The shift to a multi-racial government in South Africa is as pronounced and dramatic a transition as that of the new independent states of Central and Eastern Europe. In the past five years, South Africa has adopted a new constitution, elected a new government, redrawn state and municipal boundaries, and undertaken basic reform of its legal and political system. Land policy is central to this transformation, for “since the 1913 Natives Land Act, rights to own, rent or even share-crop land in South Africa depended upon a person’s race classification.” (1) Among the major land-related issues currently under scrutiny are property tax reform, restitution of land rights, and improvements in tenure security and access to landholding.

Land and Property Taxation

South African real property taxes take a number of forms, including “site rating,” a tax on unimproved value alone; “flat rating” on land and structures uniformly; and “composite ratings,” which tax land and improvements at different rates. Multiplicity and change are the norm, as Cape Town has recently decided to adopt site rating, Durban is considering replacement of its composite rating system with site rating, and Pretoria has introduced a temporary tax on improvements to supplement its site rating system.

The property tax in South Africa is not at present applied to rural land, although its potential extension to non-urban areas is the subject of intense debate. It is in the cities, however, that the struggle to transform the country will succeed or fail. In 1995, the urban sector accounted for about 65 percent of South Africa’s population and more than 80 percent of its GDP. Property taxes are an important source of revenue for cities to meet the cost of providing services within their newly redrawn boundaries.

These new boundaries are another index of the pace and variety of change in South Africa. Efforts to consolidate wealthy residential and commercial areas with impoverished townships and settlements have taken different forms in different regions. The central business districts of Johannesburg and Durban have been divided among several taxing jurisdictions that extend beyond their city limits. By contrast, the most of Cape Town’s business and residential regions were combined this summer with a set of neighboring townships in a new administrative region. It consists of 19 former administrations consolidated into 7, involving a transfer of more than 10,000 municipal staff and many assets. These measures have extremely important political and fiscal implications, bringing together as they do residential areas with living standards equal to or even surpassing European norms and settlements without electricity, paved roads or running water.

From a land policy perspective, perhaps the most dramatic legacy of past racial policies is the imbalance between white and non-white landownership. Under apartheid, 87 percent of the country’s land was reserved for white residents, who in 1995 constituted only 13 percent of South Africa’s population. Under these circumstances, property taxation takes on special importance as a potential means for expanding access to the land market. Roy Bahl and Johannes Linn have written:

[A]n equity argument may be at the heart of the matter: urban land prices are frequently so high that low-income groups cannot afford to purchase land…. To the extent that the revenue from property taxes is capitalized into lower current land values (since the tax reduces the expected future private yield on the land), it partially expropriates landownership rights from the present owner and also constitutes a loan to future owners, who can now acquire the land at a lower price but will have to pay property taxes in the future. If low-income groups cannot buy land because they lack liquidity and access to capital markets, property taxation may be one of the policy instruments to improve their access to landownership. (2)

Tax Collections and Tax Revolts

The government faces the challenge of reversing a “culture of nonpayment” for municipal services among township residents. During the apartheid era, the African National Congress (ANC) encouraged its supporters to refuse payment of water and utility charges as a means of contesting the legitimacy of the state-sponsored black local authorities. The resulting arrears were a major financial burden on all levels of government. Now the ANC seeks to promote voluntary payment for these same services, and as well as payment of real property taxes by those who now are able to hold title to their property.

Ironically, one tax protest that received wide publicity took the form of a property tax revolt in one of the nation’s wealthiest white residential areas, the Sandton suburb of Johannesburg. When property tax rates doubled and tripled there in 1996, many local property owners withheld payment in protest. This situation illustrates one of the most paradoxical aspects of the fiscal challenge to the new South Africa: the need to redress the enormous imbalance in resources across racial groups while commanding support from white citizens who feel over-taxed.

On the one hand, the disparities in needs and resources are overwhelming. Households falling below the official poverty level include only 0.7 percent of the white population, but 65 percent of the black population. At the same time, many white taxpayers feel overburdened by taxes-income tax rates, for example, can reach 45 percent on earnings over $22,000-and resentful of nonpayment by some township residents. In Alexandra, a black township inside Sandton, last year’s tax collection rate was only 3 percent. Any effort to meet the pressing fiscal needs of the new South Africa must take into account the vastly different perceptions of contribution and entitlement across its diverse population.

Perspectives on Future Directions

In July, a conference at the University of South Africa in Pretoria brought together governmental officials, policy analysts, academics and international experts to consider local government design and fiscal capacity. Brief overviews of two of the more than 30 presentations at that conference give a sense of the range of issues debated there, from concrete points of physical engineering to theoretical questions of intergovernmental fiscal relations.

At the most basic level, the definition of revenue needs depends on a prior decision as to the scope of local services to which all citizens are entitled. Given that large township areas have grown up without standard infrastructure, what goals should the government set for provision of water, electricity and roads?

Peter Vaz of the official Financial and Fiscal Commission outlined an approach to the monumental task of estimating the cost of providing the minimum services that each citizen can expect. The South African constitution enumerates 27 guaranteed rights, including the right to equality, to human dignity, to life, to freedom of expression, to a healthy environment, to housing, to health care services, to sufficient food, water and social security, to education, to information. The Commission is considering attempts to identify three levels of services-basic, intermediate and full provision. It is also looking at the cost of extending six services to urban and rural areas: water, sewerage, solid waste, roads, stormwater, electricity. For example, the basic level of water provision might be a communal standpipe, the intermediate level a yard tap, and full provision a house connection. The capital cost of each service package then provides a first estimate of the revenue necessary to meet the guarantees relevant to local government activities.

The broadest fiscal questions concern the allocation of taxes and functions among levels of governments. Rudolph Penner of the Barents Group stated that his general support for decentralization in transition economies was tempered in the case of South Africa. The model of voters as consumers choosing a set of local services in exchange for payment of local taxes is not necessarily applicable or desirable in this context. The strong ideological background to politics in South Africa means that voters are not primarily making a local electoral choice on the basis of economic policy. Moreover, the history of apartheid makes self-selected homogeneous groupings unacceptable if they lead to segregation by income class or race. Penner concluded that fiscal decentralization in South Africa must be of a more restrained variety than might be appropriate elsewhere.

These considerations serve only to highlight the sweeping reconsideration of all public institutions and their mandates that has accompanied the initiation of a new era in South African history. Improvements in land policy and taxation may play a significant role in assisting this immense task of national self-transformation.

Joan Youngman is a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute, where she directs the Program on the Taxation of Land and Buildings. She and Martim Smolka, senior fellow for Latin America Programs, served on the faculty of the July conference at the University of South Africa.

Notes:

1. South African Department of Land Affairs, Our Land: Green Paper on South African Land Policy (1996), p. 9.

2. Roy W. Bahl and Johannes F. Linn, Urban Public Finance in Developing Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 168.

What are the names of South Africa’s official languages?

A recent newspaper trivia puzzle gives a startling perspective on the enormity of the political, legal and cultural changes experienced by South Africa since 1993, and the difficulty foreign observers face in grasping the scope of these transformations.

The original answer to the question about official languages was given as English and Afrikaans. One week later, a correction noted that South Africa’s major tribal languages should also be included. So the full answer lists ten official languages:

English

Afrikaans

Ndebele

Northern Sotho (Sepedi)

Southern Sotho (Sesotho)

Swati

Tsonga

Tswana (Setswana)

Venda, Xhosa

Zulu

Local governments exercise greater land use authority in the United States than in any other advanced democracy. Yet local governments have themselves evolved piecemeal in the typical U.S. metropolitan area, producing a pattern of fragmented authority. Most notably, as metropolitan areas have exploded outward, the local government system has adapted mainly by creating new suburbs and single-function districts rather than by expanding the boundaries of existing central cities.

Illustratively, when Robert Wood studied the New York metropolitan region in the late 1950s, he counted roughly 1,400 local governments. When Jameson Doig and Michael Danielson examined the same region in the early 1980s, the number had grown to 2,200, of which more than 800 exercised land use regulatory authority.

Critics levy numerous charges against this system. Above all, they contend it invites parochialism and, in dealing with issues of regional scale, gridlock. These failings are particularly apparent when the potential ends of land use policy are controversial. But they are visible in many other circumstances as well—wherever, for example, there is substantial risk that the instruments of policy (from regional overrides of local zoning to the siting of new incinerators) will be highly controversial and no consensus has yet emerged about the severity of a crisis that might justify accepting such risk.

In other respects, however, the system is both adaptive and finely tuned to citizen desires. Numerous functions have been shifted from localities to regional authorities and higher levels of government in recent decades, yet the changes have been highly selective and incremental.

When broad agreement has emerged that a particular function—such as mass transit or environmental protection—requires decisionmaking and management at supra-local scale, the political leaders in many metropolitan areas have frequently crafted new institutional arrangements. They have typically defined the new institutions quite precisely, however, so as to avoid sapping local authority any more than necessary to deal with the specific problems that gave rise to the consensus for change. Where large numbers of voters still favor local control, moreover—as, preeminently, in the field of land use regulation—metropolitan-area political leaders have taken great care to avoid disturbing it.

To be sure, certain objectives are all but impossible to realize through this piecemeal, consensus-dependent mode of institutional adaptation (most notably, greater class and racial integration at regional scale, and prevention of urban sprawl). But others (e.g., the preservation of neighborhood character and vigorous grassroots democracy) are accomplished much more reliably than would be likely in a more “rationalized” system.

Balancing Communal and Individualistic Values

Controversies about this system invariably reflect a mix of conflicting interests and values. Since a considerable body of scholarship exists on the interests most commonly in dispute, let us concentrate here on the values.

Americans consider land use issues within the framework of two disparate ideologies: one communal and egalitarian, the other individualistic and disposed to leave distributional outcomes to the marketplace. In any given controversy, self-interested groups organize their briefs around aspects of one or the other of these ideologies. So it is easy to miss the crucial fact that both enjoy near-consensual support. Americans favor both private capitalism and government action to further collective values–each in its place. The disputes typically arise in situations where parties disagree about which ideology ought to take precedence or about how the differing ideological claims should be balanced.

The land use arena is chock full of such points. Ownership is private. Most development initiative is private. And tradition favors viewing land as a market commodity. But most human activities take place on land; the byproducts of land use profoundly affect every aspect of the human environment; and no one is an owner every place he or she goes. So everyone has a powerful stake in the preservation of some common spaces, in society’s rules for behavior in such spaces, and in some regulation of land use “overspill” effects.

Owners themselves, moreover, are eager for collective services. The value of urban real estate hinges critically on the availability and quality of such services, from highway access to public safety to education. In addition, neighborhood characteristics and the level of investor confidence in the neighborhood’s future profoundly affect real estate values. As a result, whether their aim is development or simply enjoyment of what they already have, property owners are drawn inevitably to the public realm.

Within the public realm, however, communal values–including the presumption of equal access to collective services regardless of income or wealth–predominate. This poses a severe problem for relatively affluent property owners who are reluctant to trigger wide egalitarian claims.

The fragmentation of metropolitan areas into independent suburbs, a problem for some, is for these voters a solution. It provides a means of confining the application of communal norms within relatively small population groups. And it makes available to such groups an instrument of extraordinary power for the pursuit and preservation of homogeneity: land use regulation.

Public Regulation vs Market Forces

Pressures have built in recent decades, nonetheless, for public land use action on a wider scale. Some of these pressures (e.g., for major infrastructure investments and for environmental protection) come largely from property owners themselves and do not pose much redistributive threat even when higher-level governments assume responsibility for action. Nearly all of the centralization that has occurred has been in response to pressures of this sort.

A second set of pressures for supra-local action has come primarily from less favored groups and their political representatives, seeking fiscal equalization and residential integration. There have been considerable shifts of money in response to these pressures. But resistance has been fierce to reforms that might force racial or class integration at the neighborhood level. With rare exceptions it has been successful.

The reform idea with the greatest apparent potential to override local land use parochialism would be a shift of some land use regulatory authority to the state level. Movement in this direction occurred in about one-quarter of the states during the 1970s and 1980s. Except in the notable cases of Oregon and Florida, however, the changes were slight, and the historic pattern of local land use autonomy remained firmly entrenched. Concerns about growth, moreover, rather than concerns about equality or integration drove these state land use reforms. Consequently, with weak real estate markets in the early 1990s interest in them has waned.

The question remains whether shifting land use authority from the local to the state level, if it does occur, will be likely to produce more egalitarian and integrationist outcomes than would the existing pattern of fragmented land use governance. One can plausibly argue that it will, stressing that egalitarian norms tend to prevail within (even if not between) U.S. public jurisdictions. Thinking of the immediate future, however, the likelihood is that such shifts will be rare and that, even when they occur, their egalitarian impacts will be meager.

For better or worse, the overwhelming trend of the 1990s, at all levels of government, is toward greater market deference rather than more vigorous public action to achieve redistributive objectives.

_____________

Alan Altshuler is professor in urban policy and planning and director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He is also a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, which distributes several of his publications. This article is reprinted with permission from the 1995-96 Annual Report of the Taubman Center.

For the past several years, the Lincoln Institute has been collaborating with the Loeb Fellowship Program based at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design. The program was established in 1970 through the generosity of Harvard alumnus John L. Loeb to allow mid-career professionals to study independently and gain additional tools to help revitalize the built and natural environment. The 2001-2002 Loeb Fellows took their end-of-the-year class trip to Cuba in mid-June, including two days in Santiago de Cuba and four in Havana, with a side trip from Havana to Trinidad and destinations in between.

With its neoclassical facades, white cobbles, Caribbean clouds and pastel paint, Trinidad is frozen in time like a watercolor postcard. Because Cuba’s architectural heritage is the focus of growing international attention and it’s not threatened by waves of new construction, the future of the past seems assured. The future itself is much more difficult to find. As our Loeb Fellowship group searched for clues in three cities and parts of the countryside, we found that despite economic stagnation and international political tension Cubans are hard at work on a future that is uniquely theirs.

An influx of tourist dollars and an aggressive, uniquely Cuban preservation campaign have begun to seize the riches of Old Havana from the jaws of benign neglect. After at least one bad experience with new construction, the Office of the City Historian, which coordinates the impressive large-scale restoration and revitalization of Old Havana, is still grappling with the problem of integrating the new with the historic. One way of addressing the problem is to closely oversee the design of block-sized developments. We walked by one large, modern parking structure inside Old Havana that will be rebuilt as a multi-use building, with parking beside it, according to a design intended to replicate the scale and some of the monumental features of a colonial convent that once stood on the site. Although some residents are being relocated here and elsewhere, many are returning to their homes after their neighborhoods are rehabilitated.

Now considered a model for financing rehabilitation efforts in other districts of the city, the renewal of Old Havana is based on a system of taxes and joint ventures that includes revenues from the private enterprises profiting from restoration-related tourism. The Office’s US$50 million-per-year budget is divided between construction and social supports for Cubans living within the boundaries of the rehabilitation zone. This can be thought of as a system of “value capture,” long a topic of interest at the Lincoln Institute.

Julio César Pérez, a Cuban architect, urban designer and advocate for community-based planning, was a member of our Loeb Fellowship class. With his special perspective as a local practitioner, he showed our group some favorite examples among the rich legacy of pre-revolutionary Deco and Modern architecture in Havana. Five-story gems are set among the very mixed cityscape of central Havana, which also includes the 28-story Edificio Focsa, with its 375 apartment units, built in the twilight of the Batista years.

On the heels of the international style housing blocks and casinos of the 1950s, the revolution brought its own form of land use revision. Julio told a story of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro playing a game of congratulatory post-revolution golf on the vast green of the former Havana Country Club. “How can we make good use of this land?” they mused, according to the legend. The results of their conversation are the grandly metaphoric and mostly unfinished National Schools of Art designed by Ricardo Porro, Vittorio Garratti and Roberto Gottardi. Their stance is deliberately indifferent to the clubhouse or the plan of the golf course, treating the open area as if it were a large meadow in the wilderness. The buildings are slated for restoration, a project made more complicated by poor siting and hydrological problems.

Julio also singled out more recent examples of large-scale construction in Havana, such as the Melia Cohiba Hotel with its bulky, corporate arch and the Miramar Trade Center, a commercial (dollar) mall across the street. These expensive projects are not only design failures, but also miss the relationship of the site with the sea and the possibility for creating a new quality of place in a developing district.

With the stalled economy and international stalemate of the 1990s, Cuban architect and planner Miguel Coyula and his colleagues have made use of the time and materials at hand to take a more thoughtful approach to land use and development. While vertical cities of steel and glass are popping up on a fast track and enormous scale in cities around the world, one of the world’s largest scale city models is being built out of discarded cigar boxes in Havana. This breathtaking miniature landscape was conceived as an aid to planning and an anchor for the efforts of the Group for the Integrated Development of the Capital (GDIC), which has been advising the city government on planning matters since 1988.

The 1:1000 model of greater Havana has been evolving piece by fitted piece for most of the last decade, and now covers 112 square meters or about a quarter of a basketball court. The model is housed in a specially designed, daylight-filled pavilion in the Mirarmar area near the center of the city, where drop-in visitors can circulate around and above the model on the broad floor and ramping mezzanine levels. Scale models of virtually every structure in the city are mounted on the wood topographical base. The buildings are color-coded to show development at different stages in history: colonial, pre-revolutionary modern (1900-1958) and post-revolutionary.

Miguel describes one construction project, a high-rise for the Committee for Economic Collaboration (CECE), which was cancelled because the model showed it was clearly out of scale for its location in central Havana. The decision seems to be a milestone because it was a very real project and also symbolic of a determination to build with environmental sensitivity—despite pressures to accommodate foreign investors in cash-strapped Cuba.

The primary mission of the GDIC is intimately familiar to Americans involved in planning inside major cities: start with neighborhoods. The group has run a series of “neighborhood transformation workshops” for local residents guided by professional designers and planners, selected from the same area when possible. These projects capture the spirit of the international community design movement, a 45-year-old, U.S.-linked tradition in which designers work directly in the interest of area residents. Since both the hard times of the post-Soviet 1990s and the U.S. embargo began taking their huge economic toll on Cuba, these workshops have gained in significance. They have brought planning and economic development together in a new local context, with neighborhoods tackling projects like urban farming and manufacturing building materials from recycled rubble.

The neighborhood transformation workshops and similar initiatives over the last 20 years have helped to bridge the Cuban revolutionary imperative of equal treatment for all and the very human imperative of making decisions about family, community and daily life. Another example is Architects for the Community, a national civic sector community design practice involved in town construction and environmental planning as well as low-fee design services for individual families. Built on the theories of Argentinean architect Rodolfo Livingston, the practice promotes a direct relationship between the user and the architect while building sustainability and contextual sensitivity into each construction project. Julio worked with the practice for five years before coming to Harvard and he presented a paper with Kathleen Dorgan, another member of the Loeb class, at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture conference in Cuba last spring. As an advocate for more humane and thoughtful land use and building design in his country, Julio is among a number of Cuban architects concerned with traditional values of craft and environmentally appropriate design.

Considering efforts like these, there is hope for a future of construction based on a fine calibration of scale, carefully considered relationships between built fabric and natural features of the surroundings, as well as the comfort and pleasure of the users. The challenge is to find the economic and regulatory means to support appropriate construction. So far, the state has maintained control of land use through direct and almost exclusive ownership, negotiating leases for some private and foreign investment through a delicate and extremely tenuous web of economic and legal formulas for valuing the parcels involved. As the economy becomes tied to the influx of outside currencies, these leases are likely to evolve into more predictable and transparent transactions. Perhaps land sales and heftier taxation are not far behind.

With the coming of foreign investment and the pressures to open up to even more, there will be ample opportunity in the future to be hijacked by land use decisions that are driven by the profit margins of distant organizations, and that would be an unfortunate addition to Cuba’s historic burden. Because, despite the beauty of its landscapes and cityscapes, Cuba is a map of victimization—by colonial conquest, crass economic exploitation, revolutionary confrontation, and brutal Soviet-style development.

The Loeb Fellows got an overview of intense nationalism built upon a deep and diverse culture, cosmopolitan history and the very real achievements of the last 40 years. Cuba is a place of great hardship and also enormous potential, for Cubans and for the rest of the world. We hope that the future does not hold only exploitation and cultural degradation when the barriers to trade and international travel finally fall. We also hope to show that Cuba is a place to learn from the mistakes of the past—theirs and ours—and to find out what is possible when a people are free to protect, respect and enhance their environment.

For more information about the Loeb Fellowship Program, see the website at www.gsd.harvard.edu/loebfell.

Loeb Fellows, 2001-2002

Kathleen Dorgan
Architect and community designer, Storrs, Connecticut

Clair Enlow
Journalist, Seattle

Kathleen Fox
Director, Ohio Arts and Sports Facilities Commission, Columbus.

James Grauley
President, Bank of America’s Community Development Corporation, Atlanta

Seitu Jones
Public artist, Minneapolis

Rick Lowe
Public artist and founder, Project Rowe Houses, Houston

Rubén Martínez
Writer, Los Angeles, and professor of non-fiction writing, University of Houston

Julio César Pérez
Architect, urban planner and professor, Faculty of Architecture, Havana

Virginia Prescott
Radio journalist and interactive media specialist, National Public Radio, New York and Boston

Richard St. John
Director, Conversations for the Common Wealth, Pittsburgh

Marina Stankovic
Architect, Berlin

Matthew McKinney was named director of the Public Policy Research Institute at the University of Montana in 2003, after serving for 10 years as the founding director of the Montana Consensus Council. He is also a senior lecturer at the University of Montana’s School of Law, a partner with the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, and a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute. Matt was a research fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, in 2000 and 2002, and a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute in 2000. During the past 18 years, he has designed and facilitated more than 50 multiparty public processes, helping leaders and citizens address issues related to federal land management, land use planning, growth management, water policy, fish and wildlife, and public health and human services. He has published numerous journal articles and is coauthor of The Western Confluence: Governing Natural Resources (Island Press, June 2004).

Land Lines: You have a strong background in facilitation and consensus building. How do you apply that to land use planning?

Matt McKinney: I come to planning largely from a process perspective. Land use issues typically involve multiple parties, and the challenge of planning is to integrate diverse, often conflicting, interests. In my current work with the Public Policy Research Institute I operate on the assumption that one of the most effective ways to develop and implement strategies to sustain livable communities and healthy landscapes is to create opportunities for stakeholders to come together with the best available information to address issues of common concern. In short, the planning process is most effective when it is inclusive, informed and deliberative:

• Inclusive participation means that a concerted effort is made to engage all viewpoints and interests, and participants’ input and advice will be considered by the decision makers and will influence the outcome.
• An informed process offers an equal opportunity to share views and information, fostering mutual learning, common understanding and consideration of a variety of options.
• A deliberative dialogue occurs when people listen to each other, consider the rationale or reason for competing viewpoints (the interests that underlie the positions), and seek solutions that integrate as many interests as possible.

This principled approach has been shown through experience to produce decisions that are broadly supported by the public, and it eases implementation because the key stakeholders have already played their part in shaping the proposed action or plan. Compared to lobbying, litigation and other ways of shaping public policy, it can save time and money. Last—and important for planners—this approach offers an effective way to integrate social and political values within the scientific, technical and legal framework of land use planning. It’s a more cooperative and constructive way for planners and public interests to work together.

LL: Can you give some examples of how these principles work in the real world?

MM: In the northern Rocky Mountains, many communities with limited staff, money and other resources are struggling with double-digit growth, strains on local infrastructure and cultural clashes between newcomers and those with traditional western values. But westerners are infamous for resisting government intrusion—a predictable backlash in a region where the federal government holds sway over more than half of the land base. As a result planners often face a steep climb just to gain the public’s ear on land use issues.

These situations are ripe for inclusive, informed and deliberative approaches, and there are many examples across the West. In Helena, Montana, we helped a broad-based citizens group—including open space advocates, neighborhood leaders, realtors and developers—negotiate new procedures for subdivision reviews. Developers wanted to streamline the subdivision application process, and residents of established neighborhoods wanted to ensure that safeguards remained in place to preserve the small-town feel and curb sprawl. In another case, residents of Jefferson County, Montana, started talking about zoning after a cement plant near an elementary school proposed burning hazardous waste as fuel. The “z” word caused some resistance from local business and industry, notably the cement plant and a nearby mining operation, but we brought in a facilitator who helped a working group of local residents, industry representatives, private property rights advocates and county officials develop a zoning plan.

In both cases, negotiations took the form of deliberative dialogue that lasted about a year. Both groups used joint fact-finding to gather information that was credible to all parties at the table. Then they crafted proposals and submitted them to formal decision-making arenas—city council and county commission, respectively. After careful review, both the new subdivision protocols and the zoning plan were adopted essentially unopposed.

LL: What role do planners play in such processes?

MM: We frequently recommend using an impartial, third-party facilitator to help build trust and more effective working relationships among the stakeholders. A facilitator can also keep the group on task and focused on a common goal. In some cases planners can play this role themselves, but more often they act as conveners or sponsors of a multiparty process, or as vested stakeholders and hands-on participants. Either way, planners can participate more effectively if they have a working knowledge of the principles and strategies of collaborative problem solving.

LL: How can planners obtain this kind of training?

MM: Since 1999 the Lincoln Institute and the Consensus Building Institute have cosponsored a two-day introductory course, Mediating Land Use Disputes, for planning practitioners and others interested in land use decisions. It presents practical insights into negotiating and mediating conflicts over land use and community development. Using interactive exercises, games and simulations, participants receive hands-on experience with collaborative problem solving and public participation. They learn how to dovetail these concepts with existing processes for designing and adopting land use plans and evaluating development proposals. In addition, we are reaching out to 100 planners across 10 western states to enroll in the Planning Fundamentals course offered online through LEO, the Lincoln Education Online program.

LL: What other planning-related programs do you teach?

MM: Again with the Lincoln Institute, I have been involved in a relatively new and much-needed program for state planning directors in 13 western states, modeled on a similar program in the Northeast. These seminars provide a forum for leaders within state government to compare their experiences, learn from each others’ successes and failures, and build a common base of practical knowledge that will serve them in their individual efforts and in the region generally. The intent is not to promote any particular approach to planning and growth, but to explore a range of strategies to respond to growth and land use challenges in the West. The level of interest goes well beyond the planning officials themselves, as evidenced by the list of cosponsors: the Council of State Governments-WEST (an association of state legislators), the Western Governors Association, the Western Municipal Conference and Western Planners Resources.

LL: Is regionalism in the West a new emphasis in your work?

MM: Land use issues often transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries. Coping with sprawl, water and air quality, economic development and the effects of globalization demands practical, local solutions that also work within the bigger picture. Research indicates that many land use issues are most efficiently addressed at a regional scale. Instead of stopping at the county line or the border between federal and private land, planners are now thinking in terms of the “problemshed” or the “natural territory” of the problem.

More and more regional initiatives are being designed to address transboundary matters. Some augment existing government institutions, but most are more ad hoc and rely on the principles of collaboration to engage people with diverse interests and viewpoints. When we inventoried such initiatives throughout the West, we were as surprised as anyone by the sheer number and variety of ongoing regional efforts. They range from ad hoc, community-based groups like the Applegate Partnership in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon, which seeks to promote and sustain the ecological health of land within its watershed, to substantial government entities with regulatory authority like the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (McKinney, Fitch and Harmon 2002).

LL: How do you transfer this work to other regions?

MM: Recently I have worked with the Lincoln Institute to conduct clinics on regional collaboration for several interstate efforts in the New Jersey-New York area, including a watershed management plan for the Delaware River Basin Commission.

Another project is a collaborative effort among local, state and federal agencies in the New York-New Jersey Highlands, the 1.5-million-acre region between the Delaware and lower Connecticut rivers. State and federal land managers are assessing changes in land cover and use, identifying significant natural areas for protection, and developing strategies to protect the 12-county region’s open space and natural resources.

In addition, we have designed a two-day course titled Regional Collaboration: Learning to Think and Act Like a Region. It provides a conceptual framework and practical skills to train planners, local elected officials, small business owners, advocates and educators to initiate, design, coordinate and sustain regional initiatives. With the involvement of several national and regional organizations, the Institute cosponsored the first course in spring 2003 in Salt Lake City and offered it again in March 2004 at Lincoln House in Cambridge.

Reference

McKinney, Matthew, Craig Fitch, and Will Harmon. 2002. Regionalism in the West: An inventory and assessment. Public Land and Resources Law Review 23:101–191.

The inventory is also available online at www.crmw.org/Assets/misc/regionalinventory.asp and www.crmw.org/Assets/misc/regarticle.htm

Related Articles

Carbonell, Armando, and Lisa Cloutier. 2003. Planning for growth in western cities. Land Lines 15(3):8–11.

McKinney, Matthew. 2003. Linking growth and land use to water supply. Land Lines 15(2):4–6.

McKinney, Matthew, and Will Harmon. 2002. Land use planning and growth management in the American West. Land Lines 14(1):1–4.

The sound of electricity hums deep inside the Tate Modern, the power plant turned art sanctuary on the south bank of London’s River Thames. Despite the 4 million visitors per year now streaming inside since the galleries opened in 2000, the switching plant is still generating 2 megawatts of power for its neighborhood, making the Tate one of the most unusual mixed-use urban redevelopments ever concocted.

But an even more far-reaching hum is reverberating all around the Tate—that of regeneration. Connected to central London by the arching spine of Lord Norman Foster’s Millennium Bridge and further magnetized by the whirling mega-folly of the London Eye Ferris wheel nearby, the Tate has catalyzed well over $200 million worth of other redevelopments to the area. Yet, even as it joins other high-end arts institutions in the “Bilbao effect” of high art sparking higher-end gentrification, the Tate is working hard to nurture an economically and ethnically diverse live/work/play urban neighborhood.

“We’ve had impacts,” says Donald Hyslop, head of education for the Tate and coordinator of its community initiatives. “We attract 4 million visitors a year, and 12 million now move between the Tate and the London Eye. The question for us became, ‘How do we spread that wealth?’”

Such models of urban regeneration lured the 2006 Loeb Fellows from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design to London for their annual study trip abroad, cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute. Aided by Jody Tableporter’s connections as the former director of regeneration for London Mayor Ken Livingston, the group gained a first-hand look at the leaps, stumbles, and lessons to be learned from one of the world’s most rapidly redeveloping cities.

“London has proven the relationship between transportation planning and economic growth,” observed Luis Siqueiros, a planner who has worked in Juarez/El Paso, Guadalajara, and other Mexican cities. “They are mixing all kinds of activities together in their buildings. In North America, we talk about these things a lot, but they are showing us how to do it and why.”

The Beginnings of London’s Regeneration

The story of London’s regeneration is long and complicated. It begins in the Thatcher years with a bold refocusing of government aid to cities that created urban redevelopment agencies and enterprise zones to assemble land and better focus new development and transportation infrastructure projects. The most conspicuous early success was Canary Wharf, the sleek, steel-and-glass commercial new town that became the first major project in the Royal Docklands, and in the Thatcher government’s vision for a larger, regional corridor of redevelopment, dubbed the Thames Gateway, stretching all the way to the North Sea.

Despite the misfortunes of Canary Wharf’s original developer, Olympia & York, the larger Docklands redevelopment agency and enterprise zone resulted in the Jubilee Line tube extension and the first phase of the Docklands light rail line. Today, with more than 100,000 workers, Canary Wharf is competing with downtown London to be the center of the financial services sector, decidedly shifting the momentum of the city’s growth to the east.

While Margaret Thatcher’s free-market programs—particularly the release of huge tracts of government-owned land for redevelopment—broke a long freeze on urban redevelopment, subsequent Labor Party policies have guided recent successes. In the 1980s, forecasts of 4 million new households by 2020 led John Major’s government to create the Urban Task Force overseen by architect Richard Rogers. The resulting 2000 Urban White Paper made urban renaissance official national policy.

The reverberations have been widespread, stretching from Leeds to Norwich, but the epicenter is London. Projects like Canary Wharf and the Tate established momentum that gained further steam with the city’s election of its first mayor, Ken Livingston, to set policy for the metropolitan region’s 24 boroughs. Livingston has unleashed a panoply of internationally attention-getting initiatives, from the much-lauded “congestion pricing” of automobiles traveling into the core to a series of bold, new buildings and public spaces by top-rung architects like Rogers and Norman Foster. Now, with the Olympics scheduled for 2012, London has succeeded Barcelona as the “It girl” of European cities, while luring other English cities onto the dance floor.

“Having an architect like Richard Rogers involved in the destiny of cities was a major force,” Tableporter says. “His work with the Urban White Paper spawned a whole batch of English cities that all of a sudden are attuned to design standards and urban principles via master planning.”

But for all the excitement and the dozens of major projects underway, the Loeb Fellows agreed that London’s growth will live or die in the details. As Jair Lynch, a developer from Washington, DC, put it, “The question is, can they give these new places soul.”

Guiding Land Use Principles

While far more modest than some of the huge redevelopments that have been and are being completed, the Tate Modern offered the kind of careful instrumentality that attracted the Loeb Fellows, by both seeding major new development in the long-dormant south bank and spreading the benefits to the existing community.

Under Hyslop’s guidance, the Tate joined a national pilot program to create one of England’s first Business Improvement Districts (BIDs). This initiative developed an employment training program called START, helping to bring more than 40 percent of the museum’s employees from the nearby, and historically downtrodden, South London districts. It started a new community group now boasting 450 members who wanted more open space, meeting places, and a movie theater. Their efforts moved the Tate to open up rooms for public use, develop a community garden, and host a new neighborhood film club.

“The Tate is trying to create a dual function for an arts institution,” noted Lisa Richmond. A long-time arts administrator and activist who has worked on community development projects for the Atlanta Olympics and the Seattle Arts Commission, Richmond says most major U.S. cultural institutions focus solely on audience development. “On the one hand, the Tate has a major global impact, representing the U.K. to the world, but it is also taking responsibility for its immediate community,” she observed. “I don’t know of any U.S. arts institution trying anything like it.”

By combining a major attraction, top-notch architecture, public space, and transportation infrastructure, the Tate became an early standard setter. But, it is rapidly gaining many potential equals, from the centrally located King’s Cross, where a new Channel Tunnel station designed by Norman Foster is triggering a 50-acre redevelopment with 1,800 new homes plus retail and commercial uses, to the outlying Wembly Stadium, the building and master plan designed by Rogers, including a plaza and grand boulevard lined with shops, bars, and restaurants, as well as 4,200 homes.

The primacy of the pedestrian is another common denominator. With Michael Jones, a director at Foster and Partners, the Loeb Fellows toured the newly renovated British Museum. There, the breathtaking glass roof—gently domed in a Fibonacci sequence of diamond-patterned steel structure—covering the 2½-acre Queen Elizabeth II courtyard has garnered all the headlines. But the restoration of the museum’s forecourt—ripped out in the 1960s for a road—has transformed the area into a new magnet for lunching, lounging, and strolling tourists and locals alike.

Nearby, Jones pointed out the similarly transformed Trafalgar Square. This traffic-choked cameo player has set the scene of “busy London” in so many movies. But it is now costarring in Livingston’s remake of the city through a “World Squares for All” campaign that will link Trafalgar with Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square as a major pedestrian corridor.

“For too long London’s public realm has been neglected and ignored,” Livingston said in a 2005 speech, as he unveiled plans to build 100 new public spaces for the Olympics. “Now we have an opportunity to get things right by rebalancing the spaces of the city for people and cars. I believe that the street is the lifeblood of city life.”

The Loeb Fellows also saw some of the method behind Livingston’s Midas touch in the work of Space Syntax, a dynamic new studio pioneering techniques of measuring and shaping traffic—both on wheels and on foot. Growing out of research at University College London by Professor Bill Hillier in the 1970s, and now a four-year-old company with offices in Sydney, Tokyo, Brussels, and South Africa, Space Syntax has developed new software to algorithmically model impacts on congestion and movement. It is based on a simple principle: people’s urge to take the shortest route.

In early studies of the potential impact of the Millennium Bridge, for instance, the city’s planners guessed it would be crossed by 2 million pedestrians annually. Space Syntax’s formulas predicted at least 4.4 million, but already more than 9 million are crossing the bridge each year. Jones added that similar studies eased planners’ minds about the benefits and impacts of removing streets at the British Museum and Tralfalgar Square.

“Space Syntax is using the traffic engineer’s language for the urban designer’s goals,” noted Etty Padmodipoetro, a Boston urban designer who designed several key open spaces for the Big Dig highway project. “In the United States, we could learn a lot from how they have harvested academic research for use in the profession.”

Challenges to Redevelopment Goals

Such innovations, however, only mitigate some of the risks in London’s bold experiments in regeneration. So far, London’s greatest successes have been catalytic projects within the existing city fabric that humanize the public realm while generating new developments that attract new residents and jobs. On the horizon are dozens of larger-scale projects that will determine whether London’s mastery of regeneration is a moment or an era. Some are widely considered to be mirages, like the Battersea Power Station, where an all-star cast of designers—Cecil Balmond, Nicholas Grimshaw, Ron Arad, and Kathryn Gustafson among them—has teamed up for a Tate-like power station to arts remodel as part of a proposed $1.5 billion transformation of 40 acres into hotels, offices, retail spaces, and flats. But other projects, like the soon-to-break-ground Silvertown Quays, teeter precariously in the gusts of London’s transformation.

Land Ownership

As the Loeb Fellows learned from Timothy Brittain-Catlin, a historian and lecturer at the Architectural Association, enormous swaths of London’s land base are owned by a small number of families who first gained control when King Henry VIII abolished church land ownership, handing the land over to his cronies whose descendants, like the Duke of Marlborough, still control it. In short, most of central London’s land is leased rather than sold. Most of these areas are also protected under the city’s strict historic preservation policies. With Livingston’s hopes of building 120,000 new units of housing in the next 10 years, the success of projects like Silvertown Quays—outside the core, on government-owned land less bound by historic codes and neighborhood NIMBYs—is essential.

Partnering with the Government

But “developing in London is not for the faint-hearted,” even in partnership with the government, according to James Alexander of KUD International, the company codeveloping Silvertown Quays. Borrowing a page from its successful playbook in the United States, in which it has partnered with local governments to build aquariums and stadiums, KUD is working with the Docklands Redevelopment Agency to transform the now largely empty 60-acre Quays site. At the center will be the Terry Farrell-designed Biota!, Europe’s largest aquarium, along with 5,000 units of housing, 420,000 square meters of commercial space, and 73,000 square meters of retail and leisure facilities.

Mixed-use development is new to KUD, better known as a horizontal developer that leverages land values with large-scale infrastructure. But KUD’s techniques are new to London: sharing equity with the redevelopment agency and offering a guaranteed delivery price for infrastructure and the aquarium. Even in partnership with the agency, according to Alexander, getting to a final deal has taken four years—tracing deeds, completing archeological surveys, dealing with watchdog groups, and hopping other regulatory hurdles, not to mention negotiating against Livingston’s demand for 50-percent social housing (talked down to 30 percent).

KUD’s Alexander was candid about the firm’s worries. It will be betting $250 million up front on reclaiming the land and building the aquarium with no profit projected for seven years. The affordable housing goals remain aggressive, particularly with no guarantee that government grants, estimated at $20,000 per unit in the development agreement, will come through. Project delivery also will converge with the Olympics, which is guaranteed to trigger construction inflation and capacity issues. And, with many developers following the current boom and the government’s housing goals, Alexander adds, “an equal challenge will be to maintain value over time as the market inevitably drops off.”

Volatile Housing Markets

Indeed, with more than 90 percent of new housing permits in London’s pipeline designated for flats, a recent study, “New London,” by Knight Frank estate agency predicted a softening market for flats, signs of which are already appearing. More critical, the study suggested, is an already failing market for flats in other, less robust English housing markets that have followed the London model.

Citing a range of studies showing the dramatic tilt nationwide to brownfield/flat development over greenfield/single-family houses, historian Peter Hall also expressed concern in a recent paper presented at a Lincoln Institute conference that government and private developers are failing to meet a critical market for workforce housing, particularly single-family houses for young families. Several Loeb Fellows worried about the continued focus on large-scale, Bilbao-style attractors like Biota!. “The Tate’s BID model seemed potentially ground-breaking,” Lisa Richmond reflected, “while the aquarium (at Silvertown Quays) felt like a disaster in the making.”

Ambitious Plans for Olympic Village

On the 23rd floor of Barclay’s building overlooking the sleek Canary Wharf development and the future Olympic Village beyond, Tim Daniels of the London Olympic Delivery Authority offered the Loeb Fellows an overview of what will be London’s most ambitious attempt at regeneration. The Olympic Village dates to the Thatcher government’s launch of the Thames Gateway corridor, but it is finally sprouting under Livingston’s mix of go-go capitalism with a larger social agenda.

Livingston cannily separated the usual single Olympic authority into two separate agencies—one for building facilities, the other for marketing. Consequently, London is keeping one eye on the long game of what Daniels calls the “regeneration dividend.” In the short term, a new velodrome, stadium, tennis center, and the much-anticipated aquatics center by architect Zaha Hadid, along with a major new Euroline transit hub ushering in visitors from all over Europe, will anchor what will be the first village to fully integrate athletes’ housing with sports facilities. The goal, Daniels says, is to have more than 50 percent of the participants within walking distance. But long after the Olympic Games close, those facilities will anchor a mixed-use neighborhood in which the bedrooms originally built for 23,000 athletes and support staff will become 4,300 units of family housing.

Numerous speed bumps lie ahead, however, ranging from the tough deals still being negotiated for land assembly with owners looking to cash in, to finding new homes for “travelers”—gypsies who under British law have the right to squat on unused land. More than 6 kilometers of rivers and canals need to be dredged and remodeled, and 40 bridges either refurbished or built anew. Since the village site is cut off from any existing neighborhood by a major freeway and rail line, at least two major 50-meter “land bridges” are being proposed to make the awkward link to nearby Stratford.

But challenges aside, “it’s a great way to look at the Olympics,” noted Jair Lynch, a developer and former Olympic medalist who now sits on the U.S. Olympic Committee. “The whole thing can be taken over by the marketing people, but by splitting the authority, they can keep a strong focus beyond the event.” He and other Loeb Fellows concluded that the key for the village, along with all of London’s increasingly larger, bolder efforts at regeneration, will be keeping—and, in many cases, creating—a sense of local connection. As Lynch put it, “How do you create a real sense of neighborhood at those scales?”

Closing Observations

At the end of our study tour, most Loeb Fellows felt that Donald Hyslop of the Tate Modern offered the clearest, most hopeful, and most far-reaching aspirations for London’s bold, new brand of large-scale urban neighborhood building. With architects Herzog & de Meuron adding on to their celebrated first phase with an eye-catching, high-rise annex, the Tate will move out the electrical switching station and reclaim the huge, decommissioned fuel tanks beneath the building for a new 400-seat theater, more restaurants and shops, and more spaces for flexible programming.

Hyslop says the goal will be to develop a “life-long learning center” spawning a “16-hour-a-day” corridor along the 15-minute walk between the Tate and the rapidly regenerating Elephant & Castle neighborhood. Rather than being merely a catalyst for development, the Tate hopes to be an active agent in creating a neighborhood—a transformer, if you will, rechanneling financial and social wealth throughout the community.

Randy Gragg is the architecture and urban design critic for The Oregonian in Portland.

Loeb Fellows, 2005–2006

Teresa Brice-Hearnes, Program Director, LISC Phoenix (Local Initiatives Support Corporation), Phoenix, Arizona

Barbara Deutsch, Urban Greening and Green Roof Consultant, Washington, DC

Randy Gragg, Architecture and Urban Design Critic, The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon

Jair Lynch, CEO, Jair Lynch Companies, Washington, DC

Etty Padmodipoetro, Urban Design and Transportation Planning Consultant, Boston, Massachusetts

John Peterson, Architect, Peterson Architects, San Francisco, California

Lisa Richmond, Community Cultural Planning Consultant, Seattle, Washington

Luis Siqueiros, International Planning Consultant, Mexico City, Mexico

Kennedy Smith, Principal, The Community Land Use and Economics Group, LLC, Arlington, Virginia

Jody Tableporter, Chief Executive, Peterborough Urban Regeneration Company, Peterborough, United Kingdom

Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 7 del CD-ROM Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.

La rápida e intensa urbanización que se produjo en América Latina en los últimos 50 años se contrasta frecuentemente en la literatura con un sistema de planeamiento urbanístico inadecuado para explicar los múltiples problemas sociales resultantes: alto precio del suelo y especulación en propiedades, informalidad rampante, segregación socioespacial extrema, infraestructura y servicios urbanos inadecuados, degradación ambiental, etc. Sin embargo, la literatura omite, en gran medida, el rol de los sistemas legales nacionales, que han contribuido a esta situación a la vez que también han reaccionado en su contra. El rol central cumplido por el régimen legal no se puede subestimar.

Los sistemas legales también han contribuido al desarrollo informal por dos mecanismos principales: disposiciones legales de exclusión del suelo, derechos de propiedad y normas de registro; y los sistemas de planeamiento deficientes adoptados en muchas grandes ciudades. Tanto la falta de regulación del suelo como la aprobación de leyes de planeamiento elitistas que se niegan a reflejar las realidades socioeconómicas, que limitan el acceso al suelo y viviendas a los pobres, han jugado un rol perverso, agravando, y a veces hasta determinando, la segregación socioespacial. Las disputas institucionales entre gobiernos locales y nacionales sobre el poder para regular el desarrollo urbano también han producido problemas legales adicionales.

La jurisprudencia progresiva, las demandas de varios movimientos sociales y un creciente debate legislativo desatado por los intereses divergentes de las diversas partes interesadas han dado lugar a perspectivas legales en conflicto. Como consecuencia, los debates legales en América Latina oscilan entre las interpretaciones anacrónicas de las cláusulas legales existentes y un llamado a la construcción de un sistema legal más legitimado y socialmente receptivo. Este artículo intenta exponer estas tensiones y ofrecer algunas nuevas direcciones de debate.

La búsqueda de un paradigma legal coherente

En muchas ciudades, los sistemas legales que regulan el desarrollo urbano son significativamente obsoletos e incoherentes, generando un incumplimiento generalizado y una creciente desconexión entre la ciudad legal y la ciudad real. Importantes avances en la gestión urbana, promovidos por administraciones locales progresivas, han sido socavados frecuentemente por los obstáculos creados por regímenes legal-urbanísticos nacionales caducos. En el contexto más amplio de los procesos volátiles de democratización en la región, se ha puesto un énfasis más grande en la posibilidad de que un ordenamiento legal-urbanístico renovado podría avanzar la reforma urbana. Muchos académicos, políticos, funcionarios públicos y organizaciones comunitarias comprenden que la promoción de mercados de suelo eficientes, inclusión socioespacial y sustentabilidad ambiental sólo será posible por medio de la adopción de nuevo paradigmas legales claramente definidos y coherentes.

Los principios legales en general, y en particular los que regulan los derechos de desarrollo del suelo y las relaciones inmobiliarias, se determinan políticamente y se asimilan culturalmente. Los sistemas legales tienden a ser complejos, ya que incluyen disposiciones distintas, contradictorias y hasta en conflicto, adoptadas en el transcurso del tiempo como consecuencia de procesos sociopolíticos en evolución. El mantenimiento de un sistema legal que no exprese de manera fundamental las realidades de los procesos socioeconómicos y político-institucionales que se propone regular genera distorsiones de todo tipo.

La racionalización de un sistema legal es una tarea exigente pero crucial, que requiere la aprobación de nuevas leyes y también un esfuerzo continuo para (re)interpretar los principios y cláusulas en vigencia. No obstante, dicha interpretación puede variar significativamente según el paradigma legal adoptado por el intérprete. Distintos paradigmas pueden coexistir en la misma cultura legal, causando ambigüedades legales y conflictos judiciales potenciales, sobre todo en países donde la división tradicional entre el derecho público y el derecho privado todavía no está claramente delineada.

En América Latina existen tres paradigmas legales en competencia: el derecho civil, el derecho administrativo y el derecho urbanístico. Históricamente, el paradigma civilista hegemónico, que se basa en lecturas altamente parciales de los códigos civiles y expresa los valores del legalismo liberal clásico, ha sido reformado gradualmente por el paradigma más intervencionista provisto por el derecho administrativo. Un movimiento incipiente reciente ha avanzado un paso más, reclamando que sólo el marco más progresivo del derecho urbanístico podría proporcionar un paradigma legal comprensivo para la era contemporánea.

Los códigos civiles y el laissez faire en el desarrollo urbano

La interpretación dominante de los códigos civiles, provista por la doctrina y la jurisprudencia, y arraigada en la imaginación popular a lo largo del siglo veinte, sigue tendiendo a realzar los derechos de los propietarios en detrimento de sus responsabilidades, y no considera otros intereses sociales, ambientales y culturales que derivan de la tenencia de la propiedad. Esta interpretación brinda poca consideración a los valores de uso, ya que la tenencia del suelo y la propiedad se concibe mayormente como una mercancía cuyo valor económico queda determinado principalmente por los intereses del dueño. Los principios tradicionales del derecho privado, como la condena de toda forma de abuso de poder y el requisito de justa causa para justificar el enriquecimiento legítimo, han sido poco menos que ignorados en esta definición poco equilibrada de los derechos de propiedad.

Desde esta perspectiva, el accionar del Estado en la gestión del suelo y políticas urbanísticas está seriamente restringido, y las iniciativas significativas de planeamiento urbano han generado frecuentes conflictos judiciales. Los grandes proyectos públicos generalmente requieren expropiaciones onerosas de suelo, y el pago de compensación se calcula sobre los valores plenos de mercado. Las obligaciones de los emprendedores son pocas y la carga de la construcción de infraestructura y provisión de servicios recae mayormente sobre el Estado. Si bien los derechos de desarrollo y construcción se suponen expresiones intrínsecas de los derechos individuales de propiedad del suelo, no hay un ámbito establecido para la noción de que la administración pública debería recuperar el valor incremental del suelo generado por las obras y servicios públicos. Esta tradición legal ha sido agravada más aún por la burocratización de las transacciones contractuales y comerciales, y también por las exigencias excesivas del registro de propiedades y el acceso al crédito.

Dentro de esta tradición legal individualista, el derecho a usar y disponer de la propiedad se malinterpreta frecuentemente como el derecho a no usar o disponer de la propiedad. Casi no hay obligaciones legales ni órdenes compulsivas más sustanciales. La preponderancia de este paradigma en Brasil, por ejemplo, ha significado que mientras el déficit de viviendas se ha estimado en 7,9 millones de unidades y el pueblo vive en 12 millones de construcciones precarias, otras 5,5 millones de unidades están vacías o subutilizadas. En algunas ciudades se estima que del 20 al 25 por ciento del suelo con acceso a servicios se encuentra vacante.

También es típico de este paradigma del derecho civil el absolutismo de la libertad individual en detrimento de las formas colectivas o restrictivas de los derechos de propiedad, como los derechos de arrendamiento o comunales, de área y posesión. Muchos códigos civiles contienen estos derechos, pero en general se los ignora o subestima. Si bien los derechos de adquisición por prescripción exigen períodos prolongados de ocupación del suelo, hay un arsenal de instrumentos legales disponibles para desalojar a sus ocupantes e inquilinos.

Como resultado de este enfoque laissez faire en el desarrollo del suelo, el ordenamiento urbanístico-legal en las ciudades de América Latina no se puede considerar como plenamente democrático. El proceso de desarrollo informal refleja la realidad de que cada vez más personas han tenido que violar la ley para obtener acceso al suelo y la vivienda urbana.

Derecho administrativo e intervención del Estado

El planeamiento urbano en algunas grandes ciudades ha sido respaldado por los principios legales del derecho administrativo. Este paradigma de derecho público ha intentado reformar la tradición del derecho privado, pero ha limitado el alcance de la noción de la “función social de la propiedad”. Este concepto ha existido en la mayoría de las constituciones nacionales como principio nominal desde la década de 1930. Este paradigma más intervencionista reconoce el “poder de policía” del Estado para imponer restricciones y limitaciones externas sobre los derechos de propiedad individual en el nombre del interés público, respaldando así formas tradicionales de planeamiento regulador.

Éstos han sido intentos tímidos, sin embargo, porque la imposición de obligaciones legales, órdenes compulsivas y requisitos de reservación del suelo siguen encontrando fuerte resistencia popular y judicial. En la mayoría de los países, los tribunales han dictaminado que el Estado puede imponer ciertas limitaciones sobre los derechos de propiedad, pero la imposición de obligaciones sobre los terratenientes y emprendedores ha sido más difícil. Esto es particularmente cierto con las leyes locales que han intentando imponer la obligación de asignar suelos o unidades para vivienda social como condición previa para la aprobación de un proyecto inmobiliario, pero han sido declaradas inconstitucionales.

Muchas ciudades siguen aprobando nuevas subdivisiones del suelo, si bien ya existe un inventario considerable de lotes vacantes. El problema es que no cuentan con instrumentos legales para imponer un uso acorde con la función social. Si bien los emprendedores han sido obligados a asumir una creciente responsabilidad por la construcción de infraestructura, algunos desarrollos significativos, incluyendo comunidades cerradas de altos ingresos, han sido aprobados sin condiciones de reserva del suelo o unidades de viviendas para trabajadores domésticos o de servicio. Ello ha causado la aparición de nuevos proyectos inmobiliarios informales y una mayor densidad de edificación en asentamientos existentes para dar cabida al sector de bajos ingresos.

En algunas ciudades que han intentado imponer códigos de zonificación, planes maestros y otras leyes urbanas complejas, ha emergido una tradición de planeamiento burocrático que refleja una incomprensión de cómo las regulaciones urbanas y ambientales afectan la formación y el movimiento de los precios del suelo. Los urbanistas siguen teniendo dificultades para contradecir la noción establecida de que los dueños del suelo y la propiedad tienen el derecho automático a las ganancias resultantes del planeamiento y desarrollo urbano. En la mayoría de los casos, las administraciones públicas no han recuperado el generoso incremento del valor del suelo producido por las obras y los servicios públicos, como también por los cambios en la legislación urbana que gobierna los derechos de uso y desarrollo de los suelos.

La mayoría de los sistemas de planeamiento no han reconocido la capacidad limitada del Estado para garantizar el cumplimiento de la legislación urbana. Como consecuencia, no se han puesto en práctica dichos planes apropiadamente y muchas violaciones del orden legal han sido ignoradas. En algunas ciudades se tarda años en obtener la licencia para ciertos procesos de desarrollo importantes, como la subdivisión del suelo, lo cual afecta también el proceso de desarrollo informal.

Otro problema recurrente es el desarrollo paralelo y a veces antagonista de regímenes legales urbanísticos y ambientales separados. Las cláusulas ambientales se usan frecuentemente para oponerse a las políticas de viviendas con orientación social. En términos sociopolíticos, la mayoría de las leyes de planeamiento no cuentan con una participación popular sustancial, ya sea en su formulación o ejecución.

Al no cambiar la dinámica de los mercados de suelo, las políticas de planeamiento supuestamente contemporáneas frecuentemente terminan reforzando los procesos tradicionales de especulación del suelo y la propiedad, y la segregación socioespacial. A menudo El planeamiento urbano ha sido ineficiente para promover un desarrollo equilibrado del suelo, y en cambio ha beneficiado a los emprendedores del suelo, inversores en propiedad y especuladores. Estas ganancias se han potenciado por el crecimiento significativo de precios causado por las regulaciones que establecen los límites del desarrollo urbano. Las áreas que han quedado para los sectores urbanos pobres, como los suelos públicos y las áreas ecológicamente sensibles, no son reguladas por el mercado.

Esta tensión entre la interpretación de los códigos civiles y las leyes de planeamiento burocrático ha promovido en la práctica el desarrollo informal y la segregación socioespacial: la ley ha sido uno de los factores determinantes de la ilegalidad urbana. En los casos en que se hicieron intentos significativos para promover la inclusión socioespacial y la sustentación ambiental, el régimen urbanístico-legal sigue sin respaldar por completo la práctica preponderante de gestión urbana.

Por ejemplo, unos aspectos de las sociedades público-privadas y la participación de ONGs en la provisión de servicios públicos han sido cuestionados debido a la confusión entre los valores privados y públicos. Los derechos sociales reconocidos nominalmente, como el derecho a la vivienda, no se han hecho cumplir plenamente debido a la carencia de procesos, mecanismos e instrumentos necesarios.

Derecho urbanístico y principios de la reforma legal

A partir de la década de 1980, un importante movimiento de reforma legal comenzó a cuestionar este ordenamiento legal exclusionista, y un nuevo paradigma ha emergido en algunos países. Los proponentes del derecho urbanístico han argumentado que es posible, y de hecho necesario, analizar los códigos civiles para encontrar principios legales que respalden una intervención decidida por parte del Estado en la regulación y el control social de los procesos relacionados con el suelo y la propiedad. La reinterpretación de principios legales tradicionales, como también el énfasis en principios ignorados previamente (como la noción de que ningún enriquecimiento es legítimo sin una justa causa) pueden coadyuvar a un progreso significativo en la formulación de la política urbanística de suelos.

Este esfuerzo exige conocimientos legales complejos, ya que potencialmente involucra debates legales y disputas judiciales cuyos resultados no son para nada ciertos. Desde el punto de vista de las comunidades urbanas y las administraciones públicas comprometidas a promover políticas de inclusión, este enfoque trata de organizar el marco regulador general, en parte por medio de la promulgación de nuevas leyes que expresen más claramente los principios del derecho urbanístico.

Si bien este proceso está más avanzado en Brasil (principalmente a través de la Constitución Federal de 1988 y la ley municipal de 2001) y Colombia (principalmente a través de la Constitución de 1991 y la Ley 388/1997), se ha incorporado una serie de principios comunes en los ordenamientos legales de otros países de América Latina (Fernandes 2007a; 2007b; Maldonado Copello 2003; 2007).

El principio estructural más importante es la noción de la función social de la propiedad, incluyendo la propiedad pública y el registro de la propiedad. Las ciudades son el producto de un proceso colectivo, y la promoción de un régimen territorial equilibrado es al mismo tiempo un derecho colectivo y una obligación del Estado. El ordenamiento urbanístico no se puede determinar exclusivamente por los derechos individuales y los intereses de los propietarios del suelo, ni tampoco por los derechos del estado únicamente. Se debería promover la intervención pública imponiendo limitaciones administrativas sobre los derechos de propiedad, responsabilidades legales y requisitos de desarrollo.

Otros principios legales similares se pueden usar para establecer una distribución justa de los costos y oportunidades del desarrollo urbano entre dueños, emprendedores, el Estado y la sociedad; afirmar el rol central del Estado para establecer un ordenamiento territorial adecuado por medio de un sistema de planeamiento y gestión; establecer una clara separación entre los derechos de propiedad y de desarrollo/construcción; establecer criterios distintos para calcular la compensación de expropiaciones y otros contextos; reducir el plazo requerido para legalizar la posesión de hecho con el fin de materializar viviendas sociales; y reconocer más firmemente los derechos de los ocupantes e inquilinos.

El uso y desarrollo del suelo es guiado por una amplia gama de derechos colectivos, como el derecho al planeamiento urbano, una vivienda adecuada y un medio ambiente equilibrado; el derecho de la comunidad y la obligación del Estado de recuperar el incremento en el valor del suelo generado por la acción del Estado y la legislación urbanística; y el derecho a la regularización de asentamientos informales consolidados.

Algunas ciudades colombianas han amasado recursos financieros significativos por medio de mecanismos de recuperación de plusvalías del suelo, haciendo posible (si bien no siembre practicable) formular un proceso más sustentable de acceso legal al suelo con acceso a servicios por parte de los sectores urbanos pobres. En Brasil, algunas municipalidades también han podido generar recursos financieros significativos como resultado de sus “operaciones urbanísticas”, donde se negocian derechos de desarrollo y construcción dentro del marco de un plan maestro. También se han promovido en varios países programas de regularización para modernizar y legalizar asentamientos consolidados.

No obstante, la disputa entre estos paradigmas legales continúa, y todos estos nuevos principios y derechos siguen siendo objeto de un debate feroz. La Corte Constitucional de Colombia ha adoptado en forma consistente una interpretación progresiva, respaldando la noción de la función social de la propiedad y el derecho social a la vivienda. Un estudio reciente de decisiones judiciales dictadas por las cortes superiores de varios estados brasileños demuestra que el nuevo paradigma legal ha sido asimilado en aproximadamente el 50 por ciento de sus decisiones, mientras que las restantes siguen siendo orientadas por el paradigma conservador del Código Civil (Mattos 2006).

En muchos países, la jurisprudencia progresiva ha sido restringida por la fuerte tradición del positivismo y legalismo formal, que sigue viendo el derecho meramente como una herramienta técnica para resolver conflictos, como si estuviera completamente divorciado de los procesos sociopolíticos y económicos. La mayoría de los jueces observa el paradigma civilista que se enseña en los programas de estudio anacrónicos de las facultades de derecho. Las decisiones progresivas de jueces locales son revocadas con frecuencia por las cortes superiores más tradicionales.

El segundo principio estructural importante de este régimen urbanístico-legal emergente es la integración del derecho y la gestión en el marco de tres cambios legales-políticos interrelacionados:

• La restauración de la democracia local, sobre todo en Brasil, por medio del reconocimiento de varias formas de participación popular en la legislación (una condición necesaria para otorgar legitimidad y validez legal a las nuevas leyes urbanas) y la gestión urbanística (por ejemplo, mediante los procesos de presupuesto participativo);
• La descentralización de los procesos de toma de decisión, fortaleciendo las administraciones locales, analizando la necesidad de un nivel político y un accionar metropolitano, y articulando sistemas intergubernamentales para resolver problemas urbanos, sociales y ambientales acumulados; y
• La creación de una nueva serie de referencias legales para brindar mayor respaldo a las nuevas relaciones que se están estableciendo entre el Estado y la sociedad, sobre todo por medio de sociedades público-privadas y otras formas de relación entre el Estado y los sectores privados, comunitarios y de voluntarios.

Independientemente de las deficiencias que existen en este proceso, el enorme desafío que tienen los países y ciudades al promover la reforma del derecho urbanístico es garantizar el pleno cumplimiento de las nuevas leyes aprobadas.

El derecho a la ciudad

Además de reinterpretar y reformar sus sistemas legales nacionales, los juristas, políticos y activistas sociales de América Latina han promovido un debate internacional sobre un Estatuto del Derecho a la Ciudad, que reconozca plenamente los derechos colectivos. Al mismo tiempo, estos conceptos progresivos acerca de los derechos de propiedad y la naturaleza del accionar del Estado con respecto al uso del suelo y el control del desarrollo han sido enfrentados combativamente por aquéllos que siguen favoreciendo un enfoque incondicional de los derechos de propiedad y la homogenización de los regímenes de suelo y de propiedad.

En este contexto de incertidumbre conceptual, se debe ir construyendo un marco de regulación sobre el desarrollo y la gestión del suelo urbano. El planeamiento espacial es un proceso poderoso; si las leyes urbanísticas han beneficiado por mucho tiempo a ciertos grupos económicos, contribuyendo así al proceso de segregación socioespacial, la promoción de la reforma del derecho urbanístico debería contribuir a crear las condiciones para ciudades más inclusivas y equitativas.

La participación continua de juristas y políticos − como también de agencias nacionales e internacionales, universidades y organizaciones de investigación − es crucial, y puede tomar muchas formas:

• proporcionar un marco de referencia para permitir la reinterpretación de principios y cláusulas legales;
• diseminar información sobre las nuevas leyes;
• respaldar el debate sobre una nueva organización territorial y leyes de planeamiento;
• brindar incentivos para realizar investigaciones interdisciplinarias y análisis críticos donde se consideren las dimensiones legales;
• respaldar la publicación y contribuciones a doctrinas legales jurisprudencia coherentes;
• evaluar sistemáticamente las políticas y proyectos a la luz de las nuevas leyes;
• concientizar a profesionales del derecho, como jueces, fiscales y abogados;
• brindando capacitación legal a profesionales de otras áreas; y
• respaldar a instituciones comprometidas con promover la reforma legal.

La construcción de un nuevo orden urbanístico-legal en América Latina y otras regiones es un debate cambiante, lleno de contradicciones y desafíos, y ninguno de los acontecimientos recientes se puede dar por hecho. Si la mayor politización de la legislación urbanística ha creado un marco más amplio para la participación popular en el proceso de defensa de sus derechos colectivos e intereses sociales, por la misma razón las nuevas leyes han generado una mayor resistencia en los sectores conservadores.

La plena concreción de las posibilidades introducidas por el nuevo ordenamiento urbanístico-legal en Brasil, Colombia y otros países dependerá de varios factores, pero sobre todo de la renovación de los procesos de movilización sociopolítica, el cambio institucional y la reforma legal.

Referencias

Fernandes, Edésio. 2007a. Implementing the urban reform agenda in Brazil. Environment and Urbanization 19(1): 177–189.

———. 2007b. Constructing the “right to the city” in Brazil. Social and Legal Studies 16(2):201–219.

Maldonado Copello, María Mercedes. 2003. Reforma territorial y desarrollo urbano – Experiencias y perspectivas de aplicación de las leyes 9 de 1989 y 388 de 1997. Bogotá: CIDER-Universidad de los Andes/LILP/FEDEVIVIENDA.

———. 2007. El proceso de construcción del sistema urbanístico colombiano: entre reforma urbana y desarrollo territorial. En Fernandes, Edésio y Betânia Alfonsin, Direito Urbanístico: Estudos brasileiros e internacionais. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Del Rey.

Mattos, Liana Portilho. 2006. Função social da propriedade na prática dos tribunais. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris.

Sobre los autores

Edésio Fernandes es abogado, urbanista y profesor asociado en la Unidad de Planeamiento de Desarrollo de University College, Londres, el Instituto de Estudios de la Vivienda y el Desarrollo Urbano de Rotterdam y varias universidades brasileñas. Ha sido Visiting Fellow del Instituto Lincoln en el año académico 2008–2009.

María Mercedes Maldonado, abogada y urbanista, es profesora de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá e investigadora del Instituto de Estudios Urbanos de dicha universidad. Sus áreas de interés incluyen el significado legal de los derechos urbanos, los derechos de propiedad y la recuperación de plusvalías.

Según la tradición impuesta por los anteriores coloquios sobre conservación, un grupo de conservacionistas provenientes de diferentes sectores y regiones geográficas se reunieron con el fin de ir un paso más adelante, en sintonía con el informe recientemente emitido por el gobierno del presidente Obama sobre “Grandes paisajes de los Estados Unidos” (Consejo sobre Calidad Ambiental 2011), y con un sinfín de iniciativas a nivel estatal y municipal. El objetivo de la jornada fue lograr avances en la colaboración entre propietarios, administradores de suelos y ciudadanos tanto del sector público como privado, sin fines de lucro y académico, en lo que respecta a la conservación de grandes paisajes, así como comprender y ampliar sus conocimientos teniendo en cuenta el ejemplo dado por las diferentes iniciativas de conservación de grandes paisajes que están logrando resultados de conservación medibles y duraderos, lo que redundará en beneficios para las generaciones futuras.

De la misma manera que ahora podemos apreciar el resurgimiento de las White Mountains en Nueva Hampshire –desde su imagen desértica, similar a un paisaje lunar en 1900 a su condición actual, majestuosa y exuberante– los estadounidenses del siglo XXII deberán ser capaces de apreciar de qué manera nuestra previsión para trabajar más allá de los límites de propiedad, jurisdiccionales e incluso nacionales se convirtió en un factor clave de los esfuerzos realizados en la nación por distintas generaciones con el fin de preservar las fuentes esenciales de agua dulce, los productos del bosque producidos en forma sustentable y amplias oportunidades recreativas.

Comentarios de los ponentes

Los ponentes de la conferencia hicieron hincapié en la importancia de la cooperación constante entre las diferentes organizaciones y los diferentes sectores para poder lograr objetivos duraderos. Susan Collins, senadora republicana por Maine, relató con orgullo de qué manera se conservaron más de 800.000 hectáreas de bosques de Maine en los últimos doce años. La senadora comentó: Bosque Nacional White Mountain cerca del pueblo de Berlin, Nueva Hampshire.

“Lo logramos mediante la constitución de una sociedad entre todos los niveles del gobierno, la industria de productos forestales, grupos ambientales, forestales y recreativos, y propietarios. A través de esta sociedad, hemos podido mantener y aún aumentar los niveles de productividad de madera y cosechas, apoyando así una industria de productos forestales diversa y sólida que emplea a decenas de miles de trabajadores en la producción de papel, otros productos derivados de la madera y energía renovable. Al mismo tiempo, hemos logrado proteger la biodiversidad, los bosques antiguos y maduros y el acceso público a la recreación, además de aumentar las oportunidades para el turismo” (Levitt y Chester 2011, 72).

Peter Welch, representante demócrata por Vermont, y Rush Holt, representante demócrata por Nueva Jersey, destacaron la importancia de ser perseverantes en estos esfuerzos. Welch hizo hincapié en el valor de mantener los presupuestos para la conservación de tierras durante la presente ronda de negociaciones sobre el presupuesto. Recordó a la audiencia que, en 1864, el entonces presidente Abraham Lincoln dejó por un instante de centrar su atención en una crisis de dimensiones monumentales —la guerra civil— con el fin de firmar un proyecto de ley para transferir el área de Yosemite al estado de California para uso público y recreativo. Si Lincoln fue capaz de crear el parque Yosemite en medio de la guerra civil, afirmó Welch, nosotros podemos hacer lo mismo en estos tiempos de presupuestos ajustados y volatilidad económica.

Holt centró sus comentarios en el hecho de poder cumplir la antigua promesa de financiar integralmente las porciones federales y estatales del Fondo para la Conservación de Tierras y Agua (Land and Water Conservation Fund o LWCF), al igual que otras iniciativas legislativas, tales como la Ley para la Conservación de Corredores de Vida Silvestre. Holt fue categórico a la hora de animar a la comunidad conservacionista a responder a la necesidad de tomar medidas urgentes por nuestro propio bien y por el bien de las generaciones futuras. Recordó además a la audiencia la advertencia del expresidente Lyndon Johnson, firmante de las leyes originales relacionadas con el LWCF y de la Ley de V ida Silvestre en el año 1964: “Si queremos que las generaciones futuras nos recuerden con gratitud en vez de con pena, debemos lograr mucho más que los milagros de la tecnología. También es nuestro dejarles vislumbrar el mundo tal como fue creado, y no sólo su imagen después de que nosotros pasáramos por él” (Henry y Armstrong 2004, 123).

Peter Welch, representante demócrata por Vermont, y Rush Holt, representante demócrata por Nueva Jersey, destacaron la importancia de ser perseverantes en estos esfuerzos. Welch hizo hincapié en el valor de mantener los presupuestos para la conservación de tierras durante la presente ronda de negociaciones sobre el presupuesto. Recordó a la audiencia que, en 1864, el entonces presidente Abraham Lincoln dejó por un instante de centrar su atención en una crisis de dimensiones monumentales —la guerra civil— con el fin de firmar un proyecto de ley para transferir el área de Yosemite al estado de California para uso público y recreativo. Si Lincoln fue capaz de crear el parque Yosemite en medio de la guerra civil, afirmó Welch, nosotros podemos hacer lo mismo en estos tiempos de presupuestos ajustados y volatilidad económica.

Holt centró sus comentarios en el hecho de poder cumplir la antigua promesa de financiar integralmente las porciones federales y estatales del Fondo para la Conservación de Tierras y Agua (Land and Water Conservation Fund o LWCF), al igual que otras iniciativas legislativas, tales como la Ley para la Conservación de Corredores de Vida Silvestre. Holt fue categórico a la hora de animar a la comunidad conservacionista a responder a la necesidad de tomar medidas urgentes por nuestro propio bien y por el bien de las generaciones futuras. Recordó además a la audiencia la advertencia del expresidente Lyndon Johnson, firmante de las leyes originales relacionadas con el LWCF y de la Ley de V ida Silvestre en el año 1964: “Si queremos que las generaciones futuras nos recuerden con gratitud en vez de con pena, debemos lograr mucho más que los milagros de la tecnología. También es nuestro dejarles vislumbrar el mundo tal como fue creado, y no sólo su imagen después de que nosotros pasáramos por él” (Henry y Armstrong 2004, 123).

De estos debates se desprende claramente que los líderes de todos los sectores se encuentran listos para ayudar a implementar las aspiraciones conservacionistas de cooperación mencionadas por Collins, Welch y Holt. Bob Bendick, director de relaciones gubernamentales de los Estados Unidos en The Nature Conservancy, indicó que “el objetivo general de AGO [America’s Great Outdoors] debería ser el de crear y mantener una red nacional de grandes áreas de tierras, agua y costas restauradas y conservadas, alrededor de las cuales los estadounidenses puedan llevar a cabo vidas productivas y saludables” (Levitt y Chester 2011, 74). En la misma línea, Bendick compartió con el grupo su sueño personal de que, algún día, sus pequeñas nietas pudieran, cuando fueran adultas, mirar desde el arco de la entrada el Parque Nacional Y ellowstone y ver que “en todos los Estados Unidos, 400 millones de personas han logrado organizar sus vidas y actividades en toda la extensión de este país extraordinario de tal manera que han podido reconciliar sus vidas con el poder, la gracia, la belleza y la productividad de la tierra y el agua que, al fin y al cabo, nos sustentan a todos” (Levitt y Chester 2011, 75).

Will Shafroth, secretario adjunto de Piscicultura, Vida Silvestre y Parques del Departamento del Interior de los Estados Unidos, y Harris Sherman, subsecretario de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos, compartieron con franqueza sus evaluaciones acerca de la situación actual. Shafroth describió el arduo trabajo y la gran cantidad de comentarios que ayudaron a elaborar el informe de America’s Great Outdoors. Shafroth, por su parte, resaltó que, aunque dicho trabajo sirve como buen fundamento para los esfuerzos que se realicen en el futuro, sostener el impulso conservacionista en estos tiempos de rígidas limitaciones presupuestarias exige una gran cuota de creatividad y pensamiento proactivo.

Sherman agregó que la idea integral de conservación de paisajes implica que debemos pasar de llevar a cabo únicamente actos de conservación al azar a fomentar iniciativas a gran escala más integrales y colaborativas, en las que se pueda involucrar a muchas agencias y tipos de propietarios. Resaltó además la importancia especial que tendrán los resultados del debate sobre el proyecto de Ley de Granjas de 2012, ya que las disposiciones conservacionistas que incluye dicho proyecto tendrán una importancia crucial para el éxito de las medidas tendientes a la conservación de paisajes.

El entusiasmo por la conservación de grandes paisajes demostrado por los ponentes provenientes del público en general y de las organizaciones sin fines de lucro se vio apoyado aún más por Jim Stone, propietario particular y administrador de un rancho en el Valle Blackfoot de Montana. Stone fue uno de los fundadores del Desafío Blackfoot, una organización popular que, mediante un enfoque centrado en la conservación de paisajes, ha logrado impresionantes resultados medibles en los últimos 30 años.

Jamie Williams, colega de Stone y miembro de The Nature Conservancy, explicó que el Desafío Blackfoot ha logrado un éxito extraordinario en todos estos años debido a que se tomaron el tiempo necesario para involucrar a gran cantidad de propietarios y socios mediante un enfoque basado en el consenso sobre la conservación. Los pequeños éxitos iniciales fueron de suma importancia a la hora de generar confianza para lograr los exitosos resultados posteriores (Williams 2011). En lo que respecta a la recuperación de arroyos solamente, el Desafío Blackfoot logró involucrar a más de 200 propietarios en unos 680 proyectos sobre 42 arroyos y 960 kilómetros de arroyos, lo que ha dado como resultado directo un aumento del 800 por ciento en las poblaciones de peces en el valle de más de 607.000 hectáreas. Stone es categórico al afirmar que, con la gente correcta en los lugares correctos, lo que se logró en la región de Blackfoot podría también lograrse en toda la nación.

El programa se completó con un panel de investigadores y funcionarios académicos que representaban a distintas universidades, facultades e instituciones de investigación dedicados a la tarea de catalizar las iniciativas de conservación de grandes paisajes. Matthew McKinney, de la Universidad de Montana, moderó un debate junto con David Foster, de Harvard Forest y la Universidad de Harvard, Perry Brown, de la Universidad de Montana, y Karl Flessa, de la Universidad de Arizona. Los panelistas analizaron de qué manera las instituciones, tanto en sus actividades internas como de extensión, pueden utilizar sus capacidades analíticas y su poder de convocatoria con el fin de fomentar las iniciativas para obtener un amplio impacto.

Perry Brown señaló que las universidades que van a representar un papel en las iniciativas de conservación en el mundo real no serán aquellas que permanezcan aisladas sino, por el contrario, las que mantengan relaciones con socios no académicos, tales como tribus indígenas, agencias gubernamentales federales y estatales y organizaciones sin fines de lucro, ya sean de gran envergadura a nivel nacional como de menor escala a nivel municipal. David Foster reforzó esta idea describiendo las actividades de extensión llevadas a cabo por Harvard Forest con el fin de elaborar y divulgar su reciente informe sobre Tierras V írgenes y Bosques en Nueva I nglaterra (Foster y otros 2009).

Casos de conservación de grandes paisajes

En todo el país, existen casos ejemplares de conservación de grandes paisajes que han experimentado progresos in situ, desde M aine hasta M ontana y desde el sur de Arizona hasta el norte de Florida. Uno de los casos más importantes que ha estado en funcionamiento por más tiempo se encuentra en la cuenca ACE, en las famosas tierras bajas de Carolina del Sur. La cuenca ACE, formada por más de 140.000 hectáreas que desembocan en los ríos Ashepoo, Combahee y Edisto Sur, entre Charleston y Beaufort, es uno de los mayores estuarios sin desarrollar de todo el litoral atlántico de los Estados Unidos (ver figura 1).

A fines de la década de 1980, un grupo de organizaciones públicas, privadas y sin fines de lucro unieron sus esfuerzos con el fin de crear una sociedad que protegiera las excepcionales fuentes de agua, la vida silvestre y los paisajes de la región. Entre los miembros de la Sociedad de la Cuenca ACE se encuentran agencias federales, como el Servicio de Piscicultura y V ida Silvestre y la Administración Nacional de Océanos y Atmósfera; agencias estatales, como el Departamento de Recursos Naturales de Carolina del Sur; organizaciones nacionales sin fines de lucro, como The Nature Conservancy y Ducks Unlimited

Los miembros de esta sociedad han logrado conservar más de 54.225 hectáreas, que constituyen una superficie contigua en el centro mismo de la cuenca ACE que une derechos de servidumbre sobre terrenos privados, un Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre, las Áreas de Administración de Vida Silvestre de Carolina del Sur y un centro interpretativo natural e histórico del condado de Charleston, entre otras propiedades.