.

As case studies from around the world have shown,urban agriculture has proven to improve socialcohesion and lower crime rates by enabling localresidents to take pride and ownership of theircommunity and daily lives. This is especially pertinentin poor and marginalised neighbourhoods. People areable to connect with their neighbours as they work ona project together. Community farms in Philadelphiaand Chicago, for example, provide employment forresidents with past criminal records or otherwise havetrouble finding work elsewhere, thus enabling theirintegration back into society.16 Belo Horizonte (section2.5) and Havana train students from local schools inthe techniques of organic farming, which adds to theskillsets and knowledge found in the community. Withthe unique exception of Cuba, full self-sufficiency israrely the ultimate goal of localising food production;rather, food is seen as a vehicle for positive socialdevelopment and other policy sectors.

A direct benefit of a regenerative food system is theurban population’s improved access to nutritious food.Another direct benefit of regenerative urban developmentis an elimination of both the conceptual notion of wasteand the physical presence of it, creating a more liveableand a healthier living environment in the city.

3.4. RESILIENCE BENEFITS

The traditional urban-rural dichotomy is important toan understanding of cities and the roles they play.Urbanisation was historically made possible to asignificant extent because of agricultural surplus, whichallowed a larger portion of the population to engage inactivities outside of agriculture because farmersproduced food in excess of their own consumption. Theexcess was sold in urban markets to be consumed bythe urban population. With the advent of improvedtransport links on land and water and technologicaladvances in refrigeration and as cities grew bigger and

18

At the Future of Cities Forum 2013

wealthier, they began to source food from fartherdistances, becoming less connected with the origins oftheir food. The same trend applies to other resources.

Regenerative development reconnects cities with theproduction systems they depend on by fostering urban-rural linkages. Each urban area becomes responsible forits material inputs, either by producing them itself orby helping to replenish them at source. This results inas many nodes of resource generation as there are urbanareas, and decentralises production - from a globalperspective - to the local and regional levels.Increased self-sufficiency allows a city to be moreresilient to external shocks, including instability ofresource price and availability. San Francisco, for example,identified energy independence, security and resilienceas important co-benefits in its push to expand decentralisedrenewable power generation within the city.18

In an increasingly interconnected world in which localactors find themselves subject to complex globalisedsystems and decisions over which they often have littlecontrol, self-sufficiency provides the resource securityneeded for cities to regain some power in makingdecisions that affect their own development. Byfostering local production, regenerative urbandevelopment reduces the city’s dependence on importsof food and other resources, thus diversifying itsportfolio. Shorter supply chains provide a safety net tosupport cities in the case that import channels are cutor the area of origin of the import is affected.

3.5.DEMOCRATIC BENEFITS“One of the good things about cities is thatthey have localised structures, so thatparticipation happens on a neighbourhoodlevel.” – Benjamin Barber, Author, ‘If Mayors Ruled theWorld’, at FCF 2013

Regenerative urban development is driven bydemocratic decision making and implementation inorder to be future-just, equitable and accepted by thepopulation. It understands social inclusivity andenvironmental protection as two sides of the same coin.Increased resilience and self-sufficiency throughdecentralised resource flows and production bringspower back to the people through localised decisionmaking. This encourages broader participation ascitizens understand the genesis of the resources they useand the relevance to themselves: not only in theconsumption of the final product, but participating inthe shaping of the production process itself.

The national level promotion of decentralisedrenewable energy production in Germany, for example,resulted in the creation of community energy co-operatives. The national feed-in tariff policy wassuccessful because it enabled broad participation, whichtriggered social acceptance, and acceptance resulted ininvestments. These are democratic organisations ownedand controlled by their members, who share in thepower structure by participating in setting policies andcollective decision making for their mutual benefit.

“Public participation, i.e. the engagement ofindividuals with societies around them – orthe strength of civil society in a city – has astrong link to environmental performance” –Kees van Leeuwen, Chair, Water Management and UrbanDevelopment, KWR Watercycle Research Institute, at FCF2013

In order to close urban resource loops, cities mustunderstand the ways in which different resourcesinteract with each other beyond sectoral boundaries andfacilitate horizontal coordination (see section 5.3.2).This has the potential to increase the multitude anddiversity of interests and voices represented in urbandevelopments, lending credence to the decision-makingprocess and vitality to the decisions reached.

19

At the Future of Cities Forum 2013

4. WHAT ARE THE BARRIERs TO REGENERATIvE URBANDEvELOPMENT?

Challenges:1. short-term visions

2. silo approaches

3. A lack of policy mandate and financing

4. Corruption

Despite the multiple benefits outlined in section 3,obstacles hindering progress on regenerative urbandevelopment remain. The main challenges arise frominstitutionalised failures in our political, financial andsocietal structures, requiring leadership and politicalcommitment to overcome them. The following sectionsummarises some of these barriers.

4.1. SHORT-TERMISMThe biggest barrier to change is the inability to imaginea future different from the present and conviction thatits realisation is feasible. This obstacle manifests itselfas a lack of political will and as short-term horizons.

With re-election as among the top priorities for mostelected officials, there are few structures in place thatsystematically incentivise political decisions that benefitcommunities and the ecosystems they depend on in thelong run but which are costly in the short run. Instead,the institutions currently in place, including electioncampaigning, promote quick political wins and instant

gratification rather than long-term viability andcontinuing value creation. Furthermore, electoraloffices tend to be short and are usually limited to fouror five years. Frequent changes to government may leadto policy discontinuity.

4.2. SILO APPROACHESEcosystems comprise networks of intertwined elementsand a change to one point in the system createsreverberations throughout the web. Not only doresource issues go beyond city boundaries, theirrelevance touches multiple city departments. InIstanbul, for example, there is a concerted governmenteffort to increase water supply to the city that resultedin the construction of a pipeline from the reservoir. Thisraises the issue of habitat conservation, since watersupply is unsustainable without proper ecologicalmanagement.19

The organisational structure of local governments,however, is often divided into silos that assume issuesof water, waste, energy, transport, housing, food andconstruction can be managed adequately by using asingle-sector approach. This kind of structure does notencourage cross-sectoral cooperation to the extentrequired in sufficiently addressing the complexchallenges of regenerative development.

4.3. LACK OF MANDATE & FINANCING

“Cities are asking the question: ‘Why can’twe steer urban development?’” – PhilotheusyMbogoro, National Coordinator, Tanzania CitiesNetwork, at FCF 2013

20

In many parts of the world policies affecting urban areasare made at the national level and funding for urbaninitiatives is under centralised control. This is especiallythe case on the African continent. Even when decisionmaking power is ceded to the local government, localauthorities may not be able to finance theirprogrammes for want of access to the national budgetand mandate to levy their own taxes. Local levelmeasures depend instead on national subsidies. Wherelocal authorities have some power to make urban policy,without dialogue and coordination with the nationallevel there is the risk of conflicting policy targets andimplementation.

Cities that have privatised their public services andutilities – such as water, energy and waste management– have reduced capacity to create well-integrated urban systems. Contracts with private providers reduce consumer choice and make it difficult for cities to have control over the details of provision: for example, while the mayor’s office of Los Angelesannounced a coal-free target, contract obligations with a coal-fired power plant prevent the city fromsimply walking away from the plant.20 Cities may also be locked into long-cycle technologies such as waste incineration, which disincentivises wastereduction.

4.4.CORRUPTIONInstability of the law and low levels of political accountabilityon local as well as national levels of government presentchallenges to social progress. Corruption undermines thelegislative framework and therefore damages the rule of law.It reduces public trust and leads to a lack of societal trust inthe governing structure. In terms of the budget, public fundsare not fully accounted for. In an absence of rule of law, thereis a prevalence of uncertainty and lack of transparency - andhence a reduction in investment, which hinders the progressof urban development.

“There is a failure in implementation:Implementers are not in a position toimplement. The main problem? Corruptionand election interests.” – Margaret Zziwa,Speaker, East Africa Legislative Assembly, at FCF 2013

A common experience of countering corruption – fromNigeria to the Philippines – is the importance of heightenedawareness and commitment from the public to understandthe scope and impact of the policy. All stakeholders needto be involved and engaged in the decision-making processin order for good governance to thrive, and civil societyplays a central role in enlightening and empowering thepublic to hold their elected officials accountable.

21

At the Future of Cities Forum 2013

5. WHAT ARE THE TOOLs FOR sUCCEssFUL IMPLEMENTATION?

Useful tools:1. vision & leadership

2. Citizen & multistakeholder participation

3. Decentralisation and multi-level dialogue

4. Cross-sectoral coordination

5. Communication & education

This section presents recommendations drawn from theFuture of Cities Forum and tools that enable decisionmakers to take the necessary steps towards regenerativedevelopment.

5.1. VISION & LEADERSHIP

“Reurbanising the space took more than afew years - it took a vision.” – Choong-Yeol Ye,Vice President, Planning and Administration, The KoreaTransport Institute, at FCF 2013

From Bogota to Dalian, Curitiba to New York, thepower of an inspiring vision and the impact ofcommitted local leadership on the direction and rate ofurban development can be keenly felt in the fabric ofthe city. The former mayor of San Francisco, forexample, was actively involved in developing the city’s100% renewable electricity target and plan.21 Mayorsof these cities envisioned a radically different and betterfuture than what they observed around them at thetime, and took the necessary steps to transform theirvision into reality.

Being able to imagine a future different from the presentreality is essential to breaking free from unsustainablepath dependent development. Asking the questions‘What do I want my community and city to look like?’and ‘What would improve the quality of life in my city?’helps create a vision to work towards; this image of animproved living environment creates goals and providesa framework to guide action. Visions, while ambitious,should also focus on strengths: for example, Växjö doesnot see a lot of sun but is located next to a forest, so itsaw the merits of promoting biomass over solar as asource of energy.22 It is the job of policymakers to makeavailable information on the potential of variousdevelopment options to their constituents, as peoplerequire information in order to take action.

22

At the Future of Cities Forum 2013

The first step for a city is to set both qualifiable andquantifiable targets. Target setting demonstrates andcommunicates political will, commitment, leadershipand vision. It catalyses change by streamlining andproviding an official mandate for action. This mobilisesadditional actors to become involved; for example, clearand straightforward policy direction creates investmentsecurity and thus attracts investors.23

“Long-term vision and concrete milestonesare necessary.” – Fatima Shah, Senior UrbanSpecialist, South Asia Urban and Water Unit, WorldBank, at FCF 2013

That being said, target setting alone is insufficient inensuring implementation. This is shown by as yetunmet targets in Indonesia’s spatial planning lawrequiring 30% of urban space to be green and Brazil’snational school meals programme requiring 30% ofprogramme funding to go to family farms. Targets aremore effective when complemented by additionalmeasures such as a step-by-step strategy and a roadmapwith intermediate indicators.

Oftentimes decisions requiring strong political will aremade during times of crisis because there is no viablealternative. It is important to plan proactively ratherthan reactively, especially as doing so could prevent thecrisis in some cases and will enhance the city’s resiliencein absorbing the shock.

5.2.CITIZEN & MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

“Local authorities cannot do it alone. All stakeholders need to build the urbanpolicy.” – Jan Olbrycht, Member of the EuropeanParliament, at FCF 2013

In the case studies in section 2, the local communitiesnot only benefit from the outcomes of regenerativeurban development, they also participated and engagedin the planning process. Decisions were more sociallyinclusive as a result and, carrying the mandate of thepeople, more accepted and legitimate.

Involving all major stakeholders from the outset hasbeen shown time after time to result in more equitabledevelopment as a greater diversity of voices arerepresented in the planning process. In the case of SanFrancisco, diverse interests were represented in oneroom together with the local government as part of thetask force to develop a plan and strategy, and theresulting public-private partnership decided to set upsolar power installations in low-incomeneighbourhoods. In Toronto, a multistakeholder foodpolicy council was established. In Japan, successfulefforts to reduce and recycle waste always involved thefull participation of citizens, showing that bylaws, whileimportant, must go hand-in-hand with a correspondingchange in culture.

“Local authorities have a lot of power inwaste management, but examples haveshown that real change in waste structuresand behaviour is only possible afterinvolving and consulting the public.” –Kazunobu Onogawa, Senior Fellow, Institute for GlobalEnvironmental Strategies, at FCF 2013

To go beyond including the voices of those who arealready vocal, project managers and coordinators shouldmake a conscious effort to reach those typicallyoverlooked in order to include vulnerable andmarginalised groups. In the case of Altona, persons withdisabilities see their needs and rights reflected in thefinal proposals because the forum explicitly listed themas stakeholders in the community planning process,making it easier for them to take an active role.Similarly in Wilhelmsburg, when immigrant

23

At the Future of Cities Forum 2013

communities – typically underrepresented in decision-making processes – had low levels of response to ageneral call for public input, IBA Hamburg re-tailoredits outreach strategy to these neighbourhoods by goingdoor-to-door with translators in an effort to lowercultural and language barriers to participation.24 Thiswas a conscious decision to win them over asparticipants in the planning process.

Citizen participation in urban improvementdevelopments is part of a positive feedback system inwhich residents who are proud of their city feel greaterownership of and identify with it. With this kind of‘buy-in’, residents become more invested in theoutcomes and therefore more engaged in the process ofimproving their living environments. A sense of identity and belonging with the city is a missing factor in Africa, where “a lot of city dwellers do notidentify with the city. Many people go back to theirhouses outside the city, and therefore do not feel thatthe city is theirs.25”

5.3.GOOD GOVERNANCEAlthough cities like Hamburg show that technologicaland policy solutions already exist, progress around theworld is too little and too slow given the enormity ofthe challenges cities face. The main barriers are a lackof vertical and horizontal coordination, a lack of accessto funding and expertise, and perceived conflicts inpolicy aims. Enabling governance structures help scaleup best practices and connect scattered initiatives intoan integrated policy approach.

5.3.1. DECENTRALISATION & MULTI-LEVEL DIALOGUE

“You cannot wait for national agreements orlaws.” – Henrik Johansson, EnvironmentalCoordinator, Executive Office of Strategic Planning,Växjö, Sweden, at FCF 2013

The extent of government mandates on the variouslevels differs from country to country and region toregion. In most cases in Africa, for example, it isnational governments that make policies affectingurban populations – on housing, energy, water - whilelocal bylaws are needed to ensure local implementation.A move towards decentralisation, as observed inIndonesia’s spatial planning law (section 2.6), allowssubnational policymakers to have greater power inmaking decisions that affect their constituencies and totailor policy instruments to the local context.

“Urban planning policies are not a priorityon the national level. We need bylaws totransform national measures into localimplementation.” – Margaret Zziwa, Speaker, EastAfrica Legislative Assembly, at FCF 2013

The national Indonesian government, however, stillplays a key role in urban development by setting theright parameters – through, for example, incentiveschemes – that guide local action. Effective governancein regenerative urban development follows a principleof subsidiarity whereby an issue falls under thejurisdiction of the least centralised level that issufficiently capable of its management.

24

25

A regenerative city is characterised by a goodgovernance relationship with its hinterland as itsresource bases often extend beyond municipal borders.In managing water provision and consumption, forexample, it will consider the entire watershed if the goalis to have integrated allocative water management bothin and outside the city. This requires the city authoritiesto talk to those governing the greater region.

Multi-level dialogue and coordination are crucial inensuring coherent action. The importance of the linkbetween national and local policy can be observed inBrazil (section 2.5), where national policies strengthenthe rural farms that feed urban populations by creatingurban markets for rural producers. The real potentialof producing food and the capacity of cities to beregenerative depends on supporting and benefiting theentire local region, not just the urban area.Communication and collaboration between local,regional and national levels of government can also leadto an urban policy framework on the national level thatempowers more authorities on the local level to takebold action and implement change.

5.3.2. CROSS-SECTORAL COORDINATIONEcosystems are highly complex and integrated systemswith interdependent elements. As such, resource issuesrarely recognise municipal departmental borders. This

was a recurring pointraised by participants of the Future of Cities Forum in anumber of sessions.Although governmentsconventionally isolatedifferent sectors intoseparate departments orministries, in realitymany urban developmentissues are relevant to morethan one sector. By wayof example, Växjöcaptures biomethanefrom its sewage sludgeand household waste to use as a fuel in its public transport vehicles. Urbanisation inindustrialising countries

in particular brings the nexus of water, land, energy andfood to the fore.

It is ineffective and insufficient to consider any one issueonly in the context of one sector. Closing the water cycle,for example, entails cascading use, but the nutrientsembedded in wastewater are necessary in helping to closeother resource loops. Regenerative cities are systems thatconsider the complete resource loop and abandon a siloapproach by seeking out efficiencies across multiple sectors.

One way for cities to do this is to establish a specialbody or office within the municipality to coordinatedifferent departments in pursuing integrated strategies.In order to carry out its climate protection master plan,Copenhagen coordinates its activities through itsTechnical and Environmental Administration.Environmental management is required in alldepartments and the city appoints environmentalcoordinators in each unit. The Technical andEnvironmental Administration monitors the progressand publishes regularly updated information that iseasily accessible online for the public and otherstakeholders. This kind of dedicated city office, taskedwith linking up horizontally within the localgovernment in order to facilitate cross-sectoralplanning, implementation and synergies, is a useful toolin building a regenerative city.

Energiebunker, Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg

26

5.4.COMMUNICATION & EDUCATIONOutreach, education and good communication mustcomplement strong leadership and visions of citybetterment. An ambitious target is more easily achievedwith the support of a broad majority of citizens. Aneffective communications campaign is a tool:

(i) To change behaviourPublic campaigns are used by cityadministrators to alter individual attitudes andbehaviour. For example, a strong publiccampaign by the singaporean governmenthelped reduce the city’s daily domestic waterconsumption by 12 litres per capita within adecade.

(ii) To informPolicymakers and civil servants communicatewith their constituents in order to disseminateinformation about policies, programmes orinitiatives. This demonstrates transparencyand credibility, and helps to gain widersupport.

City officials and campaigners are increasinglyembracing new modes of communicating with theirconstituents. An innovative example can be found inBristol, UK: After being named the European GreenCapital 2015, the city used a sense of humour and funto engage its public. Rather than writing a press releaseannouncing it had won European Green CapitalAward, it approached residents on the street that were,

for example, recycling a newspaper, cycling or takingpublic transit, and used song and dance to publiclythank each person for their efforts. This was filmed andmade into a short video compilation, complete with acatchy and uplifting tune, to reach out to more people.26

Considering water shortages in urban areas in SouthAsia, the crux of the problem is that users considerwater to be free, resulting in inefficient and lessrestrained use. This reflects a linear system in whichuninformed consumers do not value water resources. Itis therefore important for governments and civil societyto improve knowledge around resource generation andthe inherent link between urban systems and naturalecosystems.

“Educating the public is important so thatusers understand that water doesn’t justcome out of a pipe.” - Sanjay Prakash, PrincipalConsultant, SHiFt: Studio for Habitat Futures, India

Education and learning is important not only for citizensbut for policymakers and local authorities. In order forcities to successfully address climate change, resourcescarcity, and other environmental, social and economicchallenges, they must be capable of systematising bestpractice and constructive learning through knowledgesharing and open source systems or programmes.Increasingly, cities are collaborating bilaterally as well aswithin regional, national and international city networks.These networks and organisations allow cities to sharetechnical expertise and experience with best practices andpolicies with each other.

6. CONCLUsION

The goal of this report was to outline the richdiscussions from the Future of Cities Forum onprogressing towards a regenerative vision in order toinject focus and substance in the concept of sustainableurban development. Drawing on the experiences fromsix of the case studies discussed at the forum, this reportdescribed the benefits of regenerative urbandevelopment, the challenges faced in implementation,and useful tools and action points for policymakers andurban stakeholders.

While there were no examples given of a fullyregenerative city, many cities around the worlddemonstrate regenerative urban development in certainsectors and embody many of its elements. A notablediscussion outcome was that the cities identified in thiscategory have diverse characteristics: some have largepopulations while others are small cities; some arecoastal cities while others are situated inland; some havelow population growth while others are rapidlyurbanising; some are in industrialising countries whileothers are in industrialised countries.

The common thread connecting all of these cities is thedesire for a new narrative on what the urban landscapecan and should look like.

It is not only urgently necessary for cities to becomeregenerative in order to ensure the long-term robustnessof the planet they depend on for their existence, it isdesirable for them to do so given the benefits to:

the conditions of natural ecosystems;

the local economy;

the social and physical health of people and their neighbourhoods;

the capacity of cities to withstand external shocks; and

the democratic process.

That is not to say that there is a silver bullet solution orthat the path to realising a regenerative vision will beeasy or costless in the short term. Obstacles endemic inour political, financial and social institutional structuresrequire leaders – whether they be policymakers in localor national governments, community leaders in civilsociety, or ordinary citizens – to think in a radicallydifferent way from the business-as-usual scenario inorder to overcome these obstacles.

Successful implementation of a new urban paradigm isaided by:

Leadership: A strong vision and political will;

Inclusive policymaking: Public participation and involvement of diverse stakeholders;

Integrated governance: Decentralised decision making coupled with vertical coordination;

A holistic policy approach: A cross-sectoralapproach that facilitates horizontal dialogue;

Good governance: Enforcement and accountability; and

Enhanced dialogue: Effective communicationand education.

With these tools, regenerative cities can lead the waynot only in securing long-term prosperity for theircitizens, but also positively enhancing the health of theirenvironment and the vitality of the planet.

27

ENDNOTEs

All online references last accessed 4 March 2014.ß

1 Report of the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment: Our common Future, Part I., 2. TowardsSustainable Development. Permanent link: www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.

2 Global Footprint Network.www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/gfn/page/earth_overshoot_day/.

3 World Wide Fund, Living Planet Report 2012,www.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/1_lpr_2012_online_full_size_single_pages_final_120516.pdf.

4 C40 Blog, “C40 Blog Mayors of the World’s Largest CitiesDemonstrate Progress in Greenhouse Gas Reductions and LaunchTwo New Initiatives.” www.c40.org/blog_posts/mayors-of-the-world%E2%80%99s-largest-cities-demonstrate-progress-in-greenhouse-gas-reductions-and-launch-two-new-initiatives.

5 Global 100% Renewable Energy, www.go100re.net.

6 Case study based on information from the FCF 2013presentation by Uli Hellweg, Managing Director, IBA Hamburg;interview with Katharina Jacob, Assistant Project Coordinator,Cities and Climate Change, IBA Hamburg; and Energy Atlas:Future Concept Renewable Wilhelmsburg, IBA Hamburg 2010

7 Case study based on information from input at the FCF 2013by Michael Preuss, Forum Eine Mitte für Alle; and Q8, EineMitte für Alle, www.q-acht.net/Eine-Mitte-fuer-Alle.11.0.html

8 Case study based on information from the FCF 2013presentation by Mette Skovbjerg, Project Manager, KalundborgSymbiosis; Kalundborg Symbiosis, www.symbiosis.dk; andKalundborg, Interntional Institute for Sustainable Development,www.iisd.org/business/viewcasestudy.aspx?id=77

9 Case study based on information from the FCF 2013presentation by Danielle Murray, Renewable Energy ProgramManager, Department of the Environment, San Francisco, US;and ‘San Francisco Mayor’s Renewable Energy Task Force:Recommendations Report,’ September 2012

10 ‘Future Policy Award 2009: Celebrating the World’s BestLaws to Tackle Hunger,’ World Future Council,www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fpa_2009.html

11 Case study based on information from the FCF 2013presentation by Cecilia Rocha, Director and Associate Professor,School of Nutrition, Ryerson University; and Celebrating theBelo Horizonte Food Security Programme, World Future Council2010

12 Case study based on information from the FCF 2013presentation by Eko Kurniawan, Deputy Director, MetropolitanSpatial Planning and Development, Directorate General of SpatialPlanning, Ministry of Public Works, Indonesia; Tommy Firman,“Urbanization and urban development patterns” The Jakarta Post,May 12, 2012; ‘A Historical Overview of the Spatial Planning inIndonesia,’ Indonesia’s Urban Studies,www.indonesiaurbanstudies.blogspot.de/2008/09/historical-overview-of-spatial-planning.html; and ‘Indonesia: CountryProfile, An Overview of Spatial Policy in Asian and EuropeanCountries,’ Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism, Japan,www.mlit.go.jp/kokudokeikaku/international/spw/general/indonesia/index_e.html#g02

13 ‘From Vision to Action: A workshop report on 100%Renewable Energies in European Regions,’ World FutureCouncil, Nordic Folkecenter and Climate Service Center at theHelmholtz-Zentrum Geesthact, March 2013.

14 ‘Towards the Regenerative City,’ World Future Council 2013

15 ‘From Vision to Action: A workshop report on 100%Renewable Energies in European Regions,’ World FutureCouncil, Nordic Folkecenter and Climate Service Center at theHelmholtz-Zentrum Geesthact, March 2013.

16 Alex Kotlowitz, “Plant Tomatoes, Harvest Lower CrimeRates,” Mother Jones, July/August 2012,www.motherjones.com/media/2012/07/chicago-food-desert-urban-farming

17 ‘Towards the Regenerative City,’ World Future Council 2013

18 ‘San Francisco Mayor’s Renewable Energy Task Force:Recommendations Report,’ September 2012

19 FCF 2013 presentation by Kees van Leeuwen, Chair, WaterManagement and Urban Development, KWR WatercycleResearch Institute

20 “Los Angeles to be coal-free by 2025, declares mayor,”Powerto the People, www.power-to-the-people.net/2013/03/los-angeles-to-be-coal-free-by-2025-declares-mayor

21 FCF 2013 presentation by Danielle Murray, RenewableEnergy Program Manager, Department of the Environment, SanFrancisco, US

22 FCF 2013 presentation by Henrik Johansson, EnvironmentalCoordinator, Executive Office of Strategic Planning, Växjö,Sweden

23 ‘From Vision to Action: A workshop report on 100%Renewable Energies in European Regions,’ World FutureCouncil, Nordic Folkecenter and Climate Service Center at theHelmholtz-Zentrum Geesthact, March 2013.

24 FCF 2013 presentation by Uli Hellweg, Managing Director,IBA Hamburg

25 FCF 2013 presentatin by Margaret Zziwa, Speaker, EastAfrica Legislative Assembly

26 FCF 2013 presentation by Darren Hall, Manager, BristolGreen Capital Partnership, UK

28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the Freeand Hanseatic City of Hamburg for generouslysponsoring the 3rd Future of Cities Forum as well as tothe Urban Development and Environment Authorityof Hamburg (BSU) and the International BuildingExhibition (IBA) Hamburg for hosting the Forum.Special thanks also go to our advisory group membersand partners: HafenCity University, the World Bank,IBM and the World Urban Campaign. Last butcertainly not least, we are immensely grateful to all ofthe participants for their time and invaluable input.

IMAGE CREDITS

P. 1, 9b, 20a: World Future CouncilP. 5: David Wallace / Flickr Creative CommonsLicenseP. 7: Jara von LüpkeP. 8, 11, 25: IBA HamburgP. 9a: Q8P. 10: Kalundborg SymbiosisP. 12: Daniel Hoherd / Flickr Creative CommonsLicenseP. 13: David Orr / World Food ProgrammeP. 14: World Bank Photo CollectionP. 15: Caroline Enders, Institut für dezentraleEnergietechnologienP. 16, 18, 19, 20b, 21, 22, 23, 25: Katja ZimmermannP. 16: lezumbalaberenjena / Flickr Creative CommonsLicenseP. 20: Katie & Ian / Flickr Creative CommonsLicenseP. 26: Chiara MarinoP. 27: Calsidyrose / Flickr Creative Commons License

Graphics: Rick Lawrence

AUTHOR

Fiona Woo

Co-authors: Julian Wortmann, Stefan Schurig and Anna Leidreiter

© World Future Council 2014

29

ABOUT THE WORLD FUTURE COUNCIL

The World Future Council brings the interests of future generations to the centre of policy making. It consists of 50global change-makers from around the world representing governments, parliaments, civil society, academia, the artsand business. The World Future Council focuses on identifying and spreading effective, future-just policy solutions.It works in close collaboration with civil society actors, policy makers and international organisations to pass on ahealthy planet and just societies to future generations. The World Future Council operates as an independentfoundation under German law and finances its activities from donations.

How to donate

Bank transfer

World Future Council FoundationInstitution: GLS BankAccount no.: 200 900 400Sort Code: 430 609 67IBAN: DE 7043 0609 6720 0900 4000BIC/SWIFT-Code: GENODEM1GLS

Cheque

Please make cheques payable to:

World Future Council Foundation

Cheques should be mailed to:Stiftung World Future CouncilMexikoring 2922297 HamburgGermany

Online

Secure online donation at:

www.worldfuturecouncil.org/donate.html

World Future Council

Mexikoring 29, 22997 Hamburg, GermanyTel: +49 40 3070914-0Fax: +49 40 3070914-14Email: info@worldfuturecouncil.org

www.worldfuturecouncil.org