FASUDIR for Stakeholders
Local Project Committees & Policy Making Recommendations
FASUDIR LPC and Policy Makers Workhops booklet Contents by Andrea Moro and Giulia Barbano (iiSBE R&D) The LPC and workshop organizers are: Vincent Peyramale and Christian Wetzel (CALCON), Margherita Scotto and Alessandra Masini (D’APPOLONIA), Valeria Ferrando and Nick Purshouse (IES), Ida Kiss (ABUD), Ewa Zukowska (ACCIONA) and Idoia Camiruaga (Santiago) Editing and layout by Giulia Barbano (iiSBE R&D) Based on work carried out by the FASUDIR Consortium partners from September 2013 to August 2016 Published August 2016 © 2016 FASUDIR Consortium Partners. All rights reserved. FASUDIR is an FP7 Project supported by the European Commission under GA no. 609222 The document reflects only the authors’ views and the European Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
http://www.fasudir.eu
Contents Introduction
5
Local Project Committees
7
LPC meetings LPC members breakdown LPC members
8 10 14
Policy making recommendations
19
Holistic approach to sustainability An integrated multi-level approach Participatory planning Innovative business models to secure financial feasibility Integration of assessment systems in urban plans Multilevel governance
22 23 24 25 26 28
3
4
Introduction
The present booklet is an overview of key activities towards the involvement of stakeholders in the FASUDIR project. Stakeholders throughout the value chain have been involved in several ways, providing their feedback at key steps of the project to ensure that the development activities were in line with their expectations and indicating a way for successful future exploitation of the project results. The two key outcomes of the stakeholder engagement activity were the establishment of Local Project Committees and the definition of Policy Recommendations based on the implementation of FASUDIR results in public policies.
Local Project Committees In the five FASUDIR countries, committees of external experts across all stakeholder backgrounds have been created. These groups, the Local Project Committees (LPCs), have been crucial to the successful development of the Integrated Decision Support Tool. The LPCs have been consulted in key moments of the life of the project, to offer their perspective and opinions on the results developed by the FASUDIR partners. LPC members have brought to FASUDIR the voice of the larger community and user base.
Policy Recommendations Two transnational workshops held in Torino and Brussels and 5 national workshops, held in Italy, Spain, Hungary and Germany, have been held to present the FASUDIR IDST and methodology to policy makers. As a result, the workshops have produced 6 Policy Recommendations at urban scale to improve the sustainability of existing districts. These recommendations are targeted primarily to municipal governments and are based on the use of sustainability indicators and assessment tools at urban scale. The document also describes the policy context of the recommendations.
5
LOCAL PROJECT COMMITTEES
LPC meetings
Four LPC meetings were held throughout the life of the FASUDIR project at key steps of the development.
1. Expectations At the beginning of the project, in Jan-Feb 2014, the LPCs were convened to gather an initial round of comments on the proposed tool. The LPCs offered their expectations based on their expertise in urban retrofitting, and identified the main needs and procedures.
2. Reviewing the methodology In Jan-Feb 2015, the draft methodology was presented to the LPCs to verify and confirm that the work carried out in the project would prove to be useful in their daily activities. Comments and suggestions were taken into account in the final version of the methodology.
3. Testing the IDST beta In the Spring of 2016, an LPC meeting has been called to introduce the beta version of the IDST. LPC members followed a guided demonstration of the ongoing tool, offering their comments on usability and usefulness to support the final development steps.
4. Showing the final result Before the end of the project, in the summer of 2016, LPC members have been convened once more for a preview of the final project outcomes, including the final IDST and the application to the FASUDIR case studies. This meeting was often coupled with the Policy Maker Workshop, to define key policy recommendations on environmental policy-related results.
LPC Methodology Depending on the meeting, the events have been held in different ways: while the in-person meeting was the main modality, to ensure a workshop environment and a network of interactions between the LPC members, in some occasions the LPCs have been consulted via ad-hoc interviews or online webinars. For each meeting, the agenda was the same across countries, and organisers were provided the same source materials and some key points to animate the discussion, plus specific feedback items to discuss and report back to the FASUDIR partners.
8
1st LPC meeting
Meeting Date
Meeting Place
Germany
20 February 2014 18 March 2014
Italy
15-26 February 2014 Telephone interviews
Spain
25 February 2014
Telephone interviews
Hungary
3 March 2014
Budapest
United Kingdom
21 February 2014
Glasgow
2nd LPC meeting
Meeting Date
Bonn
Meeting Place
Germany
18 February 2015
Frankfurt
Hungary
7 January 2015
Budapest
Italy
February 2015
Telephone interviews
Spain
27 January 2015
Madrid
United Kingdom
31 January 2015
Glasgow
3rd LPC meeting
Meeting Date
Meeting Place
Germany
Merged with 4th LPC meeting
Italy
19 April 2016 27 April 2016
Rome Webinar
Spain
26 April 2016
Webinar
Hungary
29 April 2016
Impact Hub, Budapest
United Kingdom
10 May 2016
Webinar
4th LPC meeting
Meeting Date
Meeting Place
Germany
27/07/2016
Munich
Hungary
26/07/2016 29/07/2016
Budapest
Italy
20/07/2016
Rome
29/07/2016
Madrid
Spain
18/07/2016 09/08/2016
Santiago de Compostela
United Kingdom
Merged with 3rd LPC meeting 9
LPC members breakdown
Central Government: 5
Technology Providers: 2
Local Go & Municip
7
mem
Research: 4
ESCO: 1
10
Plann Archite
overnment palities: 28
76
mbers
ners & ects: 22
Banks: 1
Social Housing Organisations: 7
Commercial Users: 5
Distribution Utilities: 1
11
2nd Hungarian LPC meeting 7 January 2015, Budapest Photo by Ida Kiss, ABUD
13
LPC members
The following section details the list of LPC members, whose valued contribution was instrumental in ensuring the successful completion of the FASUDIR activities. Their names and organisations are reported below by way of thanks for their kind availability and invaluable support.
Germany Manfred Schmidt Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben Eva Vorderobermeier Stadt Wolfratshausen Julia Weinberger Stadt Kirchheim b. München Justus Klement Stadt Penzberg, Stadtbaumeister Michael Kronthaler Océ Printing Systems GmbH • A Canon Group Company Oliver Zadow oliver zadow architekt Sebastian Eberl Technische Universität München Georgi Georgiev Fraunhofer IBP Diego Romero Espinosa TRANSSOLAR Energietechnik GmbH
United Kingdom Carsten Hermann Historic Scotland- Scottish Government Jackie Sawyer Highland Council John Easton SustAim Jake Williams Buro Happold Paul Tuohy University of Strathclyde Andrew Peacock Heriot Watt University 14
Hungary Mess Gabriella State Secretariat for Planning Coordination - Councillor dr. Sersliné Kócsi Margit Chief Architect of the Government Mészáros Judit Tóth Tibor Chief Architect of Gödöllő Bagi Borbála Urban Development Administrator, District 6, Budapest Hunyadi István XVIIIth district: city director Ábrahám Krisztina XVIIIth district (Havanna housing estate development) Palkó Péter financial advisor, City Council of Budapest Alföldi György, Sárkány Csilla RÉV8 - Rehabilitation and Urban Development of Józsefváros Baross Pál RICS Hungary – Chairman Head of CEU Campus Redevelopment Office Székely György RUP 15 - project manager of the demo site (Zsókavár) Dr. Orbán Péter Hungarian District Heating Association Radványi Gábor FUTUREAL - developer Benkő Melinda BUTE - Budapest University of Technology and Economics Ongjerth Richárd Hungarian Society for Urban Planning Soóki-Tóth Gábor Center of Excellence in Planning (CEP) Nagy Pál Sebestyén NP Consult Kft.
15
Spain Javier Serra María-Tomé Ministry of Public Works José Ramón López, Jose Manuel Borque, Sagrario Eneriz EVE - Energy agency of the Basque Government Esther Llorens Nadal, Xavier Martí i Ragué Agency for public social housing of Catalonia Txema Ipiña ERAIKUNE Construction Cluster Alberto Ortiz Housing and Land of the Basque Country S.A. (VISESA) Ángel Anero Municipality of Portugalete Almudena Fuster, Jorge Gisbert Social Housing Agency of Madrid City Council María Puy Domínguez Pérez, Victor Diez Martinez Regional Energy Agency of Castilla y León (EREN) Esther Zarrabeitia Economic Development Company of Debabarrena (DEBEGESA) Santiago Rodríguez BREEAM Expert; Foundation Institute of Technology in Galicia Sergio Baragaño [ baragaño ] – Architecture firm in Madrid Paula Rivas Hesse Spanish Green Building Council (GBC España) Jesus Rodriguez Spanish Construction Technology Platform (PTEC) Gloria Gómez CSCAE - Higher council of architects in Spain Marc Oliver Rips EKO Innovating (EKINN) Iñigo Ruiz Ayesta BEST Energy Solutions Roberto Chacón FRÄNKISCHE Ibérica S.L. Jordi Bolea ROCKWOOL Peninsular
16
Italy Gloria Piaggio Municipality of Genoa Liliana Mazza Municipality of Torino Agnese Presotto Municipality of Udine Dario Milone Regione Piemonte Cinzia Gandolfi ITACA Alessandro Delli Noci Municipality of Lecce Andrea Vignoli ANCI Lazio Giorgio Scavino, Claudio Borghi, Patricia Hernandez Risorse Per Roma Marco Mancini Legambiente Sebastiano Ciavarella ATC Torino Rossana Zaccaria Finabita- Legacoop Abitanti Marco Rosso Collegio Costruttori Torino Vincenzo Corrado Institute of Engineers Torino Alfio GalatĂ AG Saving Giorgio Di Falco Logica Informatica Claudia Di Falco Architect (continued in next page)
17
Fabrizio Martini GreenEnergyPlus Andrea Paleari Studio Liveriero Alberto Rolla Studio Rolla Fabio Viero Manens-Tifs
POLICY MAKING
recommendations
20
FASUDIR Policy recommendations
A FASUDIR policy recommendation is schematic policy advice prepared for policy makers and public institutions that have the authority to make decisions concerning the sustainability of the urban environment. The policy recommendation serves to inform decision makers about a policy issue and the possible options to solve it. The main target group of FASUDIR Policy Recommendations are municipal governments. Sustainable retrofitted districts are a new challenge that needs innovative policies, planning processes and tools. Sustainability cannot be the main goal of urban planning but is rather a corner stone in achieving a balanced development of a city district. Beside environmental issues (energy, water, emissions, use of land, materials, etc.), the social (urban mix, well-being, culture, access to services, equity, social inclusion, etc.) and economic (LCC, impact on the local economy, employment, etc.) aspects of planning all have to be considered. An holistic approach to urban planning has to be pursued, integrating actions in policies and tools: strategic plans, comprehensive plans, neighborhood plans, regulatory and incentive strategies, or historic preservation plans. Sustainable design has to be included in urban planning. To reach this objective a new integrated multi-level approach is necessary: • • • • •
stakeholders have to be part of the planning process since the beginning, implementing a cooperation schema to facilitate a close interaction between them; participation: democratic planning has to be followed to allow the public to make important decisions as part of the planning process; communication activities have to be implemented to involve the citizens; targets, strategies and indicators in the different fields (environmental, social and economic) have to be defined trough the participation of all the main actors; sustainability issues have to be taken in account in all the planning stages at different levels: city, districts, neighborhoods, blocks.
21
1
Holistic approach to sustainability Issue
Urban scale policies and strategies lack an integrated approach to all dimensions of sustainability.
Purpose of the recommendation
To promote the inclusion in policies, strategies, plans at urban level of all the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social and economic). Only an integrated approach to sustainability allows to develop eco-efficient solutions with positive social impacts.
Motivation
To reach a high level of performance for a district it is not efficient to act separately on the three dimensions of sustainability. Only the adoption of an integrated approach allows to exploit possible synergies. Synergy is the whole becoming greater than the sum of the parts. Environmental objectives that implies high costs to be reached would fail. Looking for an extreme high living quality depleting the environment is also unsustainable. Only the right equilibrium between the three dimension allows to reach the success.
Applicability and scope
The recommendation affects policies, planning processes and strategies at urban scale that actually don’t have an integrated approach to sustainability. Decision making and planning processes need to be improved including holistic targets and strategies to optimize the sustainability of districts.
Policy statement: Integrated Approach to Sustainability Policies, strategies and plans at urban level have to be upgraded to guarantee an integrated approach to all sustainability aspects. The synergies between the elements of the policies should be such that the impact of the policy as a whole adds up to more than would the sum of the individual parts if implemented in isolation.
22
An integrated multi-level approach Issue
Plans, strategies and tools at building and urban level often are not harmonized and sufficiently connected. A district should be considered as an eco-system.
Purpose of the recommendation
To promote the connection between the planning tools at the different scales in the way to facilitate the fulfilment of performance targets of an urban retrofitting. An integrated multi-level approach to urban planning is essential to reach the expected results at the end of the process.
Motivation
To guarantee the fulfilment of sustainability targets in a district renovation process, urban scale plans and tools have to be connected to the ones at building scale adopting an integrated multi-scale approach. If the planning activities at the different scale are not appropriately connected, the risk is a failure in reaching the expected environmental, social and economic performance.
Applicability and scope
The policy affects all planning tools at the different scales.
Policy statement: Integrated Planning Processes Adoption of multi-level planning process to secure the fulfilment of sustainability requirements in urban retrofitting or new area development.
23
2
3
Participatory planning Issue
Inadequate involvement of stakeholders in urban retrofitting processes.
Purpose of the recommendation
To promote the participations of the community in strategic and management processes of urban districts retrofitting and an efficient communication between the stakeholders. Policies should promote the participations of the community in strategic and management processes of urban retrofitting. Stakeholders have to be part of the planning process since the beginning, implementing a cooperation schema to facilitate a close interaction between them.
Motivation
Participatory planning aims to harmonize views among all of its participants, the community in particular, as well as prevent conflict between opposing parties. It consists of including stakeholders in the project design, in various collaborative capacities, from identifying critical problems, to setting priorities and deciding on which strategies to adopt.
Applicability and scope
Participatory planning can be applied to identify the community needs and consequently to drive planning activities toward shared objectives. The process can be applied to planning activities at all scales, from district to cluster.
Policy statement: Participatory Processes in Urban Planning Urban planning activities have to include participatory processes to guarantee the support of communities in target and objectives definition and to solve potential conflicts among stakeholders. The community has to be involved since the design phase up to the conclusion of the processes. Communication activities have to be implemented among all stakeholder to secure the transparency of the activities.
24
Innovative business models to secure financial feasibility  Issue
Inclusion of innovative financial mechanisms in urban retrofitting policies.
Purpose of the recommendation
Policies should allow the use of new business models and financial supporting tools for districts retrofitting. For each specific urban retrofitting process, the most suitable and appropriate business model should be adopted in order to secure successful implementation.
Motivation
Different business models may allocate different responsibilities and incentives to the different stakeholders and may therefore have significant impacts on the scale and distribution of costs and benefits. In urban planning particular attention has to be paid to the implementation of suitable business models and financial supporting tools with high impact in the economy, in the way to secure the success of the process. A wrong business model can take to the failure of the enterprise. Developing novel business models can involve establishing new, complex relationships between different bodies, and may need the design of agreements and contracts which are both attractive to private partners while allowing public bodies to retain sufficient control over the initiative. A crucial aspect is to understand the rates of return and risk management that investors and developers require, possibly at different stages of the projects, and ensure that the business models optimize them.
Applicability and scope
The policy affects planning activities at strategic level. A specific business model has to be defined for each case on the base of the intervention’s characteristics and the reference context.
Policy statement: Business Plans and Urban Planning District retrofitting processes have to be supported by tailored business plans that must maximise the possibility of success of the process. The business models need to be specified according to the possible sources of funding, the expenditures and costs, the savings and the partnership breakdowns. Financing can be in the form of grants, co-investment, lease-back arrangements and these can be bundled with other energy and utility services.
25
4
5
Integration of assessment systems in urban plans Issue
Scarce use of quantitative, measurable, reliable sustainability indicators in urban scale policies to act as a reference framework for stakeholders.
Purpose of the recommendation
To promote the integration of Key Performance Indicators, decision making and assessment tools in urban scale policies, strategies, plans to define in an objective and transparent way the sustainability targets and to measure their achievement.
Motivation
Indicators, decision making and assessment tools at urban scale can support decision makers in the management of sustainable building issues in masterplanning processes. These tools have to deal with all of the relevant issues for sustainable cities: urban form, environment, socio economic aspects. By means of assessment tools, it is possible to set reliable, measurable and verifiable performance targets for urban areas. The assessment tools can be used to support design and planning activities, to verify the compliance during the construction phase and to monitor the real performance of an urban area in operation. They allow improving and measuring social, environmental and economic sustainability of urban districts, neighborhoods and clusters. Cities have a key role in delivering sustainable neighborhoods through planning policy and development management. This new approach has to be initiated by local authorities. Indicators and assessment tools provide a reference common framework for the stakeholders involved in the processes for the realization or retrofit of neighborhoods: urban planners, investors, SMEs, grant managers, owners, construction companies, solutions providers, users, etc. Indicators and assessment tools have to be contextualized in order to reflect the local priorities and standard practice. Specific weights have to be assigned to sustainability issues while context related benchmarks have to be set for each criteria included in the system. The tool has to be enough flexible to reflect the unique challenges and opportunities of the specific development site.
26
The adoption of an assessment tools at urban scale can provide the following benefits: collaborative involvement of key stakeholders in the planning process; • clear definition of sustainability targets in the planning process. Improved level of credibility and transparency of development proposals; • effective communication about proposals benefits to community representatives; • availability of measurable indicators for monitoring and reporting against objectives. Moreover, the use of assessment tools allows to set up very effective incentive based policies. The public authorities have the opportunity to scale the incentives or to fix minimum performance requirements on the base of objective and measurable indicators. •
Applicability and Scope
The use of assessment systems in planning tools is targeted to define in an objective way the requested performance targets of buildings and urban area and to measure the level of performance reached. Assessment tools facilitate the interaction between stakeholders early in the process in the way to find a consensus among the key actors. This approach maximizes the eco-efficiency of planning processes and avoids the risk to rework plans at later stages. The tools can also be used to successfully engaging the community in the planning process, allowing a clear communication of understandable objectives and visions about the living and work places of the next future.
Policy statement: Integration of Assessment Tools in Urban Planning Policies, strategies and planning activities at urban scale have to be supported by contextualized assessment tools and indicators to evaluate the level of sustainability of districts. The assessment tools have to be used to fix and communicate in an intelligible and objective way the performance targets. The assessment tools have to be used in the whole life cycle of an urban area to verify the level of performance during construction and operation. In the planning phase, assessment systems support the decision making process to identify the optimal design solution.
27
6
Multilevel governance  Issue
Inefficient connection between the departments of the public organizations involved in a district retrofit process. Inefficient vertical connection between the different government levels (local, regional, national) interested in an urban district renovation process.
Purpose of the recommendation
To promote the adoption of multilevel governance model in district retrofitting, based on assessment and decision making tools, to improve the efficiency of the whole process and the achievement of sustainability targets.
Motivation
Multi-Level Governance (MLG) means the participation of a range of different types of actors (public, private and the community) in policy-making and decision making. The relationships between the actors involved in MLG are both horizontal and vertical. Horizontally, these relations concern the actors at the same government level (e.g. different ministries of a government, different departments of local authority). Vertically, these relations regard actors at diverse government levels (local, provincial, regional, national). MLG is considered positive for several reasons: stimulation of each level of government to take responsibility and enables the pooling of resources, commitment enhancement towards policies, incorporation in policy design and implementation a greater variety of expertise and perspectives from different actors, greater transparency. The adoption of reference indicators and assessment tools allows to improve the MLG systems facilitating the information sharing, the involvement of actors and the decision making process.
Applicability and scope
Planning and implementation of district retrofitting processes need a strong collaboration and coordination between local, regional and national governance levels. Vertically, these processes often are characterized by complex and controversial issues requiring the involvement of multiple players at different levels, as well as of other key regional and local stakeholders. Horizontally, in a district level retrofitting process are involved several city departments (i.e. building, urban planning, energy, mobility, etc.).
28
The adoption of a MLG model based on a common framework of KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and assessment tools would improve the communication between the actors facilitating the whole process: common understanding of the objectives, target setting, data and information sharing, issues solving, decision making.
Policy statement: MLG in Urban District Retrofitting Adoption of a Multi Level Governance models based on assessment tools and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) for a more efficient government of urban district retrofitting processes. Multi-level governance models may range from legally binding partnership and participatory planning activities, to the joint development of regional and local structures and tools.
29
Project Partners TECNALIA Research & Innovation Spain www.tecnalia.com ACCIONA Instalaciones SA Spain www.acciona.es D’Appolonia S.p.A. Italy www.dappolonia.it ABUD Mernokiroda KFT Hungary www.abud.hu Consorcio de la Ciudad de Santiago Spain www.consorciodesantiago.org
iiSBE ITALIA R&D
30
iiSBE Italia R&D srl Italy www.iisbeitalia.org
Munich University of Applied Sciences Germany www.hm.edu Integrated Environmental Solutions LtD United Kingdom www.iesve.com Geonardo Environmental Technologies LtD Hungary www.geonardo.com CalCon Deutschland AG Germany www.calcon.de London Business School United Kingdom www.london.edu ACCIONA Infraestructuras SA Spain www.acciona.es
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement 609222. 31
info@fasudir.eu
www.fasudir.eu
fasudir
FasudirEU
+FasudirEu
FASUDIR EU FP7