SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 2 del libro Perspectivas urbanas; Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
Mi experiencia al asistir a la conferencia “Who Owns America? II” [¿A quién pertenecen los Estados Unidos?] celebrada en Madison, Wisconsin en junio pasado fue como contemplar un panorama formado por ideas acerca de la tierra y la gente. Desde mi punto de vista, este panorama tenía cuatro características dominantes:
La característica más sobresaliente del pensamiento jurídico estadounidense con respecto a la tierra es la gran importancia de los derechos de propiedad. La tradición jurídica de América Latina, según la doctrina de la función social de la propiedad planteada por el jurista francés Leon Duguit, tiende a considerar los derechos de propiedad como una materia a ser limitada por el gobierno y las leyes a fin de satisfacer las necesidades sociales. Por lo tanto, para mí fue un choque cultural descubrir la popularidad de la teoría de Charles Reich sobre la propiedad, en la que se promueven las ideas igualitarias mediante la defensa de los derechos de propiedad individuales.
En la conferencia se plantearon numerosas maneras distintas de ampliar la noción de propiedad para dar cabida a nuevas demandas sociales. Un ejemplo de ello fue el planteamiento de Eric Freyfogle de que la propiedad debiera tener un lugar privilegiado en la sociedad. Por supuesto, no hace falta que una idea sea aceptada por unanimidad en el razonamiento jurídico estadounidense para que pase a ser un aspecto importante del panorama actual de ideas sobre la propiedad.
La segunda característica se refiere a la distinción entre lo público y lo privado –una distinción que resulta esencial para las sociedades modernas y que suele darse por descontada–. Estamos acostumbrados a reconocer la coexistencia de dos formas separadas de control social sobre la misma extensión de tierra: el del propietario privado y el de las entidades gubernamentales públicas. Sin embargo, debemos recordar que esta separación no es eterna ni universal; es producto de la historia.
Los estudios urbanos han demostrado repetidas veces que las regulaciones de la tierra afectan constantemente las relaciones entre el control privado y el público. Los poderes de planificación y los derechos de propiedad han venido reduciéndose y ampliándose desde los inicios de la gestión urbana moderna, y ese proceso ahora se presenta como normal. Un desafío más marcado para la separación de las categorías pública y privada fue planteado en la conferencia por los reclamos que hacen las poblaciones indígenas sobre sus territorios en los Estados Unidos.
Tales reclamos se refieren a una tercera forma, aún sin codificar del todo, de control sobre la tierra. En general, los pueblos indígenas no buscan controlar los gobiernos locales, es decir, gobernar un territorio por medios convencionales. Igualmente rechazan ser tratados meramente como corporaciones que poseen tierras. Hablan de derechos de índole distinta, con elementos antiguos y nuevos, y lo hacen cuestionando una serie de tratados entre el pueblo y el estado. Un tratado es la forma usual que toma la relación jurídica entre una nación-estado y una fuerza externa. Al parecer los tratados pasados debían ‘resolver’ el problema territorial. Hoy en día esos tratados están siendo cuestionados tanto en términos de la dicotomía de lo público/lo privado como por la formación de una nación-estado que no se concretó.
Asimismo debemos reconocer que el razonamiento jurídico clásico no cuenta con los mecanismos para darle sentido a estos desarrollos, puesto que son los fundamentos mismos de ese razonamiento lo que está en tela de juicio. Es obvio que estas inquietudes también se presentan en Canadá y México, aunque con formas y resultados diferentes. Los estudiosos y profesionales de la teoría jurídica, y especialmente de la teoría constitucional, de estos tres países norteamericanos pueden aprender mucho unos de otros en este proceso.
No debería sorprendernos que surjan nuevas formas de control territorial cuando ha habido tantos cambios en la tierra misma. Se han escrito miles de libros acerca de la transformación de la tierra, sobre todo desde el punto de vista que ahora llamamos perspectiva ambiental. La tierra como ‘objeto’ de las relaciones de la propiedad se ha convertido en un asunto bastante complejo y esa complejidad es la tercera característica que encuentro en este panorama de ideas. Los territorios han pasado a ser un concepto difícil de entender y tal vez el fenómeno más significativo es la disolución de la distinción entre lo urbano y lo rural. No tenemos ciudades en el sentido tradicional de la palabra, sino un conjunto de procesos urbanísticos.
Los mensajeros del ciberespacio nos dicen que las distancias se acortan gracias a las nuevas tecnologías; el espacio y la distancia han perdido relevancia. La verdad es que el cambio tecnológico, aunado al cambio demográfico y social, solamente ha hecho la tierra más compleja. Esto queda claro cuando vemos, como lo demostraron las ponencias presentadas en la conferencia, las numerosísimas disciplinas que describen, analizan y hasta alaban con cantos la tierra. No existe disciplina alguna que pueda englobar la tierra en una única forma de discurso.
Tal vez la más interesante de las nuevas maneras de ver la tierra sea el enfoque narrativo, la cuarta característica en nuestro panorama. El relato de historias acerca de la tierra aclara las relaciones de la propiedad mucho mejor de lo que lo hacen tantos otros métodos empíricos porque nos permite reconocer los aspectos subjetivos sin alejarnos demasiado de las ciencias sociales empíricas. En comparación con la rigidez de los enfoques jurídicos y económicos, los relatos personales nos transmiten la fluidez de la propiedad como una relación social, los cambios que suceden en esa relación como resultado de muchas interacciones y los diferentes significados que puede adquirir una parcela de tierra o un vecindario para sus moradores, habitantes nuevos, visitantes y demás.
Reconocer la riqueza e intensidad de las historias de la gente y contrastar esta riqueza con la rigidez de las categorías jurídicas no implica abandonar estas últimas. Tan es así que este enfoque más subjetivo puede constituir una nueva forma de tomar la ley con seriedad. Apenas si existe un discurso social sobre la tierra, ni siquiera en la modalidad más vernácula, que no tenga una connotación normativa. Cuando alguien dice ‘esta tierra me pertenece (me pertenecía o debiera pertenecerme)’, está haciendo un reclamo legal. Las categorías jurídicas son importantes fuera de los círculos profesionales de los abogados, jueces y agentes inmobiliarios porque son parte de las historias personales; más aún, su función es darle significado a las experiencias de la gente.
Cuando las categorías jurídicas no logran abarcar las representaciones normativas que hace un pueblo de la tierra, la ley pierde su significado. Si el razonamiento jurídico tradicional define la propiedad como un cúmulo de derechos, el enfoque narrativo puede enseñarnos a ver la propiedad como cúmulos de representaciones que permitirían ayudar a la gente a darle significado a su relación con la tierra. Quizás es esta la mayor lección que he aprendido de la conferencia “Who owns America?”: usar muchos lentes para observar el panorama y explorar las ideas comparativas acerca del carácter individual y comunitario de la propiedad, de los asentamientos informales y de los marcos jurídicos en todos los Estados Unidos.
Antonio Azuela es el Procurador Federal de Protección al Ambiente del gobierno de México. Es egresado de la Universidad Iberoamericana (Ciudad de México) y la Escuela de Leyes de la Universidad de Warwick (Inglaterra) y se ha desempeñado como asesor jurídico de varios gobiernos estatales y dependencias del gobierno federal en materia de legislación de la planificación urbana. El Dr. Azuela es autor del libro La ciudad, la propiedad y el derecho (El Colegio de México, 1989) y muchas otras publicaciones sobre legislación urbana y ambiental desde una perspectiva sociológica.
SHARE
Brownfields are industrial and commercial properties with known or suspected soil contamination problems. The environmental and financial challenges of dealing with these sites represent serious barriers to potential urban revitalization.
As the antonym for greenfields, or undeveloped land in suburban and rural communities, brownfields have made their way to the top of many urban priority lists. The National Conference of Mayors, National League of Cities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Economic Development Administration, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development are among the groups that have made recent brownfield policy statements.
Development Perspectives
Many central cities have nearly exhausted their supply of “clean” land for development, contributing to their loss of residents, jobs and a stable tax base. Inner-city businesses often relocate to surrounding suburbs because land is not available in the city to support their future expansion. Thus, urban brownfields give an inadvertent boost to the economic development strategies of outlying areas. This increased development pressure, in turn, can pose complex suburban and rural growth management issues.
While most known or suspected brownfields are in central cities, the problem is also evident in older inner-ring suburbs, some rural areas and military base communities. Brownfields, in short, play an important role in shaping regional development patterns by influencing the location of residential and business activities. Central cities must tackle the brownfields problem to provide new land for development and reverse their declining economic competitiveness.
Environmental Perspectives
Varying opinions exist on the extent of the brownfields problem, and more importantly what the public and private sectors should do about assessing environmental hazards on these sites. This situation will change, but not before environmental regulators clarify the relevant policies. Brownfields are not Superfund sites by regulatory definitions. The environmental and health risks of Superfund sites are significantly greater than those of brownfields. Nevertheless, brownfields can pose serious environmental threats where “real” environmental and health risks are documented through risk assessment. In many instances, however, brownfields may be less threatening than earlier thought.
Depending upon future site use, environmental and health threats can vary considerably, which raises the “how clean is clean” issue. Regulators, property owners, developers, lenders, insurers and local government officials are engaged in an open debate over future brownfields clean-up standards. Many experts, myself included, advocate standards based upon the future use of the property, as opposed to a “one standard applies to all uses” approach. Earlier regulatory practices required sites to be fully cleaned for potential residential use, which requires the highest level of clean-up. These practices are being challenged because they are so costly and because they discourage recycling of industrial land.
State Policy Innovations
Nineteen states have created voluntary brownfields clean-up programs as alternatives to regulatory enforcement. Programs such as those in Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey allow property owners, municipalities and other parties greater flexibility in meeting clean-up standards.
State voluntary programs are positive for several reasons. First, because they are voluntary they allow property owners and developers to initiate the process without traditional enforcement pressures. This leads to more response from private markets, and to more creative and cost-effective clean-up and redevelopment. Secondly, these programs encourage problem solving at the local level, where land use, zoning and planning regulations can contribute to solutions.
Thirdly, the state programs address key liability concerns by offering a level of “comfort” to banks, property owners, and others involved in clean-up and redevelopment. Many argue these programs must go even further. A final benefit is that state government is often willing to provide financial incentives, which experience shows are often necessary to get companies and developers to clean and reuse these properties.
State programs are expected to continue to gain momentum over time, but most administrators believe they need extra help from the EPA to make their programs more successful. They are urging federal authorities to strengthen assurances against future liability claims by stronger “comfort letters” to property owners, lenders and developers. Currently the federal government cannot provide a 100 percent delegation of authority to the states for brownfield regulation, without future federal legislative changes. Better intergovernmental coordination and greater information exchange about standards and remediation technology would help the situation. The states would welcome federal financial support for their programs, even though many will rely on private user fees to finance program administration.
Future Knowledge and Investment Needs
Most cities discover that the unknowns outweigh the facts about older industrial and commercial properties. This lack of knowledge limits city leaders’ ability to shape cost-effective strategies to cope with these problems. Knowledge is an essential ingredient in effective strategy development—ask any corporation employing knowledge strategies to best their competition. Communities with brownfields must inventory these sites and investigate the risks and opportunities associated with these properties.
Properly used, the information from these investigations can help separate real from perceived problems related to site conditions and future development potential. Knowledge can help manage the risks and reduce the uncertainty. In short, we need to end the hysteria about brownfields, which may motivate political action but also may reduce public and private confidence that cities can be revitalized and made whole once again.
Many people are searching for “deep pockets” to finance brownfield remediation. This search frightens all levels of government as budget-cutting pressures continue to grow across the public sector. Corporations and private property owners, on the other hand, reject the notion that they should either pay clean-up costs that may be unnecessary or pay for pollution problems created by previous owners or third parties.
Overall national costs to the public and private sectors of cleaning up brownfields are unknown because there is no agreed-upon definition of brownfields, and because clean-up standards continue to change. Both problems greatly affect cost estimates. City officials are unable to assess the cost of property clean-up within their jurisdictions for the same basic reasons. Future use of risk assessment techniques, coupled with the use of more cost-effective remediation technology, will help to lower these costs.
In the absence of deep pockets, communities must identify creative approaches to funding site clean-up and redevelopment. Through citywide planning, policymakers must establish useful priorities to guide their investments based upon future development trends and land use patterns. Serious environmental threats should be eliminated on any site, regardless of its development potential. In most other cases, the development potential should be a primary factor in considering next steps.
The public sector should engage corporations that own contaminated sites, banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and real estate investment funds to determine what is required to attract private capital to fund clean-up and redevelopment. Private property owners, corporations and developers should seek state and local economic development groups as potential investment partners in returning these sites to productive use.
Donald T. Iannone directs the Economic Development Program and the Great Lakes Environmental Finance Center in The Urban Center at Cleveland State University. Much of his work focuses on financing the redevelopment of brownfield sites.
Additional information in printed newsletter.
1. Photo caption: The Publicker site, a former distillery on the Delaware River in Philadelphia, was cleaned up with EPA funds and will be redeveloped as a shipping terminal.
Photo credit information: – Richard McMullin, photographer, Office of the City Representative, Philadelphia
2. Map of U.S.: EPA Brownfields Demonstration Cities
Large Cities:
Cleveland/Cuyahoga County, Ohio
Baltimore, Maryland
Detroit, Michigan
Indianapolis, Indiana
New Orleans, Louisiana
St. Louis, Missouri
Mid-Size Cities:
Birmingham, Alabama
Bridgeport, Connecticut
Knoxville, Tennessee
Louisville, Kentucky
Richmond, Virginia
Rochester, New York
Sacramento, California
Trenton, New Jersey
Smaller Cities/Clusters:
Cape Charles/Northampton County, Virginia
Laredo, Texas
Oregon Mill Sites (7 small towns), Oregon
West Central Municipal Conference, Cook County, Illinois
Caption: Eighteen cities or regions have already received grants of up to $200,000 through the EPA’s Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative. An additional 32 cities will receive funds by the end of 1995. The common objectives of these projects are to assess contamination at abandoned sites; involve community residents in decision making; leverage other public and private funds for clean-up and redevelopment; resolve liability issues; and serve as role models for other communities.
SHARE
Jeffrey Sundberg is associate professor of economics and business at Lake Forest College in Lake Forest, Illinois, where he has taught since 1989. He also serves as chair of the College’s interdisciplinary Environmental Studies Program. He earned his B.A. from Carleton College in 1982, and subsequently received an M.A. and Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University. His current research examines various aspects of public policy toward land conservation, including tax incentives for conservation easements and factors influencing voter approval for programs to protect open space. In a recent article in Land Economics, he examined membership patterns in land trusts across the country as evidence of private willingness to provide a public good (Sundberg 2006).
Sundberg’s interest in conservation extends to his volunteer activities as well. He currently serves as the vice president of the board of directors for the Liberty Prairie Conservancy, a countywide land trust in Lake County, Illinois, and is a past member of the board of directors of the Chicago Audubon Society. He initiated and directs an ongoing habitat restoration program on the grounds of Lake Forest College. A dedicated birder, he leads bird walks annually for several different organizations and volunteers as a bird-bander every spring.
Land Lines: Conservation easements are a topic of great interest to the Lincoln Institute. What specific aspects of them are you researching?
Jeffrey Sundberg: There has been quite a lot of research on the use of easements as a tool for conservation, and there is a growing interest in various legal aspects of easement policy. However, there has been relatively little work on the economic aspects of easements. The number and value of these incentives have increased over the past 20 years, and so has the number of acres under easement. This has had a largely unmeasured effect on tax collections at the local, state, and federal levels.
In collaboration with Richard Dye, my colleague at Lake Forest College and a visiting fellow at the Lincoln Institute, I am examining tax incentives for the donation of easements to nonprofit conservation groups and government agencies (Sundberg and Dye 2006). A broad range of incentives exists, and their effects may vary with the income and assets of the property owner, and the state in which the parcel is located.
An analysis of these tax incentives suggests certain conclusions about the type of property owner who is most able to benefit financially from such a donation. These incentives are likely to affect both the number of available easements and the cost to society of accepting the donations. The easement must have conservation value in order to qualify for the tax savings, but there is no benefits test that compares the amount of conservation value to the amount of tax revenue lost.
Land Lines: What are some of your findings?
Jeffrey Sundberg: Numerous publications, including Jeff Pidot’s recent work with the Institute (Pidot 2005), have speculated that under certain circumstances it would be possible for a landowner to receive tax savings that exceed the value of the donated easement. In fact, under certain conditions a taxpayer could receive more than two dollars of tax savings for every dollar of easement donation, even when future tax savings are discounted. The largest single potential benefit often stems from various estate tax reductions that result from the donation of a qualified easement. However, a donation could create a positive net present value even without qualifying for the estate tax benefit. Many states also have substantial incentives of their own in the form of income tax credits, property tax reductions, or both.
These incentives offer both good and bad news for conservation policy. While they certainly make it easier to persuade property owners to donate a conservation easement on their land, they also create an incentive for owners to take efficiency-reducing actions by tailoring their easements to create the maximum tax benefit, rather than the maximum conservation value. In addition, land trusts and other qualified organizations may have to spend time and energy evaluating relatively low-quality easements offered by financially motivated donors, who may be able to expend considerable effort to find a willing holder of an easement.
Land Lines: What are some public policy implications of your work?
Jeffrey Sundberg: It is important to distinguish between federal and state tax incentives in making policy recommendations. Federal incentives consist of tax deductions, which are most valuable to property owners who have substantial tax liabilities and face high marginal tax rates. Many land parcels with significant conservation value are owned by land-rich, low-income individuals who are unable to take any significant advantage of income tax deductions, and who may not be subject to the estate tax. Federal tax incentives offer relatively low benefits to this type of landowner, even with the recent change that allows a longer carry-forward period until those benefits expire.
State incentives typically offer credits that can be used to offset existing income taxes on a dollar-for-dollar basis. The benefit to the donors does not depend on their marginal tax rate, though high-income donors are still more likely to be able to use their credits. Most credits are not “refundable,” which means that a donor must have taxable income to make use of them. Two states currently allow donors to sell their excess credits, which increases the likelihood that they will be able to benefit financially by donating an easement. A move toward credits, rather than deductions, would allow low-income donors to receive more benefits without necessarily reducing the benefits to high-income donors. This should increase the number of high-quality parcels potentially available for conservation.
Our research also studies the possible impact of eliminating the federal estate (or death) tax. In 48 of the 50 states, estate tax savings are the single largest source of potential financial benefits to easement donors, so elimination of the tax could have a significant chilling effect on easement donations across the country.
Programs for the sale of easement credits highlight another area of concern, the potential for fraudulent activity. Needless to say, fraud is costly in terms of lost tax revenue, in the administrative burden it imposes on governments and conservation organizations that must resolve troublesome donations, and most of all in the loss of trust and goodwill for these important programs, which currently enjoy great public support.
Land Lines: How would an economic approach to easements differ from an environmental approach?
Jeffrey Sundberg: An environmental approach might consider conservation benefits in both ecological and human terms, with an eye toward preserving significant benefits for the future. Their existence would be enough to justify creation of the easement, without the need to set a monetary value. This view is similar to current easement policy, where there is no comparison of benefit to cost.
An economic approach would attempt to place a monetary value on those benefits, not because they can be bought and sold, but because this is the only way to make any kind of reasonable comparison between the benefit of the easement and its cost. Without having at least a rough estimate of these figures, it is impossible to ensure that any particular easement creates a net benefit for society. Under most current easement programs, the organization that accepts the easement only has to certify that some conservation value exists; the organization typically has little idea of the actual cost of the tax subsidy to the easement. The primary cost to the organization is likely to be the obligation to monitor and enforce the easement, which may be a widely varying fraction of the total cost of the easement.
Both environmental and economic approaches would agree that different easements will provide differing amounts and types of benefit, suggesting that the tax incentives should be tailored to encourage the donation of easements that provide the most overall value, whether measured in economic or environmental terms.
Land Lines: Are there alternatives to tax incentives for easement donations that might be more efficient?
Jeffrey Sundberg: It’s a little difficult to answer that, since there is so little data available about our current system. We don’t know what the magnitude of the costs have been, so it would be premature to claim that it has been clearly inefficient. What we do know is that the current system does not provide incentives for efficiency.
For example, consider the case of a land trust that accepts an easement that meets or exceeds several of the requirements for qualification; it provides both ecological and human benefits that are significant. However, the land trust does not have any idea of the amount of tax revenue lost as a result of the donation. Depending on various circumstances, including location of the parcel and the income and wealth of the donor, the tax savings might range from thousands to millions of dollars. There is no way to know the net benefit to society, or even if that net benefit is positive. All we can say is that benefits have been created, and costs incurred. Such a system does not create any expectation of efficient behavior. At best, organizations will accept only easements that generate high conservation benefits, with no regard to the actual cost of the tax benefits generated for the donor.
The problem is that other systems, such as requiring that easements be purchased rather than donated, also generate efficiency problems. Given how little we know about the magnitude of the benefits and costs being created, and the difficulty of predicting responses to a new set of incentives, I favor improvements to the existing system rather than beginning a new experiment.
Land Lines: What role do you see for economic analysis in shaping future environmental protection legislation?
Jeffrey Sundberg: Easement policy is like many kinds of environmental protection legislation—it tends to be benefit-based. Economic analysis can point the way to the creation of appropriate incentives that can reduce the cost of achieving those benefits. It can also suggest the kind of benefits that have greater value to society, and which should therefore receive higher priority.
It is not realistic, or desirable, to use economic analysis to evaluate each easement before a donation is accepted. However, economic analysis can be used to create incentives that are compatible with more efficient kinds of donations. For example, most federal incentives, and those of most states, apply equally to any easement that meets one or more of several possible qualifications, including habitat for endangered species or scenic value for local residents. Economic analysis could be used to suggest which qualifications are of the highest value to society, and tax incentives could then be tailored to provide the most payment for the easements likely to offer the greatest benefit.
References
Pidot, Jeff. 2005. Reinventing conservation easements: A critical examination and ideas for reform. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Sundberg, Jeffrey. 2006. Private provision of a public good: Land trust membership. Land Economics 82(3): 353–366.
Sundberg, Jeffrey, and Richard F. Dye. 2006. Tax and property value effects of conservation easements. Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
As the world’s most populous country and its third largest economy, China and its rapid urbanization and development will represent one of the defining trends of the twenty-first century. Over the past 30 years, China has made remarkable economic and social progress, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and catapulting China onto the international stage.
This economic transformation has also involved an institutional transformation as China’s centrally planned economy has moved pragmatically to a broad reliance on market mechanisms. This movement has been especially challenging in the case of land, which for decades was owned by the state or peasant collectives. Progress has been made in urban areas, where the leasehold term of land ownership is now normally 70 years, but in rural areas collective land ownership continues.
Despite its noteworthy accomplishments, China is facing critical land policy issues that will determine the direction of its future economic development and urbanization.
With these diverse issues in mind, the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s China Program was inaugurated in 2003 and continues to focus on improving the quality of public debate and decisions concerning land policy and urban development in China through sound research and the leveraging of international experience and expertise.
The China Program has grown considerably in capacity, scope, and geographic footprint, highlighted by the establishment of the joint Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy in October 2007. The Center’s mission is to study land, urban, and fiscal policies and to facilitate education, training, policy analysis, and research. Having this joint facility in Beijing provides the China Program with an ongoing domestic presence that expands the Institute’s networks and resources and brings together government officials, practitioners, and foreign and domestic scholars to engage in dialogue and to share experiences to promote a better understanding of land policy, urbanization, and property taxation in China and around the world.
The China Program has identified six key research areas that are highly relevant to China’s future development and also offer the best opportunities to utilize the Lincoln Institute’s expertise and resources.
Adoption of a Property Tax
China’s 11th Five-Year Plan (2006–2010) elevated the issue of a property tax onto the official agenda, and pilot property tax projects are currently under way in more than 10 provinces. However, the issue’s sensitive political nature, lingering technical difficulties concerning data and valuation, and continued debate about the exact form of any proposed property tax have slowed implementation and made it unlikely that a broader property tax and related tax policy reforms will be implemented before the 12th Five-Year Plan begins in 2011.
Through close working relationships with the State Administration of Taxation (SAT), the Ministry of Finance (MOF), and the Development Research Center for the State Council (DRC), the China Program has offered a number of educational programs and provided significant intellectual and capacity building support for China’s adoption of a property tax.
For example, in October 2009 representatives of the British Columbia Assessment Office, the Altus Group, and ESRI Canada led a China Program training workshop on property tax implementation and design of computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) systems. More than 50 SAT officials participated, including representatives from each of the property tax pilot cities.
Delegates from the SAT and the Lincoln Institute attended a three-day conference on valuation and mass appraisal at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, in March 2009, before traveling to Johannesburg’s valuation office to discuss the challenges of implementing a property tax in that country.
In November 2008, training on technical aspects of property valuation was provided in Beijing by property tax experts from Canada, the United States, South Africa, and Hong Kong for more than 40 administrators and assessors from China’s property tax pilot cities.
Local Public Finance
Fiscal policy reform is a key component in addressing many of the social and economic problems China faces. Restructuring the current tax system and promoting balanced tax and expenditure responsibilities at the local government level is one of the main policy objectives of the Chinese government. The underlying efforts are closely related to the future development of any property tax, a necessary and critical solution to local public finance challenges.
The China Program is focused on issues of fiscal decentralization, public service financing, land-related taxes and fees, regional inequity, intergovernmental finance, and the role of property taxation in a modern public sector finance system. Representative activities have included a January 2009 workshop in Beijing on fiscal policy and economic growth in China with leading fiscal policy scholars and experts, including officials from the MOF, DRC, and SAT.
An international conference held at the Lincoln Institute’s headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts in May 2008 focused on local public finance and property taxation. Those proceedings will be edited and published in a Lincoln Institute book in 2010, and the volume will be translated and published in China as well.
Land Policy and Land Management
The revision of China’s Land Management Law has been a sensitive issue over the past several years, as the country struggles to define rural land rights, land expropriation, and the public good. With a new land law revision on the horizon, land-related issues remain at the forefront of China’s policy agenda, particularly issues concerning urban and rural property rights, land expropriation, land use efficiency, land use planning, land conservation, and urban expansion and sprawl.
In June 2009 the China Program co-organized a roundtable discussion on the most recent draft revision of China’s Land Management Law with the Land Law Committee of the China Land Science Society in association with the Ministry of Land and Resources (MLR). Experts and prominent scholars from across the political spectrum engaged in direct dialogue and discussion with government officials at MLR who are working on the revision.
The China Program is now compiling and translating several land management laws from a dozen developing and developed countries for use by Chinese officials and scholars. The Program also cosponsored a comprehensive survey of land use and farmland conservation issues in a dozen provinces in China, and is building a database for future research on land management issues.
Urban Planning and Development
Rapid urbanization has led to the explosive growth of Chinese cities and their populations, presenting an enormous challenge in terms of city planning, infrastructure, and transportation. New approaches to urban planning are fundamental to the development and management of cities, as well as a prerequisite to ensuring the efficient use of land and integrated development in China. Efforts also must be made to use land sensibly and to coordinate the spatial layout of urban areas, thereby avoiding rampant and uncontrolled urbanization.
The China Program cooperated with the Chinese Society for Urban Studies and the Urban Planning Society of China, affiliated with the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, in organizing the July 2009 International Forum on Urban Development and Planning, which featured the theme “Harmony and Ecology: Sustainable Cities.”
In cooperation with the Lincoln Institute’s Department of Planning and Urban Form, more than 20 international speakers attended a symposium on megaregions and spatial planning practice worldwide, held in Beijing in October 2008.
Affordable Housing
Housing policy, and in particular affordable housing, is becoming an important focus for China’s policy makers during this period of rapid urbanization. With upwards of 15 million new urban residents expected annually over the next decade, the growth in the supply of affordable housing is an immediate concern. In addition to a one-year joint policy research project with the DRC, the China Program is conducting original research in the field of housing policy and introducing international experience to China’s policy makers and the academic community.
For example, in July 2009 the China Program organized a symposium on low-income housing policy in China to provide a platform for international and domestic scholars and government officials from DRC, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, and the People’s Bank of China to engage in dialogue and discussion. Papers from the symposium will be published in an edited volume for distribution in China. The China Program also hosted an international conference entitled Housing Policy and Housing Markets in China in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in May 2009, and is preparing an edited conference volume for publication in both English and Chinese.
Environmental Challenges
With international attention focusing on recent climate negotiations in Copenhagen, there is a pressing need for timely research on low-carbon development and the complex linkages between land, transportation, and urban and environmental policies in China and globally. The China Program is leading research on environmental taxation in China from a global perspective and developing a database of environmental tax statistics.
The Program organized a roundtable on green cities at Peking University in September 2009, which drew strong interest from domestic and international academics and signaled the need for further study of environmental policy issues in the future. And in May 2008, the Program, joined by Loeb Fellows from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design and Chinese policy makers and academics, held a roundtable discussion at Peking University that addressed urban transformation and sustainability.
Building Capacity to Address the Issues
Since its inception the China Program has been committed to enhancing the capacity of both current policy makers and academics and researchers whose analysis and opinions will influence China’s future policies and reforms. This educational emphasis continues with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, which has become an important platform for reaching and engaging students and scholars at Peking University and other academic institutions through training programs, fellowships, lecture series, online education, and research publications.
Training the Trainers
This annual program aims to enhance the capacity and awareness of scholars throughout China regarding urban economics, planning, public finance, and related land policy issues. The courses target university faculty and professional researchers, as well as select government officials, with the goal to increase competence through intensive professional seminars on issues related to land policy in China. More than 70 participants on average attend each two-week training program. Leading experts in their fields from around the world offer the participants an invaluable international perspective. The China Program’s recently launched online education platform seeks to build on previous training programs and to move progressively toward more specialized trainings.
Fellowships
The China Program awards several types of fellowships to international and Chinese scholars and graduate students working on Chinese land and urban policy. Two or three international fellowships are awarded annually to leading scholars and professional researchers based at universities around the globe. In addition to producing important research on issues ranging from the spatial structure of megacities to household carbon emissions in Chinese cities, the international fellowship is an invaluable tool to increase scholarly dialogue between China and the world. These fellows are an integral component of the China Program’s other activities, such as teaching at Training the Trainers programs, reviewing other fellowship proposals, and speaking at seminars.
Fellowships for Chinese graduate students and junior researchers are administered through the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center to bring young scholars into Chinese land and urban policy studies. Approximately 15 dissertation fellowships are awarded to aspiring scholars annually, while an additional 6 or 8 research fellowships help strengthen the capacity of scholars based in China’s leading institutions.
The China Program’s in-country presence at the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center also facilitates interactions among the fellows, including the provision of constructive feedback on their ongoing research. All fellows are invited to Beijing for a mid-term progress report, where they share their initial research findings with peers and a panel of international experts. This event has proven to be an effective way to help domestic junior scholars and graduate students build research skills and promote studies of urban and land issues in China.
Speaker Series
The China Program also regularly invites distinguished individuals drawn from the Lincoln Institute’s network of leading scholars and policy makers to speak to the Beijing scholarly community on vital topics ranging from planning support systems to fiscal federalism and decentralization in the United States. This speaker series helps meet the demand for knowledge about international development and urbanization experiences and how these cases can be adapted to fit China’s needs.
Online Education
The Lincoln Institute has long history of employing online education as a tool to reach a broader audience and maximize its resources. Given the vast geographic distances in China and its emphasis on training and capacity building, the China Program has similarly been interested in online education for some time. The establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center has accelerated the process of making information, analysis, and data available online, and widened the network of collaborators interested in tapping into the Institute’s expertise.
Through the Center, the China Program engaged a local online education company to develop a China-centric platform, which was inaugurated in the summer of 2009 during the China Program’s Training the Trainers session on urban economics and planning. The two-week program was recorded and translated into Chinese, and is accompanied online by Chinese transcripts of lectures and associated PowerPoint presentations and other materials.
The value of the online platform has become apparent almost immediately. During the fall 2009 program and demonstration on property taxation and CAMA, which was also recorded for later conversion to the online platform, attending SAT officials expressed their eagerness to use the platform to demonstrate the concepts to their colleagues and superiors.
Publications and Web-based Resources
As the China Program has increased its research capacity and professional support with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, it is producing a steadily increasing series of working papers, books, and training materials that are extending the Lincoln Institute’s and the China Program’s expertise on and influence in China. During 2008 and 2009, nine books were published or made ready for print, and eight other books are at various stages of development. The China Program and the Center’s fellows and visiting fellows have also produced about 40 working papers and a number of focused reports and policy briefs, which will soon be available online.
Complementing all of these activities is the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center’s revamped Web site. It provides a window into the China Program’s mission and vision, and is an important link between the Lincoln Institute’s and the China Program’s dual educational and research objectives. Drawing together Chinese and English working papers, training and education materials, and conference proceedings from both the Lincoln Institute and the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center, the Web site is a rich repository of impartial knowledge and an expanding platform for scholarly dialogue concerning the ascendant land, urban, and environmental policy issues in China.
In 2010, the China Program will continue to strengthen its online resources to synthesize and disseminate its recent research to a broader audience of Chinese scholars and policy makers through new publications and focused policy reports, while also striving to advance academic debate through research, demonstration projects, conferences and other activities.
About the Author
Joyce Yanyun Man is senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s China Program, as well as director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy. She is also professor of economics in the Peking University College of Urban and Environmental Science.
SHARE
A city’s master plan typically describes development goals and objectives through the use of multiple maps and written documents. Most maps and other representations of urban design are built with a two-dimensional (2D) vision and then transferred into regulatory instruments and strategic planning tools. Urban space is treated as being flat and divided up into puzzle pieces such as administrative areas (municipal, rural, urban, growing, expanding, fringe); land use areas (residential, commercial, central business, historic, tourist, informal, recreational); environmentally protected or restricted area (water catchments, floodplains, landslide-prone hills); and other categories.
When urban space is described through digital maps integrated with databases in a geographic information system (GIS), many additional layers of information can be considered in a three-dimensional (3D) platform. However, when real 3D urban space is managed by laws and other conventions based on a 2D vision, the physical and legal cities are operating in quite different and incompatible dimensions. This discrepancy was accepted in the past, when 2D maps were the primary resource available to represent the real city, but nowadays computer graphics can handle more complex objects in space.
Rethinking the legal and economic aspects of urban society by shifting from the traditional 2D vision to a 3D approach will be necessary to develop, implement, and control urban land policies more efficiently. A 3D cadastre is one of the tools that can facilitate that process through spatial databases and representations. The institution of a territorial cadastre is familiar in many countries, but does not exist in the same way in the United States. A modern cadastre is an integrated database system that holds information on land registration and ownership, physical characteristics, econometric modeling for property valuation, zoning, geographic information, transportation networks, infrastructure and services, and environmental attributes, all of which are linked to socioeconomic and demographic information on property owners.
Creating a New 3D Framework
Google Earth has popularized geographic information by allowing users to visualize a virtual 3D location at the desired level of detail and in a global environment. Google Earth and other geographic software can be used quite easily to change the viewpoint of reality. Moving from a top-down view, which shows the city as a flat area, to an oblique perspective permits the viewer to see the relief and height of buildings, trees, aerial utility networks, and other objects in space.
This type of 3D visualization can identify undeveloped spaces, buildings of different heights, scattered suburban housing, structures in isolated rural areas, and precarious slum construction, thus helping to infer changes in land uses. Even when 3D images are represented on a flat screen or printed surface, they show details that are hard to identify in a 2D map, such as shadow movements during the day, views from an apartment window, and spatial relationships between buildings.
The constantly evolving 3D technology is changing the paradigms of urban planning and land policy because it impacts not only how the city is viewed but the way property rights and other restrictions in space are described. As a result, a new urban legal framework based on 3D laws and 3D property registries will be needed to describe objects in space instead of just flat con-tours. The 3D laws affect rights in space, not in a plane of projection, and in this context it will be possible to define 3D land policies.
For example, a 3D image of the basic, maximum, and actual floor-area-ratio (FAR) for a set of land parcels would facilitate the use of land management instruments such as charges for the purchase of building rights for new development. To support a 3D legal framework it is necessary to have spatial data systematized on 3D cadastres, which create and maintain up-to-date spatial databases and volumetric representations of cities, as well as a 3D property registry in which every property and its restrictions are identified and documented.
Land surveyors, geologists, biologists, and engineers are accustomed to determining the location of physical objects in space by specifying attributes such as mineral deposits, water bodies, contamination or fumes in the air or underground, or restricted spaces around power lines, but legislators, urban planners, assessors, and others are not used to describing the intersections of more than two attributes in space. The increasing complexity of infrastructure and densely built-up areas requires the proper registration of their legal status (private and public), which can be provided only to a limited extent by the existing 2D cadastral registrations.
Despite its promise as a tool for urban planning and the extensive research and progress in practice to date, no country has a true 3D cadastre with complete functionality. The evolving concepts involved in this new process should be based on the ISO 19152 Land Administration Domain Model (LADM), which provides support for 3D representations (van Oosterom 2011).
The Virtual 3D City
The first idea that usually comes to mind regarding a 3D image is its representation in regular shapes such as cubes, prisms, and cylinders, but these simple forms have proved insufficient to analyze urban space. Seeking a closer match with reality, researchers and designers have developed techniques to overlay photographs of building facades on building contours, and to represent all architectural characteristics of a building using 3D computer-aided design (CAD) software.
However, even these types of virtual 3D buildings typically were placed on a flat reference plane, which created a false image because it showed all buildings at the same level. By adding relief through digital perspectives based on digital terrain models, virtual 3D buildings could be placed at the correct altitude relative to sea level. The next step was to overlay aerial orthophotos on digital relief images, resulting in much more realistic 3D images of the real (physical) city (figure 1).
Presently, 2D and 3D urban models continue to be built with points, lines, polygons, and images. These models are useful but still insufficient for detailed urban analyses because, as noted by the Brazilian geographer Milton Santos, “Geometries are not geography” (Câmara 2000). In fact, several kinds of geographic information are used to develop land policies—human, physical, economic, and environmental—and all of them occur in space.
GIS contributes to the process of building a virtual 3D city by permitting linkages between statistical data and geometric shapes to generate thematic information images that can be applied to a variety of land policy issues. The 3D image created in a GIS platform is frequently more useful for urban planning purposes than a photograph of the same sector because the 3D platform makes it is possible to highlight certain information of interest, create prospective scenarios that anticipate the economical effects of certain land policy decisions, or evaluate the environmental impacts of new development.
Formal and Informal Virtual 3D Cities
The virtual 3D city represented geometrically is useful in several types of analyses, such as vehicle traffic studies, propagation of cell phone waves, or any type of infrastructure network analysis. For other kinds of analysis, even the virtual 3D city is not sufficient, as when a lawyer needs to visualize the legal 3D city as defined by urban and environmental regulations. Figure 2 shows two sets of virtual 3D city blocks, one representing existing buildings and the other indicating the development potential of those buildings based on the applicable urban regulations. These two images show different densities and consequently variable land and property values, but in both cases the property tax base and potential value capture charge can be estimated precisely.
In Latin America, where the incidence of informality is emblematic of the urban landscape, it is important to visualize and define the informal as well as the legal dimensions of the city. Informal settlements develop when households cannot afford housing supplied by the market or by social programs. People must find a place to settle, which is often on hazardous or protected land that is inappropriate for housing, or on vacant public or private land. The magnitude of the need for housing often surpasses the amount of land available, thus forcing informal settlers to build taller structures at higher densities (figure 3).
Every occupied space is a part of the city and should be considered in the urban databases of the cadastre. The task of connecting the virtual informal city with the rest of the virtual city is a bigger challenge in 3D than in 2D due to complexities in dealing with parcels where owners and occupants are different but may share the same space. Infrastructure is also organized differently in these areas. In the formal city, for example, public infrastructure networks consisting of fixed pipes, cables, roads, and rails are regularized and stable. In the informal city, infrastructure networks are often self-built and change constantly as the settlement expands. A 3D cadastre can inform planners of the gaps between the characteristics of the population demanding shelter and the effective supply of land and its attributes, thus helping define policies to address unplanned informal settlements.
3D Dynamic Cities
Changes taking place in cities can be visualized and measured in several ways, for example through studies of densification, migration, and expansion of infrastructure networks. These studies assume that social, economic, and environmental variables are constantly changing although the land is static. However, other forces that produce change in the city can cause dislocations of different intensities that can be measured in space (3D) and time (4D). For example, the continental plates are moving South America, its cities, public and private properties, and infrastructure networks slowly toward the west at the rate of 2 centimeters (cm) per year. These movements, which seem insignificant, have consequences for urban policy if one considers that in 50 years a property could be moved as much as 1 meter from its current position.
Even more extreme movements are the consequence of the dynamic nature of our planet. The earthquake in February 2010 impacted the Chilean region of Bio-Bio at many different scales. Measurements by the Transportable Integrated Geodetic Observatory (TIGO) in the city of Concepción recorded that the entire territory moved initially toward the northwest and then ended with a displacement of 3 meters toward the southwest, all within 30 seconds. During this event, the height of land shifted by 50 cm. The telluric movement carried away properties and destroyed urban infrastructure and buildings, and the damage was compounded by the subsequent tsunami. A similar pattern was observed during Chile’s 1960 earthquake, the most severe ever registered in the world, when the ground moved with such velocity that some properties disappeared into the sea and other land areas emerged.
The January 2010 earthquake in Haiti produced an estimated 20 million cubic meters of debris in 35 seconds, even though significant land displacements were not registered. From the point of view of the cadastre, however, these two disasters had very different impacts. If the urban information had been structured in thematic layers and integrated in a GIS platform, the earthquake in Haiti would have affected the construction layer and several representative building types would have disappeared. In Chile, the construction layer was modified mainly by the tsunami, but the land itself was affected by the spatial displacement and shifts resulting from the telluric movement. Fast-moving natural disasters like these change the environment and people’s lives radically, and have important implications for government priorities, including definitions and implementation of land policy, both before and after such events.
Predictable climate change events, underground contamination, air pollution, and other such data can be mathematically modeled before they happen. By connecting these models with the spatial databases of a 3D cadastre, it is possible to create prospective 3D scenarios of the potential impacts and identify the neighborhoods and properties that could be affected. Unpredictable phenomena such as earthquakes and sudden flooding can be represented much more quickly if the measurement instruments tracked by environmental institutions or government agencies are connected to the spatial databases of 3D cadastres. The spatial representation of the impact can be made available soon after the event.
In sum, the 3D representation can help define preventive land policies to address predictable changes and also enable the readjustment of current land policies after unpredictable natural events.
3D Networks and Infrastructure
Infrastructure and transport networks move through 3D parcels in different ways and allow the city to remain active and fluid. Some of these networks are invisible by nature, such as the microwaves of cellular phones; others are invisible because they are located underground, such as infrastructure tunnels and pipes; and others are easily visible because they are built on the surface, such as roadways or utility lines. Figure 4 illustrates some of the complex spatial intersections that occur in the overlapping layers of infrastructure and transportation networks within 3D parcels.
These spatial relationships among networks and public and private properties, environmental reserves, mineral deposits, water bodies, and other features have been treated inefficiently through 2D cartographic norms, but they require the development of specific, new 3D norms to enforce the social function of property with equity and justice. For example, Article 1.286 of Brazil’s Civil Code states that a landowner is obligated to provide a right of way through her property for cables, pipes, and other underground conduits that serve the public at large and could not be built elsewhere. The law also outlines the need to determine the amount of area affected by public works projects in each parcel and its corresponding value in order to calculate the compensation due to the owner. 3D cadastral records can be an important contribution to facilitating such transactions.
3D Land Market Value
One of the functions of a territorial cadastre is to provide information to determine the value of the parcels with respect to property taxation and urban planning policies. In Latin America, land values generally have been based on ad hoc valuation methods (such as the replacement value of buildings) that use construction data and land values for each cadastre sector (Erba 2008). This practice does not always produce reliable valuations because it is difficult to keep the cadastral databases up-to-date, and the implementation of the valuation methods may be arbitrary from place to place.
An alternative valuation method now being implemented across the region is the use of spatial econometric models to determine property values with the desired level of statistical precision. This is important because land values change across urban space and depend on variables such as urban regulations, environmental restrictions, scenic views, infrastructure, and other features associated with the property, such as underground or airborne elements.
The most modern GIS platforms developed for 3D cadastres even allow the assessor to “stand” inside a building at any given altitude before the building is constructed. The software allows the assessor to see the view that will be available from the window of the dwelling, identify relationships to other buildings, perceive the natural landscape, and note other relevant characteristics of the property. Such data help determine the relevance of externalities to the value of the property, an aspect often neglected in valuations based on traditional replacement value methods.
Figure 5 shows a perspective of the surface gradient of land values per square meter obtained from sample points corresponding to properties for sale. The surface has the same coordinate reference system (x, y) as the entire city. Even when the spatial third dimension (z) is not related to the geographic space, it is possible to put the surface under the legal virtual city (as shown in figure 2) and analyze the spatial correlation between the land value per square meter and relevant urban regulations. Such an application is another possible contribution to the development of land policies based on 3D cadastre techniques.
Conclusions
While the technologies used to measure, represent, and store information are now evolving toward 3D platforms, urban legislation and land policies continue to approach the city as a flat land surface. To visualize the buildings and the restrictions imposed on properties in 3D is a considerable advancement for those responsible for urban decision making. Nevertheless, there is a long way to go before 3D information is integrated as part of urban legislation and property titles.
The consolidation of a 3D cadastre, which registers how 3D parcels intersect with the corresponding legal norms and regulations, would contribute to more effective urban and environmental planning, infrastructure network design, and the prevention of informality by permitting the construction of future scenarios showing the impacts of land policies in space. Changing the term area to space would be a first step in giving urban and environmental legislation a 3D connotation, and would be a simple and relevant way to start the process of introducing this new paradigm. Structuring a 3D property registry is still under development, but when it is established landowners will understand that they own cubic feet instead of only square feet.
About the Author
Diego Alfonso Erba is a fellow at Lincoln Institute of Land Policy where he coordinates distance education programs for the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean. He also researches, publishes, and manages studies on cadastre and GIS applications.
References
Câmara, Gilberto. 2000. http://mundogeo.com/blog/2000/01/01/geometrias-nao-sao-geografias-o-legado-de-milton-santos/
Erba, Diego A. 2008. Catastro e información territorial en América Latina (CD-Rom). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
van Oosterom, Peter. 2011. Preface of the Proceedings 2nd International Workshop on 3D Cadastre. Delft, The Netherlands http://3dcadastres2011.nl/
Acknowledgments
The author thanks these partners and colleagues in the development of research in this field of knowledge: Anamaria Gliesch-Leebmann, Design Concepts 4 You, Seeheim-Jugenheim, Germany; Everton da Silva, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil; João Norberto Destro, Aeroimagem S/A; Igor Bacigaluppi, Regional Government of Bio-Bio, Chile; Sergio Baeriswyl Rada, Municipality of Concepción, Chile; Andrea F. T. Carneiro, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil; Eduardo A. A. Augusto, Brazilian Land Registry Institute (IRIB), São Paulo, Brazil; and Martim Smolka and Anna Sant’Anna of the Program on Latin America and the Caribbean at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
SHARE
Land trusts across the United States differ vastly in terms of age, size of protected acreage, mission, strategy, budget, and context. Audrey Rust, an acknowledged conservation leader and the 2012 Kingsbury Browne Fellow at the Lincoln Institute, is in a unique position to parse the differences between two strikingly distinct yet successful preservation efforts in the American West. She served as president and CEO of the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) in Palo Alto, California, for 24 years until July 2011, and she is now a board member of the American Prairie Reserve (APR) in Bozeman, Montana.
APR is one of the nation’s most ambitious new conservation efforts, aiming to assemble 3.5 million acres and create the largest wildlife complex in the lower 48 states—in Montana, the nation’s fourth largest state with the seventh smallest population (just one million as of 2012). By contrast, POST encompasses only 2 percent of APR’s projected acreage, yet is considered remarkably successful for amassing 70,000 acres of very expensive open space, farms, and parkland in a densely settled region, from San Francisco to Silicon Valley, with more than seven million inhabitants.
Despite their dissimilar profiles, these organizations share a surprising number of similarities. In this Q&A with the Lincoln Institute, Rust compares POST’s and APR’s particular histories and characteristics, based on her first-hand experience with each organization, and offers some universal lessons for all involved in the difficult and challenging work of preserving open space.
Lincoln institute: How did the Peninsula Open Space Trust begin and what is its mission?
Audrey Rust: POST is a 35-year-old, traditional land trust in a dense metropolitan region, which has grown significantly since POST was founded in 1977. It began as a private conservation partner for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a public, tax-supported agency on the San Francisco Peninsula (figure 1). Working on the urban fringe, POST would raise private funds on behalf of the District and take on an occasional land donation project. To this day, all the territory it protects lies within a major metropolitan area.
Given POST’s densely populated location, it was essential from the beginning to immediately include opportunities for low-intensity public recreation and provide exposure to the biodiversity of the peninsula, where within a 12-mile transect one can pass through at least nine distinct ecosystems. POST works to assure a system of interconnected open lands in corridors along the San Francisco Bay, the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the Pacific Coast. No specific number of total acres is contemplated, unless a particular campaign is underway, but giving people a place to experience nature is a driving force.
Lincoln institute: How do the genesis and mission of the American Prairie Reserve compare?
Audrey Rust: Since it was founded in 2002, APR has amassed 274,000 acres but seeks to permanently protect some 3.5 million contiguous acres of short-grass prairie as a wildlife reserve in northeastern Montana—one of only four places on earth where such a conservation effort is possible (figure 2). The idea originated from research done by a group of nonprofit conservation organizations working in the northern Rockies, with science assistance from the World Wildlife Fund at the start.
APR is reintroducing plains bison that are free of cattle gene introgression and intends to develop a sustainable herd of 10,000 animals while restoring other native species including prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, and burrowing owls. APR acquired a lot of land quickly, but it will take decades to reintroduce wildlife and foster significant growth of species populations.
Federal lands form a large part of the wildlife habitat APR is assembling. The Reserve lands are adjacent on the south to the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and on the west to the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, which figures prominently in our nation’s history as part of the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Lincoln institute: What are the key challenges for POST and APR?
Audrey Rust: Funding any conservation work is always the biggest challenge. The first hurdle is identifying potential donors and getting their attention. To do that, you need a clearly articulated vision and the ability to make the project relevant to the potential donor. Validation of the mission from a third respected party is key. You also need some means for the donor to experience the relevant work and feel appropriately included, in addition to a well-developed relationship that results in an appropriate request for support made at the right time.
Lincoln institute: What are the particular funding challenges at POST?
Audrey Rust: In the San Francisco Bay Area, millions of people see and appreciate how proximity to nature enhances their quality of life, but most do not know the role POST plays in assuring this; or, if they do know, they don’t necessarily feel moved to support POST’s work financially. Competition for philanthropic dollars within the small geographic area of Silicon Valley is intense. All the major conservation organizations, plus Stanford University’s powerful fundraising machine, operate in the area.
Fundraising takes a traditional course at POST. There is a well-developed annual giving program that moves many donors to the upper capital gift levels. Many of them are willing to lend their networks to the effort, and because of the successes of the organization and the existing donor list, people feel comfortable and supported by their community when making a gift. POST’s model has also depended on finding and creating public funds and then selling land or easements to a public entity, at or below the price paid by POST, allowing the organization to return donor funds to be used again and again.
POST also faces the challenge of success. Often leadership-level donors are ready to move on to new ideas and new environmental issues, seeing that their personal impact is not as visible as it would be in starting their own new organization. Some donors feel they have done their part, and now it’s someone else’s turn. New top leadership-level donors are as difficult as ever to attract.
Lincoln institute: How do APR’s mission and goals affect its fundraising strategy?
Audrey Rust: APR faces what is often called a “pipeline” problem. As a relatively new organization—and one where the potential donor population is both scattered and at a great distance from the Reserve—finding the right people has required many false starts and unproductive gatherings. It has been difficult to expose potential donors to the project in ways that can build a philanthropic relationship. Although board members are willing, only a few have networks that have proven productive for APR. It’s difficult and expensive to assess the real interest of a potential donor, estimate his or her likely gift level, and develop an ongoing relationship with a person who is geographically removed. As yet, status is not associated with being a supporter, and the enormity of the campaign goal ($300 million to $500 million) dwarfs even million-dollar gifts. Any practical campaign would need to attract a gift of $80 million to $100 million at the top of the fundraising pyramid.
Building a productive leadership-level prospect list is only worthwhile if meetings and relationships can happen. Geography creates difficulties when there are not enough people in one area, and efforts can’t be leveraged. Time is a key element in building the needed relationships.
Because of its rare size and scope, however, APR may have singular appeal to extremely wealthy individuals who, like the Rockefellers decades ago, could create this Reserve with their philanthropy alone. This is the unfulfilled dream of every executive director. Chances are slim, but history shows it is possible. APR’s model has never looked to public funding as a way to leverage private dollars, since the leased public lands are in some measure doing just that.
Another key funding challenge for APR is the scale of the project. Impact comes in increments of 50,000 or 100,000 acres in a landscape where conservation biologists have determined that a mixed-grass prairie would need to be approximately 5,000 square miles (roughly 3.2 million acres) to be a healthy, functioning ecosystem that supports the full complement of native prairie biodiversity.
Lincoln institute: How has the leadership at both organizations handled the funding challenges?
Audrey Rust: At both APR and POST, the first president/executive director, who also served as a board member, had a solid business background but no experience fundraising or running a nonprofit organization. The second board chair of both organizations was a successful venture capitalist and was viewed as a founder. All these leaders were charismatic and well-connected. Last but not least, both founding executive directors had to contribute or lend substantial funds to the organization to keep it afloat.
APR’s founding President Sean Gerrity is still at the helm after ten years, and his passion for conservation is undiminished. The time needed for extensive travel and meeting the financial needs of the organization was more than a full-time job, however, and none of the development professionals he hired could relieve his load. On the premise that potential donors want to meet someone with a title, two years ago Gerrity made a major change in how the organization functions by hiring two managing directors who are able to carry a significant fundraising and content load. The strategy requires regular telephone or in-person meetings to stay aligned on all aspects of the organization, but it’s working. Organizing around the managing director model has allowed APR staff to travel more and develop better donor relationships. Current personnel have been in place for fewer than two years, but they are making progress.
Lincoln institute: How did you weather the fundraising challenge at POST?
Audrey Rust: When POST hired me to replace Founding Executive Director Robert Augsburger in 1986, my first mission was to raise $2 million in a few months in order to exercise an option on a key coastal ranch, POST’s first truly independent project.
I understood the local donor community and had a good deal of experience in fundraising and nonprofit management. I was completely absorbed by the work and the need to meet our financial obligations. Although travel usually wasn’t necessary to raise funds, the proximity of potential donors meant that every weekend, every farmer’s market, every local event was an opportunity to connect. We undertook one major project after another, doing good conservation work and building momentum, but I was exhausted.
To solve this problem, I also found really good staff people. My approach, however, was traditional: Get enough money in the bank to hire adequate staff and ensure one of them was a young lawyer with potential to take on additional responsibilities and leadership. I would continue doing large-gift fundraising as well as oversee key land acquisition strategy and negotiation, and others would take over more of the day-to-day work and administration. The ability to grow the staff and delegate some of the work was a major step forward for me and the organization.
Lincoln institute: What has been POST’s basic approach to land acquisition and how has that affected its financial strategy?
Audrey Rust: Both POST and APR want to connect existing public lands through acquisition of adjacent, privately held property, and both have treated local conservation entities as key allies in the task of preserving biodiversity, providing public access, and creating a larger vision of a protected landscape. Their different basic land conservation strategies, however, lead to very different funding patterns and long-term financial impacts.
POST plans to transfer all the land it protects, and most of it will go into public ownership as federal, state, and county parks or to one of the regional open space districts for its management and permanent protection. Agricultural land, protected by strict conservation easements, is sold to local farmers. POST retains the easements along with an easement endowment fund to assure their monitoring and compliance.
The first project POST undertook in the late 1970s resulted in the gift and subsequent sale (at half the appraised value) of a highly visible property adjacent to the town where a high percentage of potential donors lived. The funds resulting from this sale allowed POST to save some additional lands. However, the organization progressed slowly for nearly a decade, with no real financially sustainable land protection strategy in place.
In 1986, driven by an opportunity to purchase a 1,200-acre coastal ranch, POST optioned the property, which required owner-financing, significant fundraising, and later statewide political action. Success led to the creation of a working capital fund that allowed POST to repeat a similar strategy several times, focusing on prominent and ambitious conservation projects. Gaining a reputation for delivering on its promises, POST transitioned to raising funds in a capital campaign for a much larger inventory of property. Having working capital freed POST to focus on what needed to be done, rather than what could be done.
Lincoln institute: What were the key accomplishments and shortfalls of POST’s strategy?
Audrey Rust: POST was able to build working capital and show donors a leveraged return. Success built on success, and today POST operates with a working capital account of more than $125 million. Protected land was never at any risk of being lost due to financial issues. The type of public funds used, coupled with private gifts, provide further assurances.
Each accomplishment has given POST the confidence to move to another level in direct protection, restoration, and collaboration. Sustainable forestry, affirmative easements on farmland, conservation grazing, and exotic species removal are all now a part of its conservation arsenal.
On the other hand, a broad vision of what the future could hold was never well articulated, as POST essentially worked in an incremental fashion. Stirring the imagination of leadership-level entrepreneurial donors, the primary wealth in the Valley, became more difficult as time went on. It was also difficult for the organization to embrace the restoration and management of land being held for later transfer.
As public funds have begun to dry up, public agencies are less likely to take on the obligation of additional land ownership. POST experiences both the expense of holding the property indefinitely and the inability to sell the land to return capital to its account.
Lincoln institute: What has been APR’s basic approach?
Audrey Rust: APR faces a different situation in Montana, where the privately held ranches are far larger than any parcel in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and their owners control additional vast tracks of federally owned leased land. APR intends to hold these private fee lands and leases in perpetuity. Privately raised endowment funds will be required to ensure the management of these lands.
APR wanted to show from the beginning that it could make real progress on its large conservation vision, despite the lack of funds. APR moved quickly to acquire land and the accompanying leases using owner financing. The leadership of the organization felt putting a stake in the ground was the only way to begin to attract the money it would need to acquire the property that would make up the Reserve. Without sufficient fundraising experience or a developed prospect list, the struggle was enormous. Until recently, only minimal funds were held in reserve, making it extremely stressful to meet financial obligations, especially for debt.
Lincoln institute: What are APR’s key accomplishments and ongoing challenges?
Audrey Rust: Persistence and good work are now paying off. Critical advances include the opportunity to acquire fees and associated leases on a 150,000-acre ranch and in 2012 a very important gift from one of the organization’s largest supporters. APR also began building a high-end “safari camp” to open in 2013 that will allow them to bring leadership-level donors to the prairie, build relationships, and deepen their connection to the land.
The organization has a track record, demonstrating its ability to get things done, and can begin management practices to foreshadow future activity. Reintroducing genetically pure bison is a charismatic example. Extraordinary opportunities for acquiring key pieces of land can now be pursued. Without significant working reserves, however, APR staff and leadership are under great stress to meet their financial obligations. This creates a climate of looking for quick delivery on donations rather than developing the kind of leadership gifts the organization needs most for the long haul. As yet, plans are incomplete for assuring the permanent private protection of the acquired lands. Land that carries owner financing or is especially well priced may be purchased, even though its priority for acquisition may not be high. Raising the necessary endowment funds for the ongoing stewardship of the land has been slow.
Lincoln institute: In conclusion, what are key commonalities between these two very different organizations?
Audrey Rust: POST and APR are at different stages in their organizational growth, and their futures are based on their most obvious differences and track records. However, it is possible to identify similar key elements leading to success:
Both organizations continue to face significant challenges in funding their goals. POST has successfully transitioned to new leadership and is pursuing ever larger and more complex conservation initiatives. Its success has dominated the organization for so long that it is difficult for new philanthropists to find something to “invent” and support. It is a very well-run organization, which leaves little room for the new Silicon Valley elite to provide their trademark “we can do it better” involvement. POST needs to do more to identify and attract those very few top-of-the-pyramid donors. This challenge is especially difficult because government participation has virtually ended, and POST’s three largest donors are no longer making grants, in the $20 million to $50 million range, to this type of conservation. Further, it is difficult to point to an endgame, and, without it, the organization will lose urgency and gift support.
APR is new and exciting. The organization has sought a creative partnership with National Geographic, which produced an hour-long video called The American Serengeti, elevating APR’s mission and bringing with it the national prominence APR needs to raise large gifts in the national arena. It is during this time that key leadership donors must become involved. In all nonprofit organizations, funding pyramids are becoming more and more vertical. Campaigns such as this one often depend upon one or two donors to make gifts equal to half or even two-thirds of the total goal. Without these donors, staff members are worn out by raising money, and the cost of fundraising rises rapidly.
I am convinced that the size, scope, and ability to measure the vision held by an organization are key determinants of success. Donors and the public in general are elevated by the idea that we can change our world. Clearly articulating and promoting that vision is instrumental. POST needs to work on its messaging to better articulate its current vision. APR needs to find more venues to effectively communicate its vision and develop a critical mass of supporters.
Conservation leader Audrey Rust, the 2012 Kingsbury Browne Fellow at the Lincoln Institute, will lecture on “The Peninsula and the Prairie: Regional and Large Landscape Conservation,” at Lincoln House on May 1, 2013, at noon (lunch is free).
SHARE
Shaping the Future of the American West
Summer Waters is the third director of Western Lands and Communities—a joint program established in 2003 by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the Sonoran Institute to inform policy related to the use of land and natural resources in the Intermountain West. Summer has a B.S. in biology from the University of South Florida and an M.S. in civil engineering, with concentrations in environmental and water resources engineering, from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Before joining the Sonoran Institute, she spent 15 years working in urban planning and natural resources for government entities including the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension and the County of San Diego, where she won an Emmy award for coproducing an educational video.
LAND LINES: What attracted you to the challenge of directing this joint program between the Lincoln Institute and the Sonoran Institute?
SUMMER WATERS: The chance to help shape the future of the American West. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy is a thought leader in this realm, and the Sonoran Institute is well known throughout the region for its dedication to collaborative work with local communities and other organizations. Our shared mission is ambitious, but each organization has complementary attributes that make it successful. Our mutual, longstanding commitment gives the joint program depth and flexibility.
LL: Why is this job the right one at the right time for you?
SW: My interest in the natural world led me to study biology as an undergraduate, and my desire for a solutions-oriented career led me back to school for engineering. After graduation, I gravitated toward planning, because it allowed me to work with both the natural and built environments. After gaining professional experience, I began to recognize how the use of land, water, and energy interconnects with economics and community development. And I appreciated Western Lands and Communities’ holistic approach to the challenges facing the region.
LL: Both the Lincoln Institute and the Sonoran Institute have recently undergone leadership changes. What challenges and opportunities does this transition afford you?
SW: Both Stephanie Sklar, the new CEO of the Sonoran Institute, and Lincoln Institute President and CEO George McCarthy are motivated leaders who inspire me personally and professionally. Stephanie is ambitiously embarking on a strategic planning process that will guide the Sonoran Institute through its 25th anniversary as an organization. Her breadth and depth of knowledge inform the process and ensure that we both celebrate and evaluate our work. George McCarthy is a courageous and visionary leader guiding the Lincoln Institute through a similar transition. His appreciation for the West was obvious when he recently visited our Phoenix office. He comprehends the challenges we are facing and the importance of demonstration projects, such as our Colorado River Delta Restoration effort, in shaping the future of this region.
LL: How is Western Lands and Communities contributing to the Sonoran Institute’s effort to restore the ecology and economy of the Colorado River Delta?
SW: Western Lands and Communities supports the implementation of Minute 319, the binational agreement between the United States and Mexico that guides the sharing and delivery of water on the Colorado River under the 1944 treaty through 2017. Perhaps the most significant event resulting from this agreement was the release of a “pulse flow” of 105,000 acre-feet of water into Mexico in the spring of 2014. This intervention was designed to mimic what would have been the Colorado River’s natural flow cycles under spring conditions, when snowmelt from the mountains once ran through what is now seven U.S. states and two countries, ultimately to the Sea of Cortez. This historic effort breathed life into the desiccated delta, and in May 2014 the river reached the sea for the first time in years. In the spring of 2015, we will convene a group of NGO representatives, academic professionals, and agency scientists at the one-year anniversary of this event. Participants will discuss the impact of renewed flows on critical ecosystem functions in the region and evaluate the implications of this temporary agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Through this process, we hope to inform future policies related to the allocation of this precious resource to the natural environment.
LL: I understand this project fits into your broader agenda to conserve large landscapes. Tell us more about that effort.
SW: Public land ownership in the Intermountain West is vast. At first glance, a map of the region depicts a disconnected pattern of various land agencies and managers with very different missions and approaches. Working lands and tribal lands further complicate that scenario. Landscape-scale conservation relies heavily on the full range of people who live within this picture; in order to avoid “random acts of conservation,” and to achieve more coordinated and meaningful results, collaboration among public entities, individual land owners, and tribes is key. Fortunately, Westerners—regardless of political viewpoints, upbringing, or economic status—typically unite around a shared goal of preserving a way of life that is intertwined with the landscapes they inhabit. The way forward involves capitalizing on this shared vision, engaging communities in shaping their own future, and connecting practitioners with stakeholders in a meaningful manner.
LL: How does Western Lands and Communities help communities respond better to the major challenges for the future of the Intermountain West?
SW: The West faces essentially the same challenges as other areas of the United States, but under a unique set of circumstances. We have a growing population, which triggers changing economies and demographics. Both urban and rural areas struggle to balance growth with natural resource protection. Given the sheer scale and grandeur of the natural environment in the West, it is easy to view our vast natural resources as infinite—a misperception that can lead to sprawl and other issues associated with natural resource extraction. Our expansive landscapes also create specific challenges related to transportation, which contributes to climate change—a force that exacerbates all other problems. The joint program assists communities through the development of planning tools, webinars on smart growth and sustainable development topics, and compilations of successful case studies from communities across the West.
LL: Western Lands and Communities is engaged in exploratory scenario planning—a unique approach to long-range planning that explicitly challenges communities to evaluate their proposals against an uncertain future. How is exploratory scenario planning different from traditional planning, and how is it being applied in the West?
SW: Exploratory scenario planning is a process that encourages imagination in the planning process. Through the engagement of stakeholders, community members, and experts, we develop a variety of plausible scenarios and acknowledge the complex forces, such as climate change, that could lead to a significantly different future. We help participants to view their particular issues in terms of the broader social, political, economic, and natural forces that shape communities in general. While some scenarios currently seem more probable or desirable than others, each receives equal consideration throughout the workshops. Most importantly, this process is more flexible, engaging, and dynamic than traditional planning, requiring participants to develop multiple strategies in response to a spectrum of future uncertainties. Western Lands and Communities has helped communities across the West apply this approach to General Plan updates, watershed plan development, and preparation for the economic impacts of changing climate and weather conditions. Ultimately, exploratory scenario planning is designed to help communities adapt to change better by addressing complex issues that are embedded in great uncertainties. The foresight and strategies generated through this process prepare leaders to guide their communities toward a more sustainable future.
LL: What are the special challenges of planning for climate change in the Intermountain West and how have WLC’s approaches recognized those issues?
SW: In the West, climate change affects ecosystems that are predominately arid and often exhibit high variability, compounding problems. In the past, we have built large reservoirs to cope with fluctuating water supplies due to cycles of drought. But that solution is no longer sufficient, as we are seeing droughts of unprecedented severity punctuated by extreme floods. Communities must now tackle issues that could once be left to the federal government. They must determine for themselves how to cope with diminishing water resources, increasing temperatures, migrating ecosystems, and extreme weather. The approach that Western Lands and Communities takes is to help communities identify priorities and develop policies to create resilience.
We have to be cognizant of the fact that neighboring communities can be very polarized when it comes to climate change. While some communities have embraced the reality of it, others hold onto a past way of life that is essential to the character of the region, yet leaves little room for adaptation. The West has large populations of American Indians and Latinos who are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts. We recently began working with urban Latino communities in Arizona to address their disproportionate exposure to the effects of global warming. We do this by convening leaders, crafting messages that resonate with Latino communities, and working with organizations to train community members to educate others on this topic. Every community is a little different, so we blend replicable methods with adaptive management.
LL: The scope of Western Lands and Communities’ work has widened considerably since it started with an exclusive focus on the needs, challenges, and opportunities for state trust lands. What is the significance of that original mission and the resulting relationship, built over time, with state trust land managers?
SW: Historically, state trust lands have been poorly understood by the general public and natural resource professionals alike, particularly with respect to their fiduciary responsibilities. People rely on state trust lands for their livelihoods, as do children and young adults who need access to quality public education. Here in Arizona, we have seen unprecedented cuts to funding for public schools and universities in recent years. Our work has brought greater understanding of state trust lands as a source of funding for public schools and as natural systems with important biological functions that need to be protected. Mitigation banking and land exchanges help to integrate state trust lands into the broader context of large landscape conservation and sustainable development. But most state trust lands managers face regulatory challenges when they try to implement conservation practices. Reform is necessary to remove barriers that hinder implementation of the full array of practices that provide for both conservation and profit.
The economic and environmental benefits of state trust lands will continue to be significant. Ultimately, our commitment to western communities through our work with state trust lands will remain intact. Although the focus of the program may change as states encounter new and different challenges, the need to educate people about the state trust land mandate to create value for the trust beneficiaries will remain constant in the years to come.
SHARE
Una versión más actualizada de este artículo está disponible como parte del capítulo 6 del libro Perspectivas urbanas: Temas críticos en políticas de suelo de América Latina.
La descentralización del estado, el crecimiento de las empresas y la participación comunitaria en los asuntos públicos, están presentando nuevos retos para el desarrollo de las instituciones enfocadas en las políticas de tierras y su implementación en a través de América Latina. Los alcaldes y consejos locales están asumiendo nuevas responsabilidades en las áreas de protección ambiental, transporte urbano, infraestructura básica, financiamiento local, servicios sociales y desarrollo económico. Al mismo tiempo, las empresas y organizaciones civiles encuentran nuevas vías para asegurar la atención pública de sus exigencias mediante el urbanismo participativo, la administración de presupuestos, la cofinanciación y el control a nivel local.
De este modo, la descentralización y participación democrática están construyendo un medio en el cual las alianzas publico-privadas pueden desarrollar proyectos conjuntos de interés común tanto para individuos como para el gobierno. Sin embargo, a muchas instituciones les falta mucho para adaptarse totalmente a sus nuevos papeles de planificación, regulación y evaluación.
Las culturas de apatía y desconfianza hacia el gobierno arraigadas desde hace mucho tiempo, deben transformarse en una confianza común capaz de movilizar las mejores tradiciones comunitarias de los latinoamericanos. El patronazgo político y económico y la corrupción del estado, deben reemplazarse por responsabilidad política y administrativa. Leyes municipales, de contratación y de administración obsoletas aún restringen la capacidad tanto de los gobiernos locales como de la sociedad civil de interactuar creativamente por medio de arreglos contractuales y de cofinanciación.
Los retos institucionales y los dilemas de políticas que actualmente enfrenta el Área Metropolitana de San Salvador (AMSS) ilustran las transformaciones que ocurren a lo largo de la región. Después de años de guerra civil, los salvadoreños firmaron un acuerdo de paz en 1992 que proporcionó un marco de competencia real entre los partidos políticos y estimuló una participación más activa por parte de las empresas, las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONGs) y las organizaciones comunitarias. La AMSS comprende varias municipalidades, algunas de ellas dirigidas por alcaldes de partidos de oposición al gobierno central. El cuerpo coordinador del AMSS es el Consejo de Alcaldes, que a su vez es dirigido por la Oficina Metropolitana de Planificación.
Con asistencia técnica de ONGs internacionales, la AMSS ha preparado un plan integral de desarrollo. Instrumentos contemporáneos de planificación urbana tales como la macrozonificación, los impuestos a la propiedad de tasa variable, la recuperación de plusvalías para la protección del medio ambiente, los consorcios público-privados y los coeficientes de uso de suelo están siendo considerados en la implementación de políticas de tierra, de desarrollo y de protección del medio ambiente. De hecho, los salvadoreños tienen el apoyo de varios centros de investigación que están familiarizados con el uso e impacto de estos y otros instrumentos en otras partes del mundo. Actualmente, su necesidad fundamental es movilizar a los protagonistas metropolitanos, tanto públicos como privados, en dirección a políticas comunes y desarrollar instrumentos compartidos para su aplicación.
Cerca del final, PRISMA, una prominente ONG salvadoreña y centro urbano de investigación, invitó al Instituto Lincoln a desarrollar un taller conjunto sobre herramientas de administración urbana, mecanismos de coordinación intergubernamental para áreas metropolitanas e iniciativas público-privadas para ciudades sustentables. El taller, llevado a cabo en El Salvador en octubre, contó con la participación de representantes de alta jerarquía en el gobierno central, así como alcaldes, funcionarios de planificación y otras autoridades del AMSS; así como representantes de asociaciones de construcción y desarrollo y algunas instituciones y organizaciones comunitarias.
Los oradores del Instituto Lincoln presentaron experiencias de Taiwan, Filipinas, México y otros países de América Latina que destacaron las políticas e instrumentos capaces de armonizar los intereses de diversos inversionistas urbanos y coordinar varios niveles de gobierno para el uso de la tierra y objetivos de desarrollo urbano. Los salvadoreños explicaron sus preocupaciones inmediatas, como la falta de coordinación intergubernamental para proteger el ambiente urbano, las discontinuidades en las medidas políticas, arbitrariedades a todos los niveles del gobierno e incertidumbres legales y administrativas.
Los participantes del taller concluyeron que para fomentar el nuevo marco legal e institucional que busca el AMSS, los salvadoreños necesitan ampliar las discusiones a otros protagonistas urbanos. También necesitan continuar trabajando con instituciones como el Instituto Lincoln, que tienen la confianza y credibilidad para presentar políticas de administración de tierra reconocidas internacionalmente y pueden ayudar a construir consenso entre intereses públicos y privados.
Mario Lungo es investigador en PRISMA, el Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación y Medio Ambiente; Alejandra Mortarini es la directora de los programas para Latinoamérica y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln; y el abogado colombiano Fernando Rojas, es miembro visitante del instituto este año.
SHARE
As sprawling, low-density development patterns consume thousands of acres of natural habitat, the force of urban growth is increasingly bumping up against the need to protect biodiversity. The fastest growing states and regions in the South and West are also those with high numbers of endemic species, and species endangered or threatened with extinction.
One tool that has emerged for reconciling species-development conflicts is the habitat conservation plan (HCP). Authorized under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), HCPs allow for limited “take” of listed species in exchange for certain measures to protect and restore habitat. These plans vary in their geographical scope from a single parcel or landowner to large areas involving many landowners and multiple governmental jurisdictions.
The HCP mechanism grew out of a controversy over development plans on San Bruno Mountain in the Bay Area of California that threatened several species of butterflies, including the federally listed mission blue. A collaborative planning process generated a biological study of the butterflies’ habitat needs and a conservation plan that allowed some development in designated nodes while setting aside about 87 percent of the butterfly habitat as permanent open space. The HCP also included a funding component, procedures for carefully monitoring development and minimizing its impact, and a long-term program of habitat restoration.
The positive experience of San Bruno led to a 1982 amendment to the ESA specifically allowing HCPs. Since then, their use has grown slowly but steadily. About 40 plans have been approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and another 150 are in progress, most of them initiated in the last five years.
The Typical HCP Process
Regional habitat conservation plans usually follow a similar process. They start with the formation of a steering committee with representation from the environmental community, landowners and developers, local governments, and state and federal resource management agencies, among others. Frequently, consultants are hired to prepare background biological and land use studies as well as the actual plan and accompanying environmental documentation. The content of these plans can vary substantially depending on the species and potential threats at issue, but most create habitat preserves through fee-simple acquisition or land dedication. Plans also include provisions for habitat management, ecological restoration, and research and monitoring. Much of the deliberation in preparing a plan centers on how much habitat must be preserved, the boundaries and configuration of proposed preserves, how funds will be generated to finance the plan, and which entities or organizations will have management responsibility for the protected habitat once secured.
While the HCP process has encountered problems, the experience to date suggests it can be a viable and constructive mechanism for resolving species-development conflicts. For the development community, the stick of ESA brings them to the table and keeps them there, realizing that without a strong plan any development might be jeopardized. For the environmental community, the plan represents a way to generate funds to acquire habitat that would be difficult to raise otherwise. The HCP process, thus, provides a useful pressure valve under the ESA–a tool to provide flexibility in what is frequently criticized as being an overly rigid and inflexible law.
Successes and Concerns
From the perspective of preserving biodiversity, the plans, even those not officially adopted or approved, have lead to the acquisition of important habitat. The Coachella Valley HCP in California sets aside three preserves totaling nearly 17,000 acres of desert habitat to protect the fringe-toed lizard. Other plans preserve biologically rich hardwood hammocks in the Florida Keys, desert tortoise habitat in Nevada, and forested habitat for the northern spotted owl in California. The ambitious Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan in Austin, Texas, would protect more than 75,000 acres of land, including a newly created 46,000 acre national wildlife refuge. Though this plan has encountered political and financial obstacles, more than 20,000 acres have already been secured.
One of the key concerns about HCPs is the effectiveness of their conservation strategies, especially whether the amount of habitat set aside is sufficient to ensure the survival of threatened species. The long-term ecological viability of preserves is another problem, because many will become mere “postage stamps” surrounded by development. These concerns suggest that more habitat should be protected, that preserves should be configured in larger, regional blocks, and that plans should seek to protect multiple rather than single species within broad ecosystem functions. The Balcones example suggests a positive direction for future HCPs in its emphasis on a regional, multi-species approach, including endangered migratory songbirds, cave-adapted invertebrates and plant species.
Another criticism of HCPs is that they have failed to change the ways we allow development to occur because they generally accept the current pattern of low-density sprawl and wasteful land consumption. In addition, it often takes four or five years before a plan can be prepared and approved. Even given that seemingly long timeframe, plans are often based on limited biological knowledge.
One of the most difficult issues in the HCP process is funding. Habitat acquisition in fast-urbanizing areas is extremely expensive. The Coachella Valley plan cost $25 million; the Balcones plan could cost more than $200 million. Most plans are funded through a combination of federal, state and local funds, with some private funding. At the local level the plans usually impose a mitigation fee assessed on new development in habitat areas ranging from a few hundred dollars per acre to the $1950 per acre in the case of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP in Southern California.
Ideas for future funding sources include the creation of habitat acquisition revolving funds (similar to state revolving funds for financing local sewage treatment plant construction) and the use of special taxing districts designed to capture land value increases of property located adjacent to habitat preserves. Greater reliance needs to be placed on less expensive alternatives than fee-simple acquisition, such as transfers of development rights, tradable conservation credits, mandatory clustering and other development controls.
The Future of HCPs
The considerable progress in habitat conservation made through this mechanism to balance development and conservation could be halted if current proposals in Congress to substantially weaken ESA prevail. Clearly it is the “teeth” of ESA that gets opposing parties to the bargaining table. Without a strong ESA, there will be little reason to expect this form of collaborative habitat conservation to occur.
The experience to date suggests that flexibility does exist under current law, and that the problems encountered with HCPs do require some fine tuning. The challenge is to make the HCP process an even more effective tool for conserving biodiversity. At the same time, if habitat conservation is incorporated into local comprehensive plans, then new development can be steered away from important habitat areas and public investment decisions can minimize potential species-development conflicts.
Timothy Beatley is chair of the Department of Urban and Environmental Planning in the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia and the author of Habitat Conservation Planning: Endangered Species and Urban Growth, University of Texas Press, 1994. He spoke at the Institute’s May 1995 meeting of the Land Conservation in New England Study Group.
Additional information in printed newletter:
Map: Balcones Canyonlands, Austin, Texas. Source: Adapted from maps by Butler/EH&A Team, City of Austin Environmental and Conservation Services, Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan, Preapplication Draft, Austin, 1992
SHARE
Peter Pollock, FAICP, is the Ronald Smith Fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Since July 2006 he has been working with the Department of Planning and Urban Form to manage the Institute’s joint venture projects with the Sonoran Institute and the Public Policy Research Institute of the Universtiy of Montana.
