Cameron Sinclair reply

In my text for Design Observer about design and development I questioned some aspects of a project by Architecture for Humanity. This throughtful reply to me from Cameron Sinclair has not yet been posted at Design Observer so I’m posting it here.
“John,
“Great post, as per usual, and yes there are some strong and valid points you raise. Naturally I do object to the generalization made in the comments about the AMD Open Architecture Challenge for a few reasons.
“Firstly. The point was not to develop a project for others but in collaboration with. The challenge was borne out of an RFP that 103 communities from around the world applied for (a dozen of which were from India). Three local community organizations were selected, by a global group, and we developed a brief/criteria in unison with the client/end user – ie. not the imposition of technology, rather the inclusion to already existing programs. These included a health facility in rural Nepal, fair trade chocolate factory in Ecuador and a youth media lab in Nairobi.
“What was striking in the criteria development that while, as you point out 6M people in India are getting cell phones every month, the community in Kenya were looking to utilize technology for skills training, job creation and community out reach. Can this be all done with a cell phone – yes – Can it only be done with a cell phone – no. Creating equal access to technology is not just providing one option but many options. This is where the overlap with architecture happens and that well designed, appropriate, energy efficient structures can make a difference.
“This is my second point. Architecture is no longer about form making – it never was – it is about creating appropriate structures that interweave the local context of a community and that hopefully inspire. Many young and emerging architects are not taught the way that many ‘star-architects’ are currently practicing. These designers are creating structures that are not only appropriate but are site specific based on local knowledge and involvement. The challenge had 800+ designers from 35 countries develop a conceptual solution where the winner, selected by community members, has the opportunity to realize the design with both the local client and design professionals. This entire process will take a couple of years, most of which will be on the ground.
“My third point is that all 400+ designs are now CC licensed solutions that can be adapted and replicated by others. When the designs are for social change they should be shared. Hosted on the Open Architecture Network, this allows local community organizations and regionally based NGOs to find a solution and work with designers to adapt it to a specific site. Currently we are scaling our 2004 competition to 16 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (60% of the designs are from local architects and the other 40% are a marriage between international/regional firms and locals).
“Finally, just a side point. I find it a little arrogant of writers to speak of design and architecture as a ‘western’ or ‘developed world’ notion – and then occationally insinuate the ‘look at what they are forcing on them’ self-guilt world view. There are designers, both licensed and unlicensed, all over the world. They are not divided by boundaries but by skill and desire. There will always be the Zaha Hadids and Karim Rashids of this world but there are also the Diébédo Francis Kérés, the Rodney Harbers and the Yasmine Laris of this world. For as many designers working in the realm of architectural plastic surgery, there are just as many working in the emergency room. The difference is that the latter are not seeking accolades and therefore do not grace the covers of magazines and the design media. In addition to training more global architects we need to encourage and develop new schools of design where the work is. Ie currently we are training 70% of the worlds’ architects in the developed (over developed) nations, yet 70% of the work is in emerging nations.
“Yes there are a dozen ‘examples’ where we can point to designers screwing up, getting it wrong, undervaluing the input of the community. Yet there are hundreds of stories where quiet moments of innovation have been an element of incredible change in a community. Most of us who are actually building look at bemusement to all the structures going up in Dubai and Doha – why are those deemed as great feats of ‘design excellence’ but yet a community led participatory process is often scrutinized by cynical, often western, eyes.
“Perhaps it is time to write stories of the successes on the ground. Come join any of us, but do expect to pick up a shovel when you are on a site visit”
Cheers
Cameron”

Posted in development & design | Leave a comment

Eating Spin

5031.png
The British government is in talks with supermarkets about emergency food reserves “in case the infrastructure of the country breaks down”. The exercise is being spun as a response to possible strikes by fuel tanker drivers, but the more likely explanation is that the precarious state of food systems as a whole has finally registered in mud-free Whitehall.
Persuading Tesco to stock 60 days supply of staple foods is of course better than the three days supply contained in today’s just-in-time systems. But sheds full of baked beans are not exactly a long-term solution. A more nutritious form of spin has been developed in the US. At the end of an interesting review of last week’s Growing Food for London conference, Roxanne Christensen writes about a franchise-ready sustainable farming system that can be deployed quickly and on a wide scale. That is the concept behind SPIN Farming. “SPIN”, Christensen explains (it stands for S-mall P-lot IN-tensive) “makes it possible to earn significant income from growing vegetables on land bases under an acre in size. SPIN farmers utilize relay cropping to increase yield and achieve good economic returns by growing only the most profitable food crops tailored to local markets”. SPIN’s growing techniques are not, in themselves, breakthrough, Christensen continues; what is novel is the way a SPIN farm business is run. “SPIN provides everything you’d expect from a good franchise: a business plan, marketing advice, and a detailed day-to-day workflow. In standardizing the system and creating a reproducible process, it really isn’t any different from McDonalds. SPIN-style farming removes the two big barriers to entry – sizeable acreage and significant start-up capital. By offering a non-technical, easy-to-understand and inexpensive-to-implement farming system, it allows many more people to farm”.

Posted in food systems & design | 3 Responses

London Lido

2627957505_9dc6658c4f.jpg
My new mates at Exyzt have built and opened the new Southwark Lido as part of the London Architecture Festival. Exyzt and Gaelle Gabillet are the scenographer-builders of City Eco Lab with me in St Etienne in November. Do go and say hello to them in Southwark.
94c408f38ea90670ad749319bb37933f_r.jpg
And whilst you’re at it, do also check out Saturday’s Continuous Picnic. This day-long event celebrates local food and the city and is organised by Andre Viljoen and Katrin Bohn, who, with David Barrie got us all started on urban agriculture three years ago as we started to plan Dott 07. It’s nice to see these young folk doing so well up in the big city.

Posted in city & bioregion | Leave a comment

Innovating our way to oblivion

Out-of-control buzzwords are like locusts: you can swat handfuls of them down with a bat, but more will come to take their place.
I’ve been swatting away for ages in this blog at all things Conceptual, Cultural, Clustered and (especially) Creative. But now we’re suffering a massive counter-attack by the word Innovation – 137 million uses of which are known to Google alone.
A good proportion of these mentions probably belong to the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts (NESTA) in the UK. Nesta’s mission is to “make innovation flourish,” and one way it does this is by using the world innovation in every second or third sentence of the emails it sends me.
Now Nesta is staffed by smart and well-connected people, and most of my clients think innovation is the very elixir of life itself – so I probably shouldn’t say this. But I have to, because it’s important:
INNOVATION IS NOT GOOD IN ITSELF – IN FACT, MORE INNOVATION DOES HARM, THAN DOES GOOD.
My evidence for this statement is contained in a breathless announcement from Mintel, the market research company, that a “Record-Breaking Number of New Products Flood Global CPG Shelves” and that (the numbers are for 2006) “close to 182,000 new products were introduced globally, with key booming areas focusing on mind, body, and general good health”.
Well over half of these of these innovations – 105,000, to be precise – were food and drink products. This flood of innovations enable us to profit from such trends as “brainpower foods, age-defying treatments, increases in portion control, and “just for you” customised products”.
Now I may have misunderstood something here, but surely the Mintel numbers mean that more than half the innovations that reach the market all over the world – 300 innovations, every single day of the year – decrease the resource efficiency and hence sustainability of global food systems?
Good, so that’s Innovation dealt with. Bring on the next killer word!

Posted in food systems & design | 2 Responses

Can dynamic cities be democratic?

cluster.png
The following is an interview with me and Sunil Abraham for this month’s Cluster magazine in a special issue published for the World Congress of Architecture which opens later this month in Torino.
Cluster: What role does design play when it comes to creating democratic cities?
JT. All cities are part of a larger ecology of resource extraction, energy use, environmental impact, waste flows, and social networks. The rules that govern how this larger ecology works – or not – are political rules shaped by an era in which we could burn cheap fossil fuel while ignoring the ecological consequences. That era is now over, and its eco-cidal politics (and economic development) have become obstacles to our survival. The only meaningful task of design, now, is to help people transform the ways they obtain food, energy, materials, and water – in cities, or outside them. This kind of design is of course “political” in that it opposes the demands of industrial society for limitless resources in a world whose carrying capacity is finite. But ecodesign – and hence, eco politics – is about new ways of inhabiting places; it is not about new ways of organising representative government.
SA. The state and the judiciary can either build or destroy democratic cities through policy formulation and implementation. For example, planners of public works, such as transportation systems, determine the mobility of the poor which then determines the extent of their financial and political engagement within the city. There is a new dimension today as governments turn digital; participation in the market and in governance will now depend on the design of the “information city”. Where the state or city governments base infrastructures on proprietary software, proprietary standards, surveillance and censorship technologies, the result is less democracy. On the contrast, public Wi-Fi, telecentres, cyber-cafes, municipal broadband and other forms of shared access have a democratizing effect on cities.
Cluster: What actions are needed to create a city which is tolerant and open to all citizens?
JT. The drive towards enclosure and privatisation – of knowledge and ecosystem resources, as much as public space – goes back a long way; but attacks on the commons are particularly intense right now. The answer is not to have a leisurely debate about tolerance and city governance. The answer is to demonstrate, in practice, that openness and collaboration deliver a better chance of survival. A city food system is an obvious place to start: growing food in public spaces, sharing knowledge about how to prepare and store it, and organising communal meals to eat it, are easy and practical steps that produce quick benefits at many levels.
SA. Tolerance of everything and openness to everybody are not universally accepted principles. This is one reason why globalization and migration have introduced new complications. Most religions advocate tolerance in theory, but organised religion can be oppressive in practice. In Malaysia, Muslim lovers, like their Chinese and Indian counterparts, arrange for a romantic rendezvous in a hotel – only to be arrested and publicly humiliated by the morality police (or, in India, by Hindu fundamentalists). I’m struck that in the digital world there seems to be greater acceptance of diversity. The anonymity and privacy afforded by the Internet and the emergence of safe spaces for different online and off-line communities has contributed to this. The question is: how then can a physical city also provide for such safe spaces and systems?
Cluster: To what extent do the city, its pace of life and distribution of facilities condition the behaviour of its inhabitants?
JT. Speed or slowth are not lifestyle choices. Our ways of life will not become sustainable just because we decide, as individuals, to “slow down”. Slowth will, to some extent, be imposed by events: escalating energy costs will drive re-localisation more powerfully than attitudinal change. But sustainability does not mean that fast is bad, and slow is good. Some forms of speed, such as feedback, or the implementation of lighter solutions, are desirable. Think of the polio vaccine; it was disseminated around the world in a few years: we need to innovate our life support systems just as quickly. In the language of sustainability, this means changing the word “faster” to “closer” in our design briefs for cities. Moving bodies and products fast is bad; moving information fast is good. Wireless communications have an important role to play here. They make it possible to reduce the distance between people who have needs, and people who can meet those needs.
SA. Speed alone does not guarantee efficiency. Sometimes – it is better to do less. Remember that the pace of a city is often determined by economic relationships between those who own and those who do not own resources. This applies to rents charged for intellectual property and intangible resources, as much as it does to rents paid on physical property: the pattern is that the poor are forced into high-pace lives while the elite can afford to purchase idleness. In a Vietnamese village, the International Fund for Agriculture Development [IFAD] tried to introduce a package of loans and proprietary cash crops. This required additional farm labour during the afternoons. The villagers rejected the project saying that they prefer to play volleyball in the afternoons. More equal distribution of resources allows a city to find its own unique pace.
JT. Exactly: and in a light and sustainable economy we will share resources – including time, skill, software, or food – using networked communications. Wireless networks have the potential to help existing systems of sharing scale up – such as Local Economy Trading Schemes (LETS) in Europe.
SA. Local systems of barter and non-monetary exchange, such as Jogjami, have existed in India for at least 500 years. A cooperative distribution system called Angadia, or “many little fingers”, enables people to send goods over vast distances without paying…
Cluster: Many cities invest in the quality of their architecture to show the world an attractive, dynamic face. The big names and big projects are given the task of conveying the centrality and ability of cities to attract high-class players. But the dynamic image of a city does not always correspond to its ability to make room for the creative energies of its inhabitants.
JT. Show me a city with a “dynamic image” and I will show you an unsustainable city. “Dynamic” usually means high entropy buildings, financial speculation on a massive scale, and a low degree of social participation. From now on, the most interesting cities will be those whose citizens are able to invest their energy and creativity on “re-inhabitation” within the unique ecosystems of their place. This approach will often involve adaptive or more intense uses of existing infrastructure rather than the construction of signature buildings – and sometimes this approach will mean building nothing, nothing at all. To live sustainably we need to place more value on the here and now: a lot of destruction is caused when design is obsessed with the there, and the next – and the “dynamic”.
SA. First, the dynamism of a city can be found in the informal sector which in most developing countries accounts for 70% of employment. It is also where legal, technical and market limits and norms are challenged and redefined as everyday practice. The informal economy also has a much lighter infastructure. Traditional systems of trust such as Havala have a smaller carbon footprint because there is no paper work, no management information systems, no audit trails and so on. There’s pressure from the state to monitor and tax all transactions based on the assumption that complex systems of accounting, monitoring and evaluation can and should replace real-life trusted relationships. The so-called global war against terrorism has undermined these traditional systems. But in most cases the informal system is better, faster and cheaper than the formal alternative. For example – money transfers on the global Havala network are instantaneous which is near impossible across the legal banking system. In terms of scale, the Havala network is responsible for handling a large proportion of remittances from illegal and legal migrants across the world. Which IFAD estimates is approximately 400 billion annually. Third, non-market micro-economies such as gifting, barter, collectives and commons in developing countries are more effective than classical development interventions in addressing problems of social development. For example, home-based care is cheaper and more effective than hospice-based care for people living with HIV/AIDS. I would like to see more celebration of the informal sector, informal practices and non-market micro-economies.
Cluster: What level do we need to work on to enable European cities to effectively express their innate creative potential?
JT. Survival. Seriously! We’ll need to be creative to eat before too long. The World Bank reckons 33 countries are at risk of social upheaval because of rising food prices. In the North we fondly imagine that we won’t be affected, but I can’t get it out of my mind that supermarkets only have three days supply of food in stock at any one time…or so they think. Their supply chains are so inefficient and erroneous that they don’t really know.
SA. In my opinion, attitudinal transformation will lead to more creativity in European cities. Western-style individualism needs to be re-imagined because we have run out of planet to exploit. Sharing intangible property such as software, films, music and books is not sufficient. To reduce our collective carbon foot-print we need to intensify sharing of tangible property.
Thanks to the Internet and mobile technologies – it is now possible to share tangible property in a much more granular fashion across space and time. But technologies are insufficient, because individualism has to make way for traditional systems of trust and creativity.
JT. We have to escape from this absurd idea that “creativity” is a specialised profession limited to people like architects and public relations consultants. For true creativity, go to shanty towns in Asian cities: these are sites of intense social and business creativity. Formal (and therefore expensive) networks of technical support and maintenance simply don’t exist as they do in the North, so people turn to the temporary fixes, or “jugaads”, carried out by street technicians and pavement-based engineers who keep engines, television tubes, compressors and other devices working. The irony is that bureaucrats in Asia want to get rid of these so-called suitcase entrepreneurs – whereas I’m certain we’ll need systems like this ourselves in the not-too-distant future.
Sunil: In European cities culture is often viewed as basically a public function, insofar as it is free from market logic, but this preconception risks devaluing all spontaneous forms of expression, or actively discouraging them with regulations and bureaucracy, or even preventing them altogether.
JT. I’m not sure that formal culture is free from market logic, even in Europe. Nearly half the people who visit the British Museum in London go to its cafe and shop without even looking at the art exhibitions. In many cultural venues, shops and restaurants are important revenue streams – and an important part of the visitor’s experience. Is this a crime against culture? I don’t think so: people eat and trade things at pagan festivals too. The bigger challenge is that cities as a whole – not just their cultural quarters – have become spaces for spectacle and consumption rather than work or exchange.
SA. I am not sure I understand the question. The act of producing culture and its distribution by ordinary citizens are tightly controlled by legal and technical systems – for example – digital rights management on computers and restrictions on community radio. The state usually uses arguments of cultural protectionism to interfere with citizen rights.
Recent years have seen the implementation of many participation-based initiatives to foster people’s involvement in and contribution to urban transformations. Often these are attempts to construct public consensus around decisions taken prior to the initiative in question. Regardless of the efficacy of such initiatives, in any case they reveal the increasing distance between the public and decision-making processes. Do you agree with this view? How is it possible to foster more spontaneous forms of participation?
JT. You are right: a lot of the “consultation” that takes place during the evolution of major projects is a shame, and everyone knows it. I would add that many of the least democratically-decided – and most eco-cidal – developments are driven by design “visions”. This takes us to the heart of the political dimension.
SA. Yes, this is often true. In New Delhi the high court is attempting to ban the sale of street food, and the government has shifted many slums to the outskirts as part of the preparation for the Commonwealth Games. We need to redesign classical multi-stakeholder public-private-partnerships in ways that differentiate between the votes cast by organisations representing the elite minority and poor majority. Crowdsourcing of urban design projects might provide an environment for more spontaneous forms of participation. Crowdsourcing is based on the principle that many hands make light work. Usually, a large and complicated job is broken down into small tasks then completed by a large number of volunteers.
Cluster: The various examples of sustainable cities, such as BedZED and Dongtan Eco-City, focus mainly on influencing the behaviour of the inhabitants, reducing movement, and fostering processes of emulation and social control that encourage responsible behaviour. The types of buildings and aesthetic models rationally designed for these initiatives prefigure highly standardized, if not uniform, cities. This scenario, possibly inevitable, is a little scary: how can we reconcile individual expressive space with the need to adopt stricter environmentally-friendly practices?
JT. What makes these models “eco” is not their aesthetics, it’s the ways they organise space and time, and material and energy flows. For me, the problem is not the danger of uniformity, it’s that they are not models that can be scaled up on a global scale. Foster’s Masdar project in Abu Dhabi is an extreme example of the problem: yes, it will be a new eco-city – but it will also be a gated community for rich people; the 50,000 people who will live in Masdar are theoretically worth about $17m each, and their fellow citizens are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than any other people in the world (apart from David Beckham and John Travolta). Masdars and BedZeds are useful testbeds – but it’s not feasible to build them in multiples for six billion people. A better place to look for future models is in marginal communities where people look after and live with ecosystem services in a practised and creative way. That’s a sample group of half the world’s population, by the way. Living on the edge is about survival, not about personal expression – but it is nonetheless socially rich in many other ways.
SA. This reminds me of a visit to the Singapore Management University during the celebration of a “Bohemian Week”. Each student was given a 1 foot x 1 foot tile on a graffiti wall. This type of tokenism toward individual expression is meaningless. At the same time environment-friendly practices cooked up by centralized policy-makers may only be a sophisticated excuse to displace and marginalize the poor. For example, most wildlife conservation efforts transform indigenous forest populations into slum dwellers. The key to sustainability is in-situ design expertise and this by definition is incompatible with large-scale standardization and uniformity. Standardization and uniformity like the hygiene fetish in western civilization extracts a heavy price from the environment. The by-product of super cleanliness is super dirt.
Cluster: The new world order seems to have generated an unstoppable acceleration in the race towards cities. What can be done to stop the growth of megacities? Can the things that migrants seek be transferred out of the city, extending the effect of the urban area? Is it possible to reduce the negative externalities of megacities?
JT. I don’t agree that cities will keep on growing. The race towards cities will come to an abrupt halt when the high entropy systems that keep them going start to degrade. At the moment it’s better, just, to be poor in a big city than outside it; but that balance will change – and fast – as it becomes harder to survive in them. Would you leave the countryside and go to a city filled with empty supermarkets and hordes of desperate people? Also, don’t forget that mobile communications are transforming the dynamics of subsistence economics in many developing regions.
SA. I agree with John. Though I am not sure it will come to an abrupt halt. It is indeed true that location used to determine the degree and extent of participation – both in governance and in the market-place. But the rise of Internet and mobile technologies will reduce the appeal of cities. But still, as human beings – face-to-face interactions will continue to be important. The solution, however, is not to move migrants to the periphery. Stopping the growth of mega-cities requires addressing the myopia of city-based policy-makers and planners. Hopefully Internet and mobile technologies will amplify the demands of the rural poor for a greater share of state resources and attention.

Posted in city & bioregion | Leave a comment

The Endless Optimists

DOM080607014_news.jpg
I know it’s like standing in front of a large orange oncoming train, but may I please say something about this huge book? It’s wrong in its basic assumption. The assumption (as it says in huge letters there on the cover) is that 75% of us will live in cities by 2050. But that number, along with the book’s 500 pages of similar projections, takes no account of some rather likely discontinuities – the most plausible being what John Michael Greer describes as the catabolic collapse of the industrial civilization that keeps these global cities lit. Global energy, money, food and water systems are in crisis now, for goodness sake – never mind in 2050. Do the distinguished editors of The Endless City seriously imagine that billions more people will want to be in cities when the average supermarket contains three days supply of food – and that’s when things are running smoothly?

Posted in city & bioregion | Leave a comment

De-growth

I am reading with nervous enjoyment a semi-samizdat French magazine called La Decroissance (De-Growth). An offshoot of the French equivalent of Adbusters, La Decroissance fills a big gap: critical discussion of the politics and economics of environmentalism. The issue I’m reading includes a sharp critique of the myth of ‘transhumanism’ and a mocking review of a right-on new book by Veolia’s head of sustainable development. The reason I’m nervous is that the paper describes as an “ecotartuffe” a leading Le Monde columnist, Eric le Boucher, who has become prominent as “a grand inquisitor of productivist society”. Now a tartuffe is defined in my dictionary as a “religious poseur” and I know there are those who think I’m one of those, too. Tant pis: if my turn comes I’ll take it on the chin. The academic wing of La Decroissance held its first conference last month, in Paris, and there are some english pages online. “De-growth” is a ghastly buzzword but the subject is important and if you can read a bit of French the paper is much livelier.

Posted in transition & design | Leave a comment

Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

“Nature provides human society with a vast diversity of benefits such as food, fibres fuel, clean water, healthy soil, protection from floods, protection from soil erosion, medicines, storing carbon (important in the fight against climate change) and many more. Though our wellbeing is totally dependent upon these ecosystem services they are predominantly public goods with no markets and no prices, so they often are not detected by our current economic compass”. So begins an important new report on the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Crucially, this document begins to develop an economic yardstick that is more effective than GDP for assessing the performance of an economy. “We are consuming the world’s biodiverse ecosystem at an unsustainable rate and this is starting to have serious socio-economic impacts”, say the authors, led by Deutsche Bank economist Pavan Sukhdev. He went on, “we are trying to navigate uncharted and turbulent waters with an old and defective economic compass and that this was affecting our ability to forge a sustainable economy in harmony with nature.” The TEEB review is modelled on the UK government’s Stern review of climate change which in 2006 warned that the global economy would effectively collapse if countries did not address greenhouse gases, and that countries could not afford not to act.

Posted in [no topic] | Leave a comment

Eco ‘standards’ blitz

“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others”. Groucho Marx could have been talking about environmental standards. Visit any supermarket and you’ll encounter hundreds of labels and displays making claims about the environmental attributes of different products. Organic, Fairtrade, FSC Certified, “sustainable”.
This blizzard of assertions is confusing – in some cases, one suspects, intentionally so. It’s tough for consumers to know who’s telling the truth and who’s greenwashing. At the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, 85 per cent of respondents agreed that “some companies are advertising products and services with environmental claims that could be considered false, unsubstantiated or unethical”. Greenwashing Index allows users to post, rate and comment on “green” advertisements.
Sites like Greenwashing can help police the worst excesses, but how otherwise are we are to decide which issues are most important, and which labels we are supposed to trust? Similar questions confront those companies – a growing number – that genuinely wish to communicate the environmental attributes of their products and services transparently. All UK registered companies will have to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions publicly under legislation passed by the House of Lords as part of the Climate Change Bill. Campaigners for the introduction of such measures believe it will make them more accountable to consumers and investors, and drive emission reductions.
What issues should they highlight? How can they best communicate with citizens?
Forum for the Future and Business for Social Responsibility address these questions in a report called Eco-promising. Ryan Schuchard, BSR’s partner in the project, concludes that consumer-facing labels are just one aspect of this complex story. “Doing this is challenging, because environmental standards are emergent, and companies often lack meaningful supply chain data. Leaders are investing in better information systems internally and among their peers and suppliers.”
Companies have several schemes to help them.The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), for example, is the most widely used international accounting tool for government and business leaders to understand and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol, a decade-long partnership between the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, is working with businesses, governments, and environmental groups around the world to build a new generation of credible and effective programs for tackling climate change.
In a similar space, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), started by Paul Dickinson eight years ago, gets companies to act by working with institutional investors; CDP’s connections have combined assets of over $57 trillion under management. On their behalf, CDP seeks information from3,000 of the world’s largest companies on the business risks and opportunities presented by climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.CDP says it has become “the gold standard for carbon disclosure methodology and process”, and that its website is “the largest repository of corporate greenhouse gas emissions data in the world
Then there’s the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). This large multi-stakeholder network boasts thousands of experts in dozens of countries. GRI has pioneered the development of “the world’s most widely-used sustainability reporting framework” which is used “to benchmark organizational performance with respect to laws, norms, codes, performance standards and voluntary initiatives; demonstrate organizational commitment to sustainable development; and compare organizational performance over time”.
Another specification for the assessment of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions in products and services is being developed by the British Standards Institution (BSI), at the request of the Carbon Trust and Defra, sponsors of the UK-based project. The result will be a Publicly Available Specification (PAS 2050) to improve measurement and communication of the GHG performance of products and services. A Product-related Emissions Reduction Framework (a PERF) is also being developed by the Carbon Trust, this time with the help of consultants Arup, OneWorldStandards, the Pacific Institute and E4Tech.
Some global companies are also beginning to measure the value of ecosystems they rely on. For example, the drinks industry depends on ecosystems to supply fresh water; agribusiness relies on grasslands for insect pollinators, nutrient cycling, and erosion control; and the insurance industry benefits from the fact that coastal marshes reduce the damage caused by hurricanes and that wetlands absorb water from floods. A host of other industries rely on forests for benefits ranging from wood to genetic resources, carbon sequestration, and tourism. Based on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, World Resources Institute has developed the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review to help managers take more explicit account of their company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems.
Given this plethora of similar-sounding initiatives, I was surprised to discover that there already exists an international standard on environmental reporting.This gives guidance to an organization on “general principles, policy, strategy and activities relating to both internal and external environmental communication”. It is applicable to all organizations regardless of their size, type, location, structure, activities, products and services, and whether or not they have an environmental management system in place.
We need standards to ensure that companies measure what matters – and that they do so within frameworks that enable independent monitoring and comparison against meaningful targets. But there’s a real danger right now that, if we end up with too many standards, they’ll cancel each other out.
Is there a role for design in tackling this conundrum?
It is not for designers alone to decide what gets measured, and against what targets. But if global environmental standards are indeed ‘emergent’, then designers should make themselves part of a broad discussion about the kind of standards we end up with. Stated more bluntly: let’s hear no more designers complain that “we only design with the information we are given.”
When it comes to displaying information in clear and meaningful ways, designers have a huge role to play – not just in the specialized domain of information systems design but also, more broadly, in shaping the contexts in which information is presented and used.
Crucially, designers can also help deploy peer-to-peer ratings and review systems to counter-act the disingenuous greenwashing which is not about to disappear.

Posted in most read | Leave a comment