Urban Greening: Nature is back in town

A version of this article first appeared in a Special Report on ‘Future Cities’, published in The Times, 26 March, 2013.

According to received wisdom, it is not possible to put a price on Nature, however, to much debate, that is exactly what has been happening increasingly of late, as policymakers and markets strive to develop robust metrics to determine the value of living-planet assets and liabilities.

The UN has estimated world ecosystems deliver essential services worth in excess of $70tn a year. In the UK alone, the National Ecosystem Assessment generated figures claiming responsible stewardship of green spaces could be worth at least £30bn a year to the economy, in health and welfare benefits. With a view of green space worth up to £300 per person, provision of good access to same for every household in England could knock £2.1bn off the country’s annual healthcare bill.

Against this backdrop of efforts to draw up an eco balance-sheet for the world, perception of climate risk has been rising dramatically, with fears for associated species loss and habitat degradation; plus, spiralling population growth viewed manifest in increasing urbanisation, both in terms of development sprawl and density. To have any prospect of being thought part of the solution, rather than part of the problem, the future city can only come in one colour: Green.

The biennial World Green Roof Congress took place recently in Copenhagen and for the Danish capital, described as one of the five most sustainable cities in the world (along with San Francisco, Vancouver, Oslo and Curitiba), the future is most definitely green, as Lord Mayor, Frank Jensen explains: “For quality of living and working environment, for social equity and economic prosperity, the smart cities of tomorrow will be green cities, in every sense. Across the globe, from Portland to Paris, and Christchurch to Copenhagen, Mayoral offices understand urban biodiversity and green infrastructure are essential elements of any city vision.”

Copenhagen itself suffered badly in 2011 from torrential storms and extreme flooding impacts. As a result, civic authorities are acutely aware of the need to invest in climate change adaptation as as development priority, with urban greening a cornerstone of resilience planning.

For cities in general, risk is the dominant policy driver at present, as the author of ‘Ecosystem Services Come to Town: Greening Cities by Working with Nature’, ecologist Gary Grant, explains:

“The most powerful argument for urban greening currently is dealing with climate change, which is leading to heatwaves and flash flooding. There is money available for this because of the economic damage being caused. When all other benefits are considered, the argument becomes even stronger.”

With enhanced amenity space and aesthetics, biodiversity and wildlife gains, plus positive contributions to health and wellbeing perhaps listed only in the ‘additional benefits’ column, it is easy to see why urban planners might be persuaded by arguments for greening. Core benefits include reduction in urban heat-island (albedo) effect, stormwater attenuation and runoff management, plus cuts in costs of drainage. In addition, greening brings potential for noise and sound insulation, building-energy conservation and fuel savings, as well as improvements in air quality.

As evidenced by much-photographed smog in Beijing, air quality is proving more of a concern and factor in Asia than elsewhere, with urgent implications for ongoing and future development of green cities, as Director of Wilder Associates and Associate of BRE, Peter Wilder observes:

“There is an immediacy to respond to the impact of flood and climate change resilience, mostly driven by the investment sector, that requires action on the part of developers. However in China, where development is often facilitated by central government, there is a growing concern over long-term effects of urbanisation on public health. In recent years, China has experienced a hike in the number of mental illnesses and respiratory diseases related to rapid growth of cities and breakdown of the traditional family unit. Healthcare and aged care is now a major focus for China and green space is being seen as a key performance indicator for sustainable cities.”

Around the globe, for future cities evolving out of major existing urban centres – such as Beijing, Singapore, Delhi, New York or London – a vital selling point for ongoing investment in greening is its flexibility and suitability for retrofit scenarios, as Gary Grant explains:

“City farming and urban food production are getting all the headlines, but the real excitement and growth is in retrofitting existing buildings with features like green roofs and living walls, and in the greening of the ground-level curtilage of buildings with pocket parks and rain gardens. As more and more existing building stock is examined, we are coming to realise much more can be achieved than was first thought.”

As a basket of benefits, the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI) for future cities highlights importance of the natural environment in decisions about land-use planning and brings together a mix of ecosystem services to support both the life of a future city and lifestyle of its residents. GI interconnectivity links environmental concerns such as soil and water quality, with social issues such as recreation and amenity, plus economic factors including healthy growth and tourism.

Taken in the round, the green agenda is a marketable differentiator for world cities, as illustrated by its ringing endorsement from Mayor Vincent Gray, in Washington DC, at the launch of the long-awaited Sustainable DC Act of 2012. With packages for such as the planting of some 6,400 trees to form part of 40% canopy-cover targets, the stated and much-publicised ambition of the Capital is to become “the greenest, healthiest, and most liveable city in the US”.

One phrase employed in connection with plans for Washington DC has been ‘Winning the future’ and for urban environments, it is plain to see there will be no victory without achievement of green goals, assisted by ecosystem services. There may not be consensus yet on the merits and methods of calculating the value of ecosystems, but the cost of investing nothing in green infrastructure is in no doubt. The only future city is a green city. Nature is back in town.

To view the Special Report in full online, published in The Times newspaper and Guest Edited by Jim McClelland, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Sustainable farming futures: Fields of hope

A version of this article first appeared in a Special Report on ‘Sustainable Agriculture & Food Security’, published in The Times, 25 March, 2013.

“The key statistic is that we are producing 260% more food with 2% less inputs versus 20 years ago”, declares Rich Kottmeyer, Global Agriculture and Food Production Leader at Accenture. “No other industry, I can think of, can almost triple production and decrease inputs at the same time!”

The first question such a bullish statement prompts is obvious: How is this level of growth being achieved and is it sustainable? Not surprisingly, there is no simple answer: Farming comes in many forms, as do best-practice guidelines and advocates. Intensive, or extensive, agricultural system options range from crop improvement, use of biotechnology (including GM), GPS, GIS, planting, picking and spacing technology, water management and irrigation; through agroecology, agroforestry, soil conservation, enhanced grazing, plus a System of Root Intensification (SRI), integrated pest management, compost and organics; on to fertilisers and pesticides, aquaponics and hydroponics.

Bundled as a package, precision agriculture describes a suite of IT-based tools which allows farmers to monitor soil and crop conditions electronically and analyse treatment options, targeting delivery and minimising waste.

In effect, integration of ICT has seen the ‘agribiz’ image evolving to the extent that the idea of a farmer in a field with an Apple, probably means something entirely different nowadays. ICT in 21st-century farming is all about decision-making impacts, as described by Rich Kottmeyer:

“Think of a seed as having a maximum potential yield. As a farmer, decisions you make, if incorrect, reduce that potential. Data allows you to create better decisions. Its importance can be seen as a 5-10 bu/acre advantage (minimally) on a large commercial corn operation, or a pork producer getting $6-$11/head more by ‘hitting the grid’.”

The case for data with smallholders is arguably even more dramatic. Recent World Bank studies found simple agronomy support increased yields by up to 50% in some cases, with innovations such as livestock traceability systems rolled out across African countries, utilising RFID on plastic ear tags for automated data input, coupled with provision of tablet and mobile hardware.

It is almost impossible to discuss changing trends in farming and relative merits of best practice approaches without talking about scale: To put it crudely, size matters. Andrew Wraith, Head of Agribusiness, Savills UK, assesses implications for existing, developed business models:

“It is probably safe to say that the ability to invest in technology advances is a function of size of business. The cost of equipment is significant and to spread it over a larger area is generally important, to justify investment.

“Typically, the scope for a business to take on additional land through contracting or alternative joint venture can create the opportunity to reinvest, to the benefit of both parties in an agreement. There continues to be a reduction in the number of farms and farmers, as smaller units find it uneconomic to own or reinvest in equipment.”

Whilst this redrawing of the agricultural map is largely driven by economics at large, rather than particulars of technology demands, there is a knock-on effect in evidence.

Promoting ‘appropriate-scale’ farming on rather different best-practice principles is the agroecology approach, centred on simple techniques that increase yield through the interrelationship between soil, nutrients, crops, pollinators, trees and livestock.

In the UK, agroecology remained a relatively unknown and unused approach until only a few years ago, but is now rapidly rising up the mainstream farming agenda. It is currently more widespread in less industrialised regions of the world, where comparative costs of chemicals and labour create a strong business case, as Dr Julia Wright, Deputy Director at the Centre for Agroecology and Food Security, Coventry University, England, explains:

“Agroecological approaches have shown to triple yields over traditional farming methods. As well as yield increases, production costs are reduced because of the high costs of chemicals compared to lower costs of human labour (which is the converse in industrialised countries).

“One of the key barriers to wider uptake of best practice in agroecology is the disconnect from nature of industrial societies, and the reductionist mindset: We focus only on yield maximisation without realising this comes at a very high cost – this is like working a donkey to death.”

Harnessing the power of biology, rather than chemistry, is also a driver for dairy farmer and Nuffield Scholar Rob Richmond, from Gloucestershire, England, who explains why his research into soil carbon supports creation of diverse pastures for enhanced grazing:

“Crops, microbes, animals and humans need about 60 nutrients in balance. As a consequence of the last half century of NPK thinking, soil organic matter has been lost, resulting in a lack of many minor minerals, which gives rise to hidden hungers, leading to disease. Humus, the stable form of soil carbon, acts as the soil’s flywheel, absorbing water and nutrients when present in excess, and giving them up to the plant as required.

“The use of compost to restore microbes to the soil, biodiverse pastures to allow these populations to get established and rebuild soil carbon, under a mob-grazed system are the most important criteria. Ruminants should be outside grazing grass – not in a shed eating grain!”

Few would argue against the urgent need for systemic change, from farm to fork, if countries are to find ways together to feed nine billion people a day by 2050. However, best practice in sustainable agriculture is out there in many shapes and sizes, as illustrated by the recent ‘rice revolution’ in Darveshpura, India, where a young village farmer shattered the world crop record.

Using only manure, no herbicide and a System of Root Intensification (which involves fewer seeds, less water, more spacing and better husbandry), he produced a bumper one-hectare rice crop of 22.4 tonnes. By comparison, average yields for India as a whole are relatively low at just 2.3t/ha, against a global mean of 4.374t/ha.

For world farming, this achievement serves as a spectacular reminder that there is still success to be unearthed, with simple lessons learned.

To view the Special Report in full online, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Energy: How low can we go?

A version of this article first appeared on the Sustainability Talk & News website, published 28 February, 2013.

Smart-city strategies are rethinking the rôle of buildings in terms of their ability to generate, share and store energy, rather than just consume. In addition, energy efficiency and carbon offsetting are shrinking footprints ever further. As a result, the ultimate built-environment question of the carbon era seems to be:

‘How low can we go?’

In February this year, construction voices followed the lead shown by the UK Green Building Council in calling on government to provide clarity on plans for changes to building regulations and to confirm its support for zero carbon. In commercial markets, delay is the enemy of investment and without a strong policy steer, there is a fear innovation could stall, as business confidence falters.

Ever since government ambitions were announced back in 2006, the zero-carbon target has proved the subject of much debate. Many supporters argue that as the pin-up for the overall campaign to decarbonise the built environment, a ‘zero hero’ project exemplar inspires achievement across the board, fuelling demand for excellence and boosting belief in delivery. Energy efficiency meanwhile seemed the Cinderella of the low-carbon story, until, with austerity biting and pragmatism on the rise, a nascent retrofit revolution began to weave its magic wand, bringing belated transformation of existing stock.

Helping construction to cross the low-carbon finishing line has been the impact-minimising rôle of carbon offsetting. Once every effort feasible has been made to reduce consumption and emissions, then it appears perfectly reasonable to offset the unavoidable remainder. The key word in that sentence, though, is ‘feasible’: Who or what decides what is feasible?

Typically, cost is the determining factor and so the extent of what is ‘feasible’ is not a technical matter, rather a business decision. Profit margins are dependent on where the line is drawn between the feasible and the commercially uneconomical, or undesirable. Lack of transparency in this grey area is arguably the cause of much of the concern about abuses of offsetting as a means of managing impacts responsibly.

The carbon scale does not however start, or even end with zero. Never mind impact-neutral solutions, a number of structural building materials billed as carbon-negative have been available on the UK market now for some time: These range from hemp-based blocks, to prefab straw-bale panels.

At project level, the built-environment sector has also witnessed a flurry of below-zero ‘firsts’ in recent months alone: Australia has seen completion of its first carbon-negative commercial building, in Melbourne, for example; whilst in South Shields, England, the tenants have moved into Britain’s first carbon-negative street. It is fair to say, that the rôle of (successful) high-profile projects in driving forward the agenda for a low-carbon built environment has almost as much to do with media coverage, as it does design excellence, or build quality – aspiration is, in part, a function of awareness.

Taken out of context, however, carbon targets can lead to cases of unintended consequences, or even be used to justify false accounting for building impacts. In effect, marketable ‘zero-carbon’ status has sometimes been pursued at the expense of broader sustainability goals and metrics, as Ant Wilson, Director, Building Engineering, Aecom, explains: “You could almost say it is dishonest of designers to pass the buck back in time to earlier materials and construction phases of development, loading buildings with embodied energy in order to minimise performance-in-use figures and get carbon ‘off the books’, so to speak, in the operational phases.

“The new, true focus should be on energy reduction, not just zero carbon. In reality, lower-carbon buildings sometimes use more energy, not less. Overall resource efficiency is the key to sustainability in the built environment.”

In built-environment parlance, the terms energy and carbon are often erroneously used as if interchangeable. They are not: Energy is a resource or an asset; carbon is an impact or a liability.

In the race to zero and below, low-carbon ends do not justify high-energy means.

Mindful of this maxim, the true sustainability question seems not to be ‘How low can we go?’, but rather, ‘How can we best go low?’.

To view the original article in full on STN, a Carillion PLC initiative, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Community Resilience: From Sandy to Sustainability

A version of this article first appeared on the Sustainability Talk & News website, published 18 December, 2012.

At every level, Hurricane Sandy represents a wake-up call for the sleeping giant of community resilience that is the built-environment sector. It is time for Construction to engage both with the (inter)national debate on climate-change risk and global-warming impacts, plus local discussions about resource mobilisation, security provision and preparedness.

In order for Construction to be cast a lead rôle in climate-change adaptation, it must be able to see both the Big Picture and the Local View: The Big Picture provides the backdrop to the global stage on which nation states perform, populated by protagonists in politics and pressure groups; the Local View is characterised by community scenes, where dialogue is more about resilience and resource.

At the macro level, the business community is becoming increasingly concerned about climate risk and the urgent need to be proactive. Ahead of the UN COP18 talks in Doha, over 200 of the largest investment fund managers and institutions – with more than £13tn in assets and including the likes of Scottish Widows, Aviva and HSBC – issued an open letter to the UK government and other administrations, advocating an escalation in action on climate change. Take heed: These signatories petitioning are establishment and mainstream money men and women, not greens, or alternative-energy geeks.

With The City worried and vocal, the onus is on leading market sectors such as Construction to listen and respond, not least because much of the investment involved carries core-business implications for the built environment: Infrastructure, property and climate defences are the physical building blocks of the (re)insurance industry assets and liabilities, portfolio and policies. In short, Construction is in the climate business, whether it likes it or not.

Zooming in to focus on the Local View, the Strategic National Framework on Community Resilience for the UK outlines how public, private and third sector organisations, plus individuals, might work together with responders and service providers in the event of an emergency, such as Sandy. Part of the Big Society commitment, the programme seeks to promote confidence and preparedness at community level, creating a degree of embedded self-sufficiency, security and, ultimately, sustainability. The framework provides direct assistance in the form of Emergency Plans and Toolkits, plus a library of illustrative case studies tackling scenarios ranging from flu pandemics to snow clearing. Of paramount importance is the pooling of knowledge and resources to enable swift effective response.

Here again, there can be seen a clear opportunity for Construction to engage and, arguably, an obligation to do so. The industry boasts a unique and highly valuable bank of relevant knowledge and resource ideally suited to localised emergency response: Plant and equipment, from caterpillar-track off-roaders to high-vis safetywear; raw or manufactured materials, from walling and piping, to boards and sand; plus human resource with appropriate skills and trades. Whilst perhaps no flashing blue light is expected atop every white van, the sector fit is perfect for the part of the fourth emergency service.

Maybe the moment has finally come, therefore, for the industry to get up on its hind legs and demand the attention it craves by engaging actively in the debates around climate change in general and resilience planning in particular. Historically, Construction has been proud to quote the statistics for its significant contribution to GDP (even when markets are tough), but often bemoans the perceived lack of recognition and appreciation for its efforts. Today, with influence to be won, if the sector has a mind to move the agenda forward, it certainly has the muscle.

Now is the time for Construction to play its true part in the communities it serves: Stand up; speak up. An audience awaits…

To view the original article in full on STN, a Carillion PLC initiative, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Construction and communities: At a crossroads

A version of this article first appeared on the Sustainability Talk & News website, published 1 November, 2012.

The crossroads where local communities and construction meet is the domain of CSR and multi-stakeholder engagement. Historically, companies in the building sector have mostly been seen as waiting at the lights on site, then moving on at project completion. Given the current economic drivers, this approach must change. What can Construction do to make a real difference to communities and leave a positive legacy? In return, what is in it for the industry?

Whilst a building project is on site, short-term benefits to the neighbouring community, in terms of spikes in local employment and trade, are visible and measurable. However, for these to be considered sustainable and described as investment, rather than just a temporary cash injection, there needs to be a positive ongoing legacy that contributes to a transformative and regenerative process. It seems a big ask, but how can Construction make a difference that lasts?

The answer is remarkably simple: Jobs. Jobs and skills are the ticket to a better life for many marginalised by mainstream society, such as the long-term unemployed, homeless and vulnerable, ex-offenders, plus school-leavers and young persons without experience.

Construction companies and their supply chains, as vocational training providers and employers of apprentices in trades such as carpentry, bricklaying, painting and decorating, are in an almost unique position to support and promote sustainable employment amongst exactly those groups in greatest need. Delivery is also often targeted precisely where demand is most acute, as much construction activity takes place on sites in urban areas, within inner-city wards, amongst disadvantaged communities.

Given this context, potential benefits to the local economy are multiple: Employment and upskilling opportunities for individuals; subcontractor and supplier work for SMEs; plus, a boost in trade and spend, both directly around the site and indirectly as a knock-on effect of associated income growth.

An essential feature of community engagement and investment is that, by definition, it cannot be undertaken alone. Companies typically pursue partnerships with non-profit organisations and government agencies, third-sector, community, charitable and voluntary groups to provide opportunities for people and places. Partners range from those directly in employment and training fields, such as JobcentrePlus and ConstructionSkills, through national initiatives including Business in the Community, The Prince’s Trust and Big Lottery Fund, to local authorities, schools and colleges.

A local, diverse supply chain supports equality of opportunity and protection of human rights, making construction companies potential candidates for sign-up to the Social Mobility Business Compact launched by the government last December. A ripple effect of success for local job and training candidates also helps raise aspirations in communities and schools, enhancing public perception of the building industry as a whole.

Often under the umbrella of a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy, individual companies are already doing many good things in neighbourhoods up and down the country. Return on Investment (RoI) is not always easy to calculate, however, as metrics for social sustainability are typically less well understood and used than those for measurement of environmental impacts, either positive or negative.

Whilst donation of goods and provision of in-kind services, employee time, volunteering, fundraising, charitable giving and support are all welcome benefits to communities, the win-win opportunity for construction and communities in connection with jobs and skills appears of a different order and significance at present. The potential RoI is clear.

Whilst the national economy continues to struggle, the latest government surveys and statistics for the construction sector make for particularly grim reading. Even with the Green Deal arriving on the scene, the total number of UK workforce jobs in the industry has fallen below two million.

Construction needs growth, communities need growth – the two need each other now perhaps more than ever. For social sustainability, it is time for Construction to move beyond a mindset that targets mere compliance and to get creative with opportunities for community engagement and self-promotion.

No industry is better placed than Construction to fire up engines for growth at local level and to create micro-economies within communities. The job is vital, for all concerned.

To view the original article in full on STN, a Carillion PLC initiative, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland

Greening the footprint of Big Data

A version of this article first appeared in a Special Report on ‘Low-Carbon Business’, published in The Times, 3 September, 2012.

What do New York, Oregon, Colorado and North Carolina have in common with Norway, Finland, Iceland and New Zealand? The answer is that all are home to ‘green’ data centres. The physical carbon footprint of virtual lives lived online and in the cloud is real and growing. In response, albeit belatedly, energy use and emissions reduction have now become the focus of significant commercial investment and intense public scrutiny.

The list of brands involved reads like a roll-call of major corporates, including: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, FedEx, Google, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft and Yahoo. Performance is mixed, to say the least: For ‘Renewables & Advocacy’ in the report ‘How Clean is Your Cloud’, Greenpeace recently scored Google an ‘A’, Apple a ‘D’ (subsequently raised to a ‘C’) and Amazon an ‘F’.

Neither technology nor design are insurmountable obstacles to deeper-green solutions, as completed facilities prove: First Verne Global, then Green Mountain, have developed zero-carbon new-build data centres, in Iceland and Norway respectively, taking advantage of cheap renewable energy, plus low ambient temperatures for ‘free’ cooling.

However, ‘Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good’ as they say – ‘better’ is still better than nothing. Just as population growth relies on retrofit of current housing stock to meet demand, so growth in the digital universe also calls for investment in existing operational facilities, services and software for better measurement and management of data to optimise performance. Upgrading old centres, as well as old ways, is vital to scaling and speeding progress.

The future for sustainable low-carbon business is plain to see: Data can only get bigger; so, energy must get smarter.

To view the Special report in full online, please click here.

Author: Jim McClelland