Topic: Environment

Workshop on Emerging Innovations in Conservation Finance

September 27, 2016 - September 29, 2016

Santiago, Chile

Offered in English

Watch the Recording


It is a particularly important and auspicious time for the land conservation community in Chile, and across the Americas, to consider the distance traveled over the past several decades and the tremendous challenges they will face over the balance of the twenty-first century. The significance of the moment in Chile is underscored by two ongoing initiatives:

  1. The passage by the Chilean Congress of the Derecho Real de Conservación, which now allows private landowners to protect their land in perpetuity, and
  2. A project now being negotiated by the Government of Chile and Tompkins Conservation that may protect as many as 10 million acres as new or expanded National Parks.

Even in the context of these historic intitiatives, the challenges facing the land conservation communities in Chile and around the globe are very large and complex. Massive amounts of human and financial capital will be required over the remainder of the twenty-first century to fund land conservation initiatives for a range of purposes, including green and gray infrastructure necessary to address:

  • Very rapidly growing demand for renewable energy resources, requiring increased levels of diligence to assure that developers will properly mitigate environmental impacts
  • Accelerating sea-level rise and increasingly intense storm activity, and
  • Changing quantity and quality of fresh water available to human and natural ecosystems leading to increased demand for desalination and water treatment facilities.

Governments alone will be unlikely to supply the trillions of dollars of capital needed to adequately address these and myriad associated challenges to natural systems. It will take some of the world’s best talent, most inventive technologies, and not least, financial ingenuity, coming from the public, private, NGO and academic sectors, to help pass along to future generations the green and biodiverse biosphere now facing ongoing existential threats.

The aim of this workshop is to build on and sharpen concepts that are making, or have the potential to make, a substantial impact on conservation finance in the Western Hemisphere and beyond. These objectives, in turn, serve the larger mission of the International Land Conservation Network (ILCN), which is to connect organizations and people around the world that are accelerating private and civic sector action to protect and steward land and water resources. 

Partners of this workshop include: Las Majadas de Pirque, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies (DRCLAS), Harvard University, Fundacion Robles de Cantillana, Templado, and Que Pasa.


Details

Date
September 27, 2016 - September 29, 2016
Location
Las Majadas de Pirque
Santiago, Chile
Language
English

Keywords

Climate Mitigation, Conservation, Environmental Management, Land Use Planning, Municipal Fiscal Health, Public Finance, Resilience, Value Capture, Water

City Farms on CLTs

How Community Land Trusts Are Supporting Urban Agriculture
Jeffrey Yuen, April 1, 2014

Despite the growing popularity of urban agriculture, many city farms continue to face the challenge of insecure land tenure and overly restrictive public policies. Some researchers and policy makers have identified the need for an updated framework for the movement that would support urban farmers as they navigate land use, zoning, and property tax regulations. Community land trusts (CLTs) are contributing to this structure, providing a locally controlled approach to land use that fosters community activism and engagement while responding to evolving market conditions and neighborhood needs.

The State of Urban Agriculture

“Urban agriculture” refers to both commercial and noncommercial activities, within or near a city center, that produce food and non-food items to serve an urban area (Mougeot 2000). While city farms and community gardens are often the public face of urban agriculture, small-scale backyard growing spaces and edible landscapes also yield a significant portion of production.

Urban agriculture has afforded communities diverse environmental, economic, and social benefits, including improved nutrition, heightened food security, ecological restoration, the creation of open spaces, and opportunities for education and job skills training (Bellows, Brown, and Smit 2004; Kaufman and Bailkey 2000; Smit, Ratta, and Nasr 1996). City farming also has the unique ability to bring together diverse populations, build social capital, and promote empowerment through community building (Staeheli et al. 2002). In legacy cities—older industrial centers that have suffered from sustained job and population losses and ensuing financial, social, and political changes—urban agriculture has been extensively used as both an interim and a permanent development tool to strengthen social cohesion and catalyze progress in disinvested neighborhoods. The process of repurposing vacant and abandoned lots into growing spaces can be a relatively quick and inexpensive strategy that yields highly visible impacts and improves public safety.

Given these wide-ranging benefits, urban agriculture has enjoyed a renaissance as a social movement. In recent years, some cities and local governments have updated public policies to make them more supportive of urban agricultural practices. The movement is not without its challenges, however, including environmental safety concerns and insecure land tenure (Brown et al. 2002). Land insecurity in particular is frequently cited as the greatest barrier to the implementation and sustainability of city farming (Lawson 2004; Yuen 2012). A 1998 national survey of more than 6,000 urban agriculture sites found that 99.9 percent of gardeners saw land tenure as both a challenge and a vital element to the future success of the movement (ACGA 1998).

In these instances, land insecurity occurs when the cost of market-rate land exceeds the income generated from agricultural activities. Ultimately, the hidden hand of the market presses for the allocation of land according to its highest and best use. Due to this dominant conceptualization, planners and policy makers have historically viewed urban agriculture as an interim measure to keep a site active until higher and better uses can be developed. Scholars note, however, that urban agriculture sites can produce many positive spillover effects related to public health and community wellness, and these benefits are difficult to monetize (Schmelzkopf 1995). Traditional exchange valuations of land rarely reflect a community garden’s contributions to healthy food education and the physical wellness of residents. This disconnect between social worth and market values has been the impetus for both public and private interventions.

Local governments typically respond by purchasing tracts of urban agricultural land, effectively insulating them from speculative market forces while also holding them off the tax rolls. While this public sector approach has been critical, it sometimes fails to provide long-term security, especially when administrative changes in local governments lead to shifts in priorities and strategies, as when New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani proposed to auction off 850 community gardens across the city in 1999. Therefore, researchers have focused on the need for alternative strategies that can complement public sector efforts to support the security of land for urban agriculture.

CLTs as a Framework for Urban Agriculture

A CLT is a nonprofit, community-based corporation with a place-based membership, a democratically elected board, and a charitable commitment to the use and stewardship of land on behalf of the local population. CLTs typically retain permanent ownership of land and lease it to individuals or organizations that own the improvements upon the land, such as residences, commercial buildings, and agricultural or recreational facilities. The CLT model offers a way to retain ownership of land stewarded by and for the community, so that the highest or best use of property can remain community-defined, community-controlled, and adaptable to changing conditions.

Although CLTs have focused on the development and stewardship of affordable housing in recent decades, the movement originated in response to agricultural land issues in rural Georgia during the 1960s. Even earlier agricultural influences included the kibbutzim in Israel, the Gramdan villages in India, and the Garden Cities of Ebenezer Howard (Davis 2010). The strength of the CLT model lies in its ability to balance local land control and long-term, stewarded development that addresses changing community needs. Thus, CLTs are well positioned to tackle a diversity of land uses through comprehensive development strategies. Legacy cities may be especially ripe for CLT engagement, as the widespread availability of vacant land has spawned a flourishing urban agriculture movement, but with less emphasis on long-term land security.

Our research found that CLTs have supported urban agriculture projects in three distinct ways: by securing access to agricultural land, providing programmatic support, and engaging directly in food production.

 


 

Box 1: 2012 Survey of U.S. CLTs

In the fall of 2012, the National Community Land Trust Network (NCLTN), in partnership with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, commissioned a study of urban agricultural and commercial projects conducted by U.S. CLTs (Rosenberg and Yuen 2012). The inquiry examined the role of CLTs in implementing nonresidential projects and assessed the benefits and challenges of such ventures. Researchers distributed a web-based survey to the 224 organizations in the NCLTN database; 56 CLTs (25 percent) completed the questionnaire, and 37 CLTs reported agriculture activities. Twelve CLTs were selected for in-depth data collection, which captured a diversity of projects with varying levels of success in different locations. A case study approach was used for data collection, which included gathering organizational documents and secondary sources as well as interviewing CLT staff. The final working paper is supported by an additional project directory resource that highlights the projects and organizations in the study (Yuen and Rosenberg 2012).

This article draws on that research to examine the benefits, challenges, and considerations for urban agriculture activities by CLTs. It also explores how such interventions can support comprehensive community development efforts, particularly in legacy cities.

 


 

Securing Access to Agricultural Land

The core competencies of CLTs best lend themselves to the task of securing growing space. A central mission of CLTs is to secure land for community development opportunities. To carry out this role, CLTs have utilized diverse tenure arrangements, including fee-simple ownership, ground leases, easements, and deed restrictions (table 1). These arrangements are not mutually exclusive; organizations can employ multiple techniques to secure land both within and across agricultural projects.

Fee-Simple Ownership

Fee-simple ownership allows a CLT to hold the greatest number of sticks in the bundle of ownership rights and provides a high level of land security, as long as it meets all mortgage payments and tax obligations. For example, Dudley Neighbors Incorporated (DNI), a CLT in Roxbury, Massachusetts, redeveloped the contaminated site of a former auto garage into the 10,000-square-foot Dudley Greenhouse, which functions both as a commercial farm and a community growing space. DNI secured the land through fee-simple ownership and leases the greenhouse structure at a nominal charge to a food-based nonprofit that handles all agricultural programming and maintenance. Harry Smith, Director of Sustainability and Economic Development at DNI, notes, “Growing food is a whole different thing, and we are not looking to take that role.”

Ground Leases

While fee-simple ownership is an uncomplicated, highly secure tool, it is often prohibitively expensive for CLTs to purchase urban land outright for food production. Given this challenge, some CLTs have utilized ground leases to secure growing land. The Southside CLT (SCLT), for instance, has a 10-year ground lease with the State of Rhode Island on a 20-acre farm in Cranston. In turn, the Southside CLT manages the farm as the master tenant and subleases plots to seven start-up farmers at nominal rates. The affordability and security of the ground lease creates opportunities for young farmers to incubate new businesses and participate in the local food system. A strong ground lease, with rigorous standards for performance and conditions for renewal, can provide comparable or greater security than fee-simple ownership. However, longer-term ground leases can be challenging to draft and implement, especially when the title-holding entity desires long-term flexibility.

Conservation Easements

CLTs have also secured access to land through conservation easements, or voluntary restrictions that permanently limit the uses of the land. Most commonly, the CLT holds an easement donated by a private owner. The private owner retains title and can even sell the grounds to another party without compromising land security, as the conservation easement ensures long-term access to the agricultural space. Easements can also reduce the management burden on the titleholder, as the recipient of the easement often provides land stewardship services as part of the exchange. This strategy can financially benefit titleholders, who receive local and federal tax benefits for donating conservation easements. While easements can effectively sustain access to growing space, the relatively high legal cost may be expensive, especially for smaller tracts.

Deed Restrictions

Deed restrictions can effectively place limitations on the uses of land and are often tied to specific funding sources. While a deed restriction can ensure that land is reserved for a specific use, it does not necessarily offer secure tenure for a specific grower or farmer. Further, deed restrictions are effective only when all parties and external agents choose to enforce the contract. Each tenure arrangement has relative strengths and weaknesses and is best utilized when tailored to a project-specific context. In Wisconsin, for instance, the Madison Area CLT was required to grant a deed restriction to the City of Madison as a condition for funding the Troy Gardens mixed-use development site. A deed restriction was placed over a portion of the site, limiting uses to agricultural and conservation projects. The CLT’s failure to abide by the terms of the deed restriction, however, would trigger immediate repayment of all subsidy funds provided by the city.

Programmatic Support

As the task of securing agricultural land can be very challenging, it may not be a suitable undertaking for every organization or community. Some CLTs have supported urban agricultural efforts through other means, such as program management, technical assistance, and other agricultural services. In Georgia, for example, the Athens Land Trust is a dual-mission housing and open space land trust that has engaged in urban agriculture exclusively through program assistance. Athens Land Trust chose to take on this role because of the high holding costs associated with property taxation policies in Georgia, which assesses CLT land at the unrestricted market value. The Athens Land Trust partners with public- and private-sector landowners to provide support for local agricultural projects. For instance, the Athens Land Trust staff worked with the Hill Chapel Baptist Church congregation to design a community garden on church-owned land and provided support services, such as testing and tilling of the soil, organizing workdays, and providing plant materials and instructional gardening workshops.

Agricultural Production

Finally, some CLTs have participated in agricultural production, directly and actively farming land. For example, the Southside CLT operates a three-quarter-acre commercial farm in Providence, Rhode Island, growing greens and selling produce directly to local restaurants. Many CLTs support agricultural production indirectly as well, by providing residential properties where the residents themselves grow food in backyard gardens. Hence, many CLTs have unknowingly supported urban agriculture for years, simply by offering affordable and secure access to tillable land in cities. Some groups, such as DNI, specifically design larger home ownership lots to enable opportunities for backyard urban gardening. Harry Smith of DNI explained, “As we did our community planning, people were very clear that they wanted to see open spaces and attention paid to the residents’ quality of life. We are trying to build [agriculture] into the housing itself.” In this way, the scope of CLT agricultural production can also include innovative design features, such as edible landscapes, food forests, and other permaculture concepts that are intentionally and systematically incorporated into a development plan.

Benefits of CLT-Supported Urban Agriculture

Ultimately, the study found mutual benefits between urban agriculture and CLTs. City farms enhance the value of CLTs by helping organizations expand their development vision to include a more comprehensive set of neighborhood needs and priorities. All communities have a variety of needs beyond affordable housing, and agricultural projects can create linkages to other key issues, including food security, health education, vacant land remediation, and neighborhood safety. Agricultural projects can even be seen as neighborhood amenities, potentially increasing demand for nearby CLT properties or residences in the conventional market. For example, the Church Community Housing Corporation (CCHC) developed the Sandywoods Farm project in Tiverton, Rhode Island, to include a mix of residential, agricultural, and arts-related programming. The CCHC initially marketed the development solely as an arts community, but prospective residents expressed strong interest in the community garden and in farmland preservation. Consequently, CCHC rebranded the project as an “art and agriculture” development. Brigid Ryan, senior project manager of CCHC, explained, “The agriculture has taken off much more than we ever thought it would. The garden is actually drawing some people [to the rental housing units]. They never thought their kids would be able to grow their own food.”

Beneficial connections between agriculture and housing were also present at DNI’s Dudley Greenhouse. Harry Smith of DNI notes, “The project certainly helps the marketability of our homes. People are not just getting a house, they are getting a community, and it’s based on fresh, locally grown food.”

Challenges for CLT-Supported Urban Agriculture

Despite the benefits, CLTs implementing agricultural projects still face many challenges. In particular, financial profitability continues to be a major struggle across the entire urban agriculture sector, as revenues generated from produce sales are relatively modest, even in commercial operations. The Southside CLT covers only 8 percent of its operating expenses through commercial produce sales to local restaurants. Additional revenue sources, such as membership fees and seedling sales, bring the CLT’s earned income to only 20 percent of its expenses. CLTs continue to rely heavily on grant funding to make up the difference.

A second potential challenge is that some projects require a high level of agricultural knowledge and may test the capacity and experience of CLT staff. Even Athens Land Trust, which has staff experienced in agricultural land preservation and growing techniques, acknowledged the initial difficulties in learning the nuances of local zoning codes related to commercial agriculture. As a result, some of the CLT’s pipeline projects were delayed until workable zoning solutions could be found. The risk is compounded for commercial agricultural projects that require significant understanding of processing and distribution systems and local market conditions. At Sandywoods Farm, for example, the CCHC initially planned to use preserved farmland for livestock and cattle grazing, only to discover that the sole Rhode Island butchering facility had closed. The nearest facility was across the state line in Massachusetts, making it prohibitively expensive to process meat. Brigid Ryan, senior project manager at CCHC, noted, “When you end up having to learn these specialty niches, it becomes so important to find partners who know what they are talking about.” Given the challenges and potential pitfalls, CLTs need to consider the following issues to improve the feasibility and sustainability of agricultural projects.

Community Engagement

As community-based organizations, CLTs should always be driven by neighborhood needs and concerns. However, strong community planning processes are particularly vital to the success of urban agriculture, where CLTs often rely on local residents and partners to carry out agricultural production. Harry Smith of DNI emphasizes this point: “I would say the work of a CLT is not just to manage the properties and get more land into the trust, but to really engage the community in what they want besides housing—whether that’s commercial operations, or a greenhouse, or agricultural land.” Further, CLT engagement around agricultural projects can catalyze broader community organizing efforts and help residents push for more supportive public policies.

Organizational Assessment

CLTs can support nonresidential projects in a variety of ways, and organizations should systematically assess internal capacities as well as local stakeholders who could serve as potential partners on projects. In this way, CLTs can develop complementary collaborations and build on existing assets and capacities in the community. A CLT that lacks growing experience can support urban agriculture in alternate ways to better align with local partners, by securing land, helping to develop urban agriculture zoning codes, or serving as a fiscal agent for grant funding.

Managing Risk

CLTs should minimize their financial risk in agricultural projects, especially given the modest revenues and future uncertainties associated with food-related grant funding. In response, some CLTs have front-loaded anticipated capital expenses owing to agriculture projects. Similarly, CLTs can manage risk exposure by avoiding debt financing on agricultural projects. Several CLTs have found debt service to be extremely challenging, given the modest revenues from produce sales and the nominal lease fees that CLTs typically charge for agricultural land. For instance, DNI was able to acquire land and construct the Dudley Greenhouse without incurring long-term debt, while its local property tax–exempt status allowed for minimal holding costs. The resulting low-risk financial structure became critically important when DNI was unable to secure its initial greenhouse tenant. Even though the greenhouse was subsequently vacant for nearly five years, DNI was well positioned to absorb the unexpected vacancy loss.

Conclusion

While the urban agriculture movement has gained much momentum in recent years, it still needs coherent, long-term strategies to protect growing spaces against speculative market forces. The fundamental relationship between land and community is at stake. Within the urban agriculture movement, land insecurity highlights the pressing need for a reconceptualization of land as a finite, shared resource that should be held in stewardship to meet the requirements of present and future communities. Further, the notion of the highest and best use needs to be expanded to include nonfinancial outcomes and avenues for substantive community engagement. CLTs are ideally suited to tackle these critical issues and, in doing so, can help community development processes become more inclusive, equitable, and responsive to changing local conditions.

 

About the Author

Jeffrey Yuen, M.S., is a CLT researcher, practitioner, and enthusiast who serves on the board of the Essex Community Land Trust. He works as the Impact Assessment Manager at New Jersey Community Capital, in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

 


 

Resources

ACGA (American Community Gardening Association). 1998. National Community Gardening Survey: 1996. http://www.communitygarden.org/docs/learn/cgsurvey96part1.pdf

Bellows, A., K. Brown, and J. Smit. 2004. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food Security Coalition’s North American Initiative on Urban Agriculture. http://community-wealth.org/content/health-benefits-urban-agriculture

Brown, K., M. Bailkey, A. Meares-Cohen, J. Nasr, and P. Mann (eds.). 2002. “Urban Agriculture and Community Food Security in the United States: Farming from the City Center to the Urban Fringe.” Urban Agriculture Committee of the Community Food Security Coalition.

Davis, J. E. 2010. “Origins and Evolution of the Community Land Trust in the United States.” In The Community Land Trust Reader, edited by J. E. Davis, 3–47. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Kaufman, J., and M. Bailkey. 2000. “Farming Inside Cities: Entrepreneurial Urban Agriculture in the United States.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Lawson, L. 2004. “The Planner in the Garden: A Historical View of the Relationship of Planning to Community Garden Programs.” Journal of Planning History 3(2): 151–176.

Mougeot, L. 2000. “Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks.” In Growing Cities, Growing Food, Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda, edited by N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Guendel, U. Sabel Koschella, and H. de Zeeuw. DSE, Feldafing.

Rosenberg, G., and J. Yuen. 2012. “Beyond Housing: Urban Agriculture and Commercial Development by Community Land Trusts.” Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Schmelzkopf, K. 1995. “Urban Community Gardens as Contested Space.” Geographical Review 85(3): 364–381.

Smit, J., A. Ratta, and J. Nasr. 1996. Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and Sustainable Cities. New York: United Nations Development Programme. http://jacsmit.com/book.html

Staeheli, L., D. Mitchell, and K. Gibson. 2002. “Conflicting Rights to the City in New York’s Community Gardens.” Geojournal 58(2–3): 197–205.

Yuen, J. 2012. “Hybrid Vigor: An Analysis of Land Tenure Arrangements in Addressing Land Security for Urban Community Gardens.” Masters’ Thesis, Columbia University. http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:147036

Yuen, J., and G. Rosenberg. 2012. National Community Land Trust Network. Non-Residential Project Directory. National Community Land Trust Network http://www.cltnetwork.org/doc_library/FINAL%20Non-residential%20project%20directory%204-26-13.pdf

Ciudad y universidad unidas por la conservación

Douglas L. Givens, July 1, 2013

No es casualidad que la Universidad de Kenyon, en Gambier, Ohio, aparezca en gran cantidad de listas de los más hermosos campus universitarios de los Estados Unidos. Cuando el obispo Philander Chase fundó esta universidad en la cumbre de una colina arbolada en el año 1824, su visión era lograr un entorno rural sereno que promoviera el pensamiento serio y la buena conducta. Durante 189 años, la universidad y todos aquellos que han pasado por ella han valorado este entorno. Los ritmos atemporales que presenta el paisaje permiten obtener vistas agradables que alimentan el espíritu en cada estación, y tanto los estudiantes como el cuerpo docente utilizan las hectáreas rurales adyacentes al campus para realizar trabajos de campo relacionados con diferentes disciplinas, desde la sociología hasta la química, pasando por la biología. Aun mucho después de graduarse, los exalumnos de la universidad recuerdan el campus, los campos y bosques circundantes y el curso serpenteante del río Kokosing, un pintoresco río del estado de Ohio. Como parte integrante de la experiencia en Kenyon, es precisamente este entorno el que atrae el interés de los posibles estudiantes y sus padres, ya que implica mucho más que un conjunto de hermosos bienes naturales: representa el pasado, el presente y el futuro para Kenyon.

En la década de 1820, Chase adquirió originalmente unas 1.600 hectáreas para la universidad y el pueblo de Gambier, además de otras 1.600 hectáreas adicionales, lo que representó una inversión total de US$18.000. No obstante, en los cinco años siguientes a su fundación, Kenyon comenzó a vender las hectáreas en las que había invertido debido a las dificultades económicas que estaba atravesando. Para principios de la década de 1970, los terrenos de la universidad se habían reducido a menos de 300 hectáreas.

Hacia la última década del siglo XX, era evidente que la universidad no podía dar por hecho su encantador entorno natural. En primer lugar, el propietario de un inmueble ubicado sobre el río Kokosing directamente enfrente de la entrada a Kenyon anunció sus planes para establecer un parque para vehículos recreativos. La universidad compró la propiedad por una prima significativa y, posteriormente, compró unas 90 hectáreas adicionales con el fin de detener las propuestas de desarrollar un distrito de negocios a lo largo de la autopista estatal que conduce a Gambier. Al mismo tiempo, el crecimiento y el desarrollo estaban modificando el paisaje en amplios sectores de la zona rural del condado de Knox. A medida que aumentaba la cantidad de subastas de granjas, ventas de terrenos, subdivisiones realizadas de manera atropellada y desarrollos comerciales, quedó claro que debían tomarse medidas al respecto.

La Philander Chase Corporation al rescate

En 1995, la universidad se encontraba en la primera etapa de una campaña de 5 años para recaudar fondos que comprendía una meta de 1 millón de dólares para la “adquisición de terrenos con el fin de preservar el entorno que [la universidad] tanto aprecia”. La primera donación para la preservación provino de un exalumno que, en 1997, visitó el predio un soleado fin de semana de primavera. Después de caminar hasta la cumbre de una colina que daba al valle del río Kokosing para ver el entorno que Kenyon deseaba proteger, este exalumno transfirió 1 millón de dólares a la universidad. Hacia fines de la campaña, en el año 2000, la universidad había recaudado más de 3 millones de dólares, es decir, había triplicado la meta establecida para preservar el espacio abierto.

Esta campaña demostró que los exalumnos y otros donantes consideraban el tema de la conservación del suelo muy importante en sus listas de donaciones benéficas y que la protección de los terrenos alrededor de la universidad continuaría atrayendo la lealtad y las donaciones de los exalumnos de Kenyon. Al mismo tiempo, los programas estatales y federales estaban comenzando a brindar un financiamiento significativo para la conservación del suelo. Debido a que la universidad no reunía los requisitos para recibir dicha asistencia, resultó crucial establecer una entidad especial.

 


 

Recuadro 1: Catalizadores de la conservación

La historia de la Universidad de Kenyon en cuanto a la protección de las granjas y campos circundantes al campus universitario representa un caso ejemplar de una institución académica que cataliza medidas de conservación de paisajes a gran escala. Como tal, esta historia es sólo una entre más de una docena de casos compilados por el Instituto Lincoln en un libro que se publicará próximamente, “Catalizadores de la Conservación”, editado por James Levitt, fellow del Instituto Lincoln. Levitt comenta que “este libro nos dará una idea de las prácticas llevadas a cabo por universidades, facultades y organizaciones de investigación independientes en todo el mundo, que van más allá de su misión de enseñanza e investigación para aplicar su reconocida experiencia en la conservación del suelo, que, en muchos casos, se realiza literalmente ‘in situ’”.

Lo que resulta extraordinario en estos casos no es sólo su impacto sino también la amplitud el alcance de la diversidad organizacional y geográfica que representan. Las organizaciones académicas y de investigación están catalizando estas iniciativas mucho más allá de la base de operaciones de Kenyon en Gambier, Ohio, hacia lugares tan remotos como Australia, las islas caribeñas de Trinidad y Tobago y el bosque boreal canadiense. Las iniciativas, por lo general, abarcan una amplia gama de intereses que representan a los sectores público, privado, sin fines de lucro, y académico y de investigación, e involucran una gran variedad de disciplinas de las ciencias naturales, las ciencias sociales, los estudios profesionales y las humanidades. El estudio y la divulgación de las buenas prácticas en cuanto a la conservación del suelo a gran escala son el tema central de dos proyectos actuales del Instituto Lincoln y sus contrapartes en la iniciativa conjunta formada a tal fin con la Red Profesional para la Conservación de Paisajes a Gran Escala (www.largelandscapenetwork.org) y la Red de Catalizadores de Conservación (www.conservationcatalysts.net).

 


 

En el año 2000, la universidad creó la Philander Chase Corporation (PCC), una entidad sin fines de lucro independiente, con una misión simple: “Preservar y mantener los terrenos agrícolas, los espacios abiertos, los lugares pintorescos y los paisajes característicos que rodean a Universidad de Kenyon y a Gambier, en Ohio”. La estructura de organización de la PCC, consistente en un directorio formado por 15 miembros, es única entre los fideicomisos de suelo. La PCC es una organización de categoría 501(c)3 y Kenyon College es el único miembro, según las disposiciones establecidas en la ley de entidades sin fines de lucro de Ohio. Aunque la organización es una entidad que funciona por separado a instancias de su directorio, Kenyon College es la organización de control y ratifica la elección de los directores de la PCC. Tanto el presidente de Kenyon como el presidente del directorio de la PCC son, ex officio, miembros respectivos del directorio de la otra organización.

Uno de los objetivos de la PCC consiste además en evitar que los futuros directorios vendan hectáreas y en mejorar las relaciones entre la universidad y la ciudad. Aunque las interacciones entre Kenyon y la comunidad en la que está emplazada no presentaban mayores problemas, existía cierto grado de fricción, ya que, aun cuando la PCC funcionaba bajo los auspicios de la universidad, los residentes de la ciudad en general percibían a la PCC como una entidad por separado que comenzaba desde cero.

Asistencia de los socios locales

Tal como se sugirió anteriormente, la PCC tuvo la suerte de recibir el financiamiento en un momento especialmente oportuno, ya que sus intereses coincidían y se superponían con iniciativas similares que se estaban gestando en el estado de Ohio y en el condado de Knox, lo que brindó el marco y las estrategias que, posteriormente, ayudarían a la PCC a llevar a cabo sus tareas.

En 1996, el gobernador de ese entonces, George Voinovich, estableció una comisión bipartidaria denominada Unidad Especial para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas de Ohio, formada por representantes del gobierno, del sector empresarial, del sector académico y del sector agrícola. En junio de 1997, esta unidad especial informó que, en los 45 años anteriores, se habían perdido más de 2,8 millones de hectáreas (el 33 por ciento de los terrenos agrícolas de Ohio) para su utilización en actividades no relacionadas con la agricultura. Dos recomendaciones específicas prepararon el camino hacia medidas de conservación más amplias: la creación de la Oficina para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas, perteneciente al Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, y una declaración de principios en la que se establecía el compromiso del estado de proteger sus terrenos agrícolas productivos de una recalificación para usos no agrícolas que sería irreversible.

El estado anunció, además, la creación de un programa de Subsidio en Bloque para el Desarrollo Comunitario de 10.000 dólares con el fin de apoyar los planes municipales de “preservación de terrenos agrícolas”, lo que desembocó en la creación de la Unidad Especial para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas del Condado de Knox en el año 1988. Me desempeñé en la unidad especial de este condado, donde me encomendaron “evaluar el estado de la producción agrícola en el condado, analizar alternativas para el desarrollo sin planificación y presentar recomendaciones para la preservación de los terrenos agrícolas del condado de Knox”.

En el año 2000, el electorado estatal aprobó la creación del Fondo Limpio de Ohio, un programa de bonos de 400 millones de dólares destinado a preservar las áreas naturales y los terrenos agrícolas, proteger los arroyos, generar oportunidades de recreación al aire libre y revitalizar áreas urbanas mediante la recuperación de terrenos contaminados abandonados para un uso productivo. Este fondo (que el electorado renovó en el año 2008) dedicó 25 millones de dólares al Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio, administrado por el Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, para ser utilizados durante un período de cuatro años.

Otro desarrollo clave a nivel del condado que se dio en esos momentos fue la creación del Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek, un fideicomiso de suelo privado sin fines de lucro que trabaja junto con los propietarios para conservar los terrenos agrícolas, los corredores fluviales, las áreas protegidas de acuíferos y cuencas, los hábitats de vida silvestre, los bosques y otras áreas particularmente sensibles desde el punto de vista ecológico de la región central de Ohio, entre la que se cuenta el condado de Knox.

Desde sus inicios, la PCC determinó que, para lograr el éxito, sería fundamental crear buenas asociaciones de trabajo, por lo que entabló relaciones con los encargados de elaborar políticas a nivel del pueblo, la ciudad, el condado y el estado. Desde los Comisionados del Condado de Knox hasta el Distrito de Conservación del Suelo y el Agua, pasando por la Comisión de Planificación Regional, la PCC estableció y ha mantenido relaciones productivas. También resultó de vital importancia que, en mi carácter de director gerente de la PCC, fuera también un participante activo en varias de estas organizaciones.

Estrategias de preservación de la PCC

En medio de este entorno dinámico, la PCC comenzó a funcionar. Antes de la creación de la PCC existían varios informes y numerosas recomendaciones a nivel municipal, pero la PCC actuó como uno de los primeros catalizadores para tomar medidas en todo el condado. Al estar en consonancia con la filosofía de la PPC de ayudar a los demás, el Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio recientemente establecido brindó la oportunidad perfecta para que la PCC se relacionara con la comunidad agrícola local con el fin de ayudarlos a proteger sus tierras de los proyectos de desarrollo perjudiciales.

Según el Programa de Compra de Derechos de Servidumbre Agrícola de Ohio, los propietarios de terrenos no podían solicitar derechos de servidumbre directamente, sino que un condado, pueblo, municipio o fideicomiso de suelo debía solicitar dichos derechos en nombre de los propietarios. Poco tiempo después de publicarse las pautas en el año 2001, dos agricultores locales solicitaron a la PCC que actuara en calidad de auspiciante local. El estado recompensaba a los solicitantes que con-stituían terrenos más grandes al unir propiedades adyacentes, por lo que los agricultores reclutaron a sus vecinos y se organizaron para asistir a talleres auspiciados por la PCC con la ayuda de la Oficina para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas. Durante el primer año del programa, la PCC ocupó el tercer lugar entre las fuentes más grandes de solicitudes en todo el estado. Sólo se financiaron 24 solicitudes, y la PCC recibió uno de los derechos de servidumbre tan codiciados.

Al año siguiente, la PCC se las ingenió para ayudar a aumentar los puntajes de los agricultores en la parte expositiva de las solicitudes. Los solicitantes auspiciados por la PCC obtenían puntajes altos en las preguntas objetivas, pero la mayoría obtenía puntajes más bajos que otros solicitantes del estado en las cinco exposiciones. Por lo tanto, le pedí al presidente del departamento de Lengua inglesa de Kenyon (reconocido como uno de los mejores del país) que reclutara a unos 20 estudiantes para que ayudaran a los agricultores a escribir sus exposiciones. Los estudiantes se reunieron con los agricultores en sus hogares, los entrevistaron y los ayudaron a elaborar exposiciones persuasivas. Este trabajo conjunto tuvo un éxito rotundo. Los agricultores disfrutaron de poder conocer a los estudiantes de Kenyon, a los estudiantes les encantó visitar las granjas y conversar con los agricultores y, en los años siguientes, las solicitudes de los agricultores obtuvieron los puntajes más altos en las exposiciones.

Las propiedades bajo protección permanente cercanas a la granja de un solicitante obtenían puntos adicionales, por lo que la PCC obtuvo de la universidad un derecho de servidumbre de conservación en el Centro Medioambiental de la Familia Brown, de 153 hectáreas. En forma similar, la PCC pidió al Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek que solicitara un financiamiento a los Fondos Limpios de Ohio con el fin de adquirir un derecho de servidumbre sobre terrenos de propiedad de la PCC. El resultado fue positivo para las tres partes involucradas: la PCC obtuvo dinero en efectivo por la venta de los derechos de servidumbre y conservó la propiedad de los terrenos; el Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek recibió el derecho de servidumbre; y los solicitantes de derechos de servidumbre agrícola obtuvieron puntos adicionales.

La PCC impulsó los puntajes de los solicitantes locales aumentando también los aportes que igualaran a la cantidad de subsidios estatales. Ohio financia solamente el 75 por ciento del valor total de los derechos de servidumbre y el 25 por ciento restante debe provenir del propietario o de alguna otra fuente. Si los solicitantes deciden voluntariamente pagar más del 25 por ciento (lo que reduciría la obligación del estado) el estado otorga entonces puntos adicionales a dichos solicitantes. Así, mediante el uso de su propio dinero y persuadiendo a los Comisionados del Condado de Knox de que aportaran unos 300.000 dólares para apoyar el programa, la PCC logró que muchas más solicitudes se tramitaran con éxito.

Con el correr de los años, la PCC también aumentó los puntajes de los solicitantes cuyas propiedades reunían los requisitos para lograr la designación de “Granjas Centenarias” por parte del Departamento de Agricultura de Ohio, mediante la cual se honra a las familias que demuestran haber sido propietarias de sus tierras en forma continua por al menos 100 años. Las Granjas Centenarias recibieron puntos adicionales y, gracias al impulso y la guía de la PCC, 5 de las 18 Granjas Centenarias del condado de Knox solicitaron con éxito derechos de servidumbre y lograron conservar sus tierras.

A la vez que ayudaba a los agricultores locales a proteger sus propiedades, la PCC también se dedicó a crear un parque del condado. Con dinero generado por la campaña de recaudación de fondos de la universidad y otras donaciones posteriores se adquirieron tres propiedades por un total de 82 hectáreas, que luego se revendieron, sujetas a las restricciones contenidas en las escrituras respectivas. Una de estas propiedades, la granja Prescott de 68 hectáreas, ubicada entre Gambier y Mount Vernon, resultó ser muy importante para Kenyon, ya que allí se origina el arroyo Wolf Run, que desemboca en el río Kokosing y pasa por el Centro Medio-ambiental de la Familia Brown. Una empresa de Pensilvania dedicada a los desarrollos ya había comprado terrenos justo enfrente de la granja Prescott, en donde tenía la intención de construir 225 viviendas. Antes de que esta empresa desarrolladora pudiera adquirir también la granja, la PCC la compró a 626.000 dólares.

Un año más tarde, la PCC aceptó revender la granja al Distrito del Parque del Condado de Knox con la condición de que dicho distrito obtuviera subsidios estatales para adquirir la propiedad y establecer el primer parque del condado de Knox. Dado que los fondos otorgados por el estado requerían que el distrito también aportara sus propios fondos (una suma de dinero que el distrito no poseía), la PCC ayudó a convencer a la Fundación Comunitaria de Mount Vernon y a los Comisionados del Condado de Knox para que donaran los terrenos de su propiedad que eran adyacentes a la granja, a fin de satisfacer el requisito de fondos aportados por el distrito. El plan funcionó. El distrito del parque obtuvo el financiamiento y adquirió la propiedad de la PCC, el condado de Knox logró crear el nuevo Parque Regional Wolf Run de 116 hectáreas, y la zona de nacimiento del arroyo Wolf Run quedó protegida de los proyectos de desarrollo.

Aunque ciertos casos de éxito ocurrieron sin financiamiento alguno, muchos de los logros fueron el resultado directo de la disponibilidad de dinero. Además de las donaciones de exalumnos y amigos durante dos campañas impulsadas por la universidad, la PCC se aseguró de recibir fondos adicionales provenientes de fuentes estatales, federales y del condado, que superaron los 2,1 millones de dólares. La noción original de que los exalumnos y otros donantes podrían estar interesados en “preservar la naturaleza en la experiencia de Kenyon” demostró una vez más ser correcto.

Universidades y facultades como catalizadores de la conservación

La PCC, tal como se ha desarrollado, es un modelo que presenta la estructura legal y las herramientas necesarias para actuar como un catalizador efectivo de medidas de conservación. Para el año 2013, la PCC había comprado un total de 93 hectáreas que administra y alquila a los agricultores; había facilitado la creación de 35 derechos de servidumbre que abarcan 1.700 hectáreas; y, junto con el Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek, había protegido un total de 2.730 hectáreas en el condado de Knox. Del total de 137.190 hectáreas del condado, la cantidad restante de 66.640 hectáreas sin proteger supone una enorme oportunidad para la comunidad conservacionista del suelo local.

Aunque se están llevando a cabo medidas conservacionistas de grandes proporciones tanto a nivel nacional como internacional, las actividades de conservación locales cumplen una función invaluable y tienen mucho que aportar a las actividades a mayor escala. Según el Censo de la Alianza de Fideicomisos de Suelo de 2010, los 1.723 fideicomisos de suelo activos que funcionan en los Estados Unidos han logrado conservar, en conjunto, un total de 19 millones de hectáreas. Existen 7.500 instituciones educativas terciarias en los Estados Unidos. Si solamente el 10 por ciento de dichas instituciones se involucrara en la conservación del suelo utilizando un modelo similar al de la PCC, esto representaría un gran paso adelante del movimiento conservacionista.

Cada institución que adoptara el modelo de la PCC tendría su propio entorno de características únicas. No obstante, el modelo puede aplicarse en forma amplia, ya que cada elemento que formó parte de la creación de la PCC es absolutamente replicable en cualquier institución educativa del país.

La Philander Chase Corporation comenzó a funcionar en un tiempo en que existía una creciente preocupación en torno a la erosión del paisaje rural que se fue dando con cada operación realizada. El objetivo era local, ya que estaba relacionado con Kenyon College y sus alrededores. Sin embargo, la experiencia y los objetivos de la PCC pronto fueron compartidos por agencias aliadas y con intereses coincidentes del condado de Knox y otros lugares, lo que posibilitó la existencia de oportunidades de mayor envergadura. Esta experiencia demuestra que lo que ocurrió aquí puede darse en cualquier otro lugar.

 

Sobre el autor

Doug Givens fue el director gerente fundador de la Philander Chase Corporation. Givens también se desempeñó como presidente del Comité de Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas, perteneciente a la Comisión de Planificación Regional del Condado de Knox, y fue miembro de la Junta Asesora para la Preservación de Terrenos Agrícolas de Ohio. Además, Givens fue fideicomisario fundador del Fideicomiso Conservacionista de Owl Creek y presidente del Fondo Brown. Actualmente, Givens se desempeña como vicepresidente, director y miembro del comité ejecutivo de Scranton-Averell Company (un holding de bienes raíces), como director de Bradford & Carter Company (una empresa dedicada al desarrollo inmobiliario) y como director de la Fundación George B. Storer. Trabajó en la oficina de desarrollo de Kenyon College durante 28 años y se jubiló en calidad de vicepresidente en el año 2000. Givens obtuvo su título de grado y su maestría por la Universidad de Indiana, y se doctoró en Derecho por el Kenyon College. 

 


 

Recursos

A Place with a View for the Future. www.kenyon.edu/x44947.xml.

Knox County, Ohio. 1998. Knox County Comprehensive Plan: Focus 2100 Advanced.

———. 1999. Knox County Farmland Preservation Taskforce Report.

———. 2003. Cost of Community Services Study.

Land Lords. https://orgsync.com/35905/chapter.

Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force. 1997. Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force Findings and Recommendation: Report to Governor George V. Voinovich. Ohio Issue 1. Environmental Bond Act. 2000.

Owl Creek Conservancy. www.owlcreekconservancy.org.

Philander Chase Corporation. www.kenyon.edu/philanderchase.xml.

Philander Chase Corporation Articles of Incorporation. www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=200013300715.

Rural Life Center, Kenyon College. http://rurallife.kenyon.edu.

Town-Gown Conservation at Kenyon College

Douglas L. Givens, July 1, 2013

It is no accident that Kenyon College, in Gambier, Ohio, appears on so many lists of America’s most beautiful campuses. Since Bishop Philander Chase founded the college on a wooded hilltop in 1824, he envisioned a serene rural environment that would promote serious thought and good conduct. For 189 years, the college and those who have found their way to it have valued this setting. Timeless rhythms in the landscape afford views that please the eye and nourish the spirit in every season, and students and faculty members use the rural acres adjacent to the campus for fieldwork in a variety of disciplines ranging from sociology to biology and chemistry. Long after graduation, alumni remember the campus, the surrounding fields and forests, and the twists and turns of the Kokosing State Scenic River. Integral to the Kenyon experience, it is this environment that captures the interest of prospective students and their parents. More than beautiful natural assets, they represent the past, present, and future for Kenyon.

In the 1820s, Chase originally purchased 4,000 acres for the college and the village of Gambier plus an additional 4,000 acres as an investment for a total of $18,000. Within five years of its founding, however, Kenyon began selling the investment acreage in response to financial difficulties. By the early 1970s, the college’s land holdings had dwindled to fewer than 750 acres.

By the final decade of the 20th century, it was clear that the college could not take its charmed setting for granted. First, the owner of a property on the Kokosing River and directly across from the entrance to Kenyon announced plans to establish a recreational-vehicle park. The college purchased the property for a substantial premium and soon thereafter bought an additional 225 acres in order to quash proposals for a business district along the state highway that leads to Gambier. Concurrently, growth and development were changing the landscape in broad swaths of Knox County’s rural countryside. As farm auctions, land sales, pell-mell subdivisions, and commercial developments accelerated, it became clear that action was required.

Philander Chase Corporation to the Rescue

In 1995, the college was in the early stage of a five-year capital campaign that included a $1 million goal for “land acquisition to preserve the surroundings [the college] so cherishes.” The first preservation gift came from an alumnus visiting one sunny spring weekend in 1997. After walking to a hilltop overlooking the Kokosing River valley, to see what Kenyon needed to protect, he wired $1 million to the college. By the end of the campaign, in 2000, the college had raised more than $3 million—three times the goal for open space preservation.

The campaign showed that alumni and other donors ranked land conservation high on their charitable giving list, and the protection of land around the college would continue to enlist the loyalty and charity of Kenyon alumni. At the same time, state and federal programs were beginning to provide meaningful funding for land conservation. Because the college was ineligible to receive such assistance, the establishment of a special entity was crucial.

In 2000, the school formed the Philander Chase Corporation (PCC) as a separately incorporated nonprofit entity with a simple mission: “To preserve and maintain the farmland, open spaces, scenic views, and characteristic landscapes surrounding Kenyon College and Gambier, Ohio.” With its own 15-member board of directors, PCC’s organizational structure is unique among land trusts. It is a membership 501(c)3 organization, and Kenyon College is the sole member under provisions of Ohio nonprofit law. Even though the corporation is a separate entity operating under the direction of its board, Kenyon College is the controlling organization and ratifies the election of the corporation’s directors. The president of Kenyon and chair of PCC are ex officio members of one another’s boards.

PCC also serves to prevent future boards from selling off acreage and to improve town-gown relations. While interactions between Kenyon and the surrounding community were not a major problem, there was some friction; although PCC functioned under the college’s auspices, local residents generally perceived it as a separate entity with a clean slate.

Aid from Local Partners

As suggested above, PCC was lucky to have been founded at an especially opportune time, when its concerns coincided and overlapped with similar initiatives taking shape in the state of Ohio and in Knox County, providing the framework and strategies that would later help PCC carry out its work.

In 1996, then-Governor George Voinovich commissioned a bi-partisan Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force consisting of representatives from government, business, academia, and agricultural interests. In June 1997, the task force reported that in the previous 45 years, more than seven million acres (33 percent of Ohio farmland) had been lost to nonagricultural uses. Two specific recommendations set the stage for broader conservation efforts: the creation of an Office of Farmland Preservation within the Ohio Department of Agriculture and a policy statement declaring the state’s commitment to protect its productive agricultural land from irretrievable conversion to nonagricultural uses.

The state also announced a $10,000 Community Development Block Grant program to support local “farmland preservation” plans, which led to the formation of the Knox County Farmland Preservation Task Force in 1998. I served on the local task force, charged with “evaluating the state of agricultural production in the county, exploring alternatives to unplanned development, and making recommendations for the preservation of the farmlands in Knox County.”

In 2000, state voters approved The Clean Ohio Fund, a $400 million bond program to preserve natural areas and farmland, protect streams, create outdoor recreational opportunities, and revitalize urban areas by returning contaminated brownfields to productive use. The fund (renewed by voters in 2008) dedicated $25 million, to be spent over a four-year period, to the Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program administered through the Ohio Department of Agriculture.

Another key county-level development at that time was the establishment of the Owl Creek Conservancy. A nonprofit private land trust, the conservancy works with landowners to conserve farmlands, stream corridors, aquifer- and watershed-protection areas, wildlife habitats, woodlands, and other ecologically sensitive areas of central Ohio including Knox County.

From the beginning, PCC determined that good working partnerships would be essential for success, and so it forged ties with policy makers at the village, township, county, and state levels. From the Knox County Commissioners to the Regional Planning Commission to the Soil and Water Conservation District, PCC established and continued to nurture productive relationships. It was also critical that, as the managing director of PCC, I was an active participant in many of these organizations.

 


 

Box 1: Conservation Catalysts

The story of Kenyon College’s protection of the farms and fields near its campus is an exemplary case of an academic institution catalyzing large landscape conservation. As such, it is one of more than a dozen narratives being compiled by the Lincoln Institute in a forthcoming book, Conservation Catalysts, edited by Lincoln Institute fellow James Levitt. He reports that “the volume will give us a picture of the practice of universities, colleges, and independent research organizations around the globe that are going beyond their research and teaching missions and applying land conservation expertise, in many cases quite literally, ‘on the ground.’”

What is remarkable about these cases is not only their impact, but also the span of organizational and geographic diversity they represent. Academic and research organizations are catalyzing these initiatives well beyond Kenyon’s base in Gambier, Ohio, to places as widespread as Australia, the Caribbean islands of Trinidad and Tobago, and the Canadian boreal forest. The initiatives often encompass a broad range of interests representing the public, private, nonprofit, and academic/research sectors and involve a wide variety of disciplines in the natural sciences, social sciences, professional studies, and the humanities. The study and sharing of best practices in large landscape conservation is the focus of two ongoing efforts of the Lincoln Institute and its joint venture partners, the Practitioner’s Network for Large Landscape Conservation (www.largelandscapenetwork.org) and the Conservation Catalysts Network (www.conservationcatalysts.net).

 


 

PCC’s Preservation Strategies

Amid this dynamic environment, PCC began its operations. Before its establishment, there were reports and numerous recommendations at the local level, but PCC was an early catalyst for countywide action. In keeping with PCC’s philosophy of helping others, the newly established Ohio Agricultural Easement Purchase Program provided the local farming community to help them protect their land from adverse development.

Under the Ohio Agriculture Easement Purchase Program, landowners could not directly apply for easements; a county, township, municipality, or land trust had to apply on their behalf. Shortly after the guidelines were published in 2001, two local farmers asked PCC to act as their local sponsor. The state rewarded applicants who formed larger blocks with nearby properties, so the farmers recruited their neighbors and rallied many of them to attend workshops hosted by PCC with help from the Office of Farmland Preservation. In the program’s first year, PCC was the third largest source of applications statewide. Only 24 applications were funded; PCC received one of the coveted easements.

The following year, PCC ingeniously helped raise local farmers’ scores on the essay portion of the application. PCC’s applicants scored highly on the objective questions, but most scored lower than other applicants statewide on the five essays. So I asked the chair of Kenyon’s English department, renowned as one of the nation’s best, to enlist about 20 students to assist farmers in writing their essays. Students met with the farmers in their homes, interviewed them, and helped them craft compelling essays. The effort was a rousing success. The farmers enjoyed getting to know Kenyon students, the students loved visiting the farms and talking with the farmers, and in following years their applications earned top essay scores.

Permanently protected property in close proximity to an applicant’s farm garnered additional points, so PCC secured a conservation easement from the college on the 380-acre Brown Family Environmental Center. In a similar manner, PCC asked the Owl Creek Conservancy to apply for Clean Ohio Funds to purchase an easement on PCC-owned land. The result was a threefold win: PCC received cash for selling the easement and continued to own the land, the Owl Creek Conservancy held the easement, and agricultural easement applicants received additional points.

PCC boosted local applicants’ scores by increasing its local match of state subsidies as well. Ohio funds only 75 percent of an easement’s total value; the remaining 25 percent must come from the landowner or another source. If applicants volunteer to pay more than 25 percent, lowering the state’s obligation, the state awards “bonus” points to the applicant. By using its own money and persuading the Knox County Commissioners to contribute nearly $300,000 to support the program, PCC ensured more successful applications.

Over the years, PCC also raised the scores of applicants whose property qualified for the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Century Farm designation, honoring families who demonstrated continuous family ownership for at least 100 years. Century Farms received extra points, and, with encouragement and guidance from PCC, five of Knox County’s 18 Century Farms successfully applied for easements and conserved their land.

While helping local farmers protect their properties, PCC helped create a county park at the same time. Using money generated by the college’s fundraising campaign and subsequent gifts, three properties totaling 202 acres were purchased and then resold subject to deed restrictions. One of these properties, the 168-acre Prescott farm between Gambier and Mount Vernon, was especially important to Kenyon as the source of Wolf Run Creek, which flows into the Kokosing River and through the Brown Family Environmental Center. A development company from Pennsylvania had already purchased land across the road from the Prescott farm and planned to build 225 homes there. Before the developer could purchase the farm as well, PCC bought it for $626,000.

A year later, PCC agreed to resell the farm to the Knox County Park District only if the district obtained state subsidies to acquire the property and establish Knox County’s first park. Because state funding required matching grants—money the district did not have—PCC helped persuade the Mount Vernon Community Foundation and the County Commissioners to donate land they owned adjacent to the farm to satisfy the matching fund requirement. The plan worked. The park district got the funding and purchased the property from PCC, Knox County had a new 288-acre Wolf Run Regional Park, and the source of Wolf Run was protected from development.

While some successes happened without funding, many of the accomplishments directly resulted from the availability of money. In addition to donations from alumni and friends during two college campaigns, PCC secured additional funding from state, federal, and county sources in excess of $2.1 million. The original notion that alumni and other donors might be interested in “preserving the nature of the Kenyon experience” proved to be correct again.

Colleges and Universities as Conservation Catalysts

PCC, as it has developed, is a model with the legal structure and tools needed to be an effective conservation catalyst. By 2013, PCC had outright purchased 230 acres that it manages and leases to farmers, facilitated the creation of 35 easements encompassing 4,216 acres, and, with the Owl Creek Conservancy, protected a total of 6,746 acres in Knox County. Of the county’s 339,000 total acres, those remaining 164,666 unprotected acres provide a tremendous opportunity for the local land conservation community.

While large landscape conservation is taking place nationally and internationally, local conservation activities have a valuable role to play and a great deal to contribute to grander-scale activity. According to the Land Trust Alliance 2010 Census, the 1,723 active land trusts operating in the United States had collectively conserved 47 million acres. There are 7,500 post-secondary educational institutions in the United States. If only 10 percent of these institutions engaged in land conservation using a model similar to PCC’s, it could be a major step forward in the conservation movement.

Each institution where the PCC model might be adopted would have its own unique environment. Nevertheless, the model is widely applicable; every element that led to the formation of PCC is eminently replicable at any educational institution in the country.

The Philander Chase Corporation began at a time when there was growing concern about the deal-by-deal erosion of the rural landscape. The goal was local: it related to Kenyon College and its environs. But PCC’s experience and aims were soon shared by overlapping and allied agencies in Knox County and beyond, leading to and suggesting larger possibilities. This experience demonstrates that what happened here can happen elsewhere.

 

About the Author

Doug Givens was the founding managing director of the Philander Chase Corporation. Givens also served as chair of the Farmland Preservation Committee of the Knox County Regional Planning Commission and member of the State of Ohio Farmland Preservation Advisory Board. He was a founding trustee of the Owl Creek Conservancy and president of the Brown Fund. Mr. Givens is currently the vice president, director, and member of the executive committee of the Scranton-Averell Company (a land holding company); a director of the Bradford & Carter Company (a real estate development company); and a director of the George B. Storer Foundation. For 28 years, he worked in the development office at Kenyon College, retiring from the vice presidency in 2000. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Indiana University and received a doctor of laws degree from Kenyon College. 

 


 

Resources

A Place with a View for the Future. www.kenyon.edu/x44947.xml

Knox County, Ohio. 1998. Knox County Comprehensive Plan: Focus 2100 Advanced.

———. 1999. Knox County Farmland Preservation Taskforce Report.

———. 2003. Cost of Community Services Study.

Land Lords. https://orgsync.com/35905/chapter

Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force. 1997. Ohio Farmland Preservation Task Force Findings and Recommendation: Report to Governor George V. Voinovich. Ohio Issue 1. Environmental Bond Act. 2000.

Owl Creek Conservancy. www.owlcreekconservancy.org

Philander Chase Corporation. www.kenyon.edu/philanderchase.xml

Philander Chase Corporation Articles of Incorporation. www2.sos.state.oh.us/reports/rwservlet?imgc&Din=200013300715

Rural Life Center, Kenyon College. http://rurallife.kenyon.edu

Nature and Cities

The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning
By George F. Thompson, Frederick R. Steiner, and Armando Carbonell, February 1, 2016

This feature is adapted from the introduction to Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning, a compilation of essays and images by leading international landscape architects, architects, and planners, some of whose work is showcased here. The book is scheduled for publication in November 2016 by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, in association with the School of Architecture, The University of Texas at Austin, and George F. Thompson Publishing.

Everything seems so clear from the air, where details do not get in the way. At an elevation of 33,000 feet (10,058 meters), we see the handiwork of our actions all over the ground below, as if the landscape were our reflecting mirror. As we know, landscapes do not lie; they are the embodiment of all that we do on Earth.

Some roads parallel rivers and valleys—no ingenuity there. Other roads converge into settlements like cattle paths leading to a water tank, or they may follow deer paths and other animal trails or topographic contours and soon resemble the organic majesty of a spider’s web. Picture El Greco’s (1541–1614) home town, Toledo, Spain, from the air: a kind of perfection in organic urban form.

Old North American prairie, largely untouched until two centuries ago, now bears rectangular grids of large-scale farms with no room for any vegetation besides the crops and a thin line of trees alongside riverine and creekside banks, looking like a token tithe to nature and wildlife. And 40-acre (16.1-hectare) center-pivot circles of  corn, soybeans, or alfalfa (the trifecta of corporate agriculture) look as if someone had tossed, in perfect symmetry, large half-dollars on the land. Resembling pavements of crops stretching as far as the eye can see, even from one state to another, all this handiwork is the result of a federal farm policy insanely out of balance with nature. No wonder the butterflies and countless other creatures and plants are struggling so mightily against such unnatural odds.

New sites of natural gas extraction have popped up so suddenly and pervasively that they now permeate much of the Great Plains and interior West of North America, as if enormous prairie dogs on steroids had  burrowed through these large swaths of land. It is Gulliver’s travels all over again. Meanwhile, open-pit mines generate impressive depressions in the ground, as if meteors had crashed from outer space. The pits’ glorious russet and red and golden and sand-colored hues contrast hard against surrounding terrain, as if the mines, too, were inscribed works of art, poor attempts at recreating a subterranean Roman coliseum or a mini-Grand Canyon. Meanwhile, the new and starkly white wind-powered turbines—some spanning 413 feet (126 meters) and towering 312 feet (85–95 meters) in the sky—appear as if a giant surgeon had administered stitches of varying lengths and shapes on the land and in the sea, even as untold numbers of birds die upon impact.

Towns and cities along the coasts cram hard against the adjacent sea, with few buffers to protect communities against a rising tide that likely will be at least three feet (.9 meter) higher a century from now. And the same condition holds true for those towns and cities that reside along rivers, large and small, that naturally want to ebb and flow like the tide, overrunning banks and streets alike from time to time. Even world-class cities such as Chicago, Sydney, Tokyo, and Toronto look like LEGO sets from above and bar graphs at eye-level, in which cars and trucks move about like busy ants, and trains slide like snakes along the concrete.

Deserts, long the forlorn outposts of biblical wilderness, are now bespeckled oases of new towns, cities, and resorts, each with homes nestled against aquamarine-blue swimming pools, as if pools are required for entrance into a neighborhood. Shimmering lakes are impounded by large-scale dams, the water evaporating into the dry, cloudless sky. A jigsaw puzzle of improbably green lawns is highlighted by extensive, even more preposterously verdant golf courses. One might believe that a new school of art called Landscape Cubism had gone awry on the land.

Yet there are the exceptional expanses of undeveloped land as well. Trails such as the Appalachian, Continental, Ice Age, Grande Randonnée, Greater Patagonian, Natchez, Pacific Crest, Te Araroa, and Tokai saunter along for great distances deep into the heart and soul of their respective countries. Forests stretch for thousands and thousands of square miles and kilometers, relieving a planet in dire need of new lungs in order to process the increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). Still-intact watersheds and wetlands retain their natural place between land and water, providing incalculable value as a water supply for towns and cities downstream and as habitat for fisheries, insects, birds, and other wildlife. Contour farming thrives in harmony with the terrain and the life-giving principles of the Soil Conservation Act of 27 April 1935. And more cities boast integrated systems of parks, open spaces, and greenways, providing evidence that nature can return to the urban scene and enhance communities in biological and socioeconomic ways.[1]

The land tells us so much. And it is the role of landscape architecture, urban planning and design, and architecture to continue their pioneering ways, offering an ecological approach to the design, planning, and management of our varied landscapes—urban, suburban, rural, regional, social, and wild. It all begins on the ground, in nature and our communities, in the multiple ecologies and economies and cultures that encapsulate our home turf, wherever that may be. 

But, as we know, much of that ground is already urban, and that pervasive and expansive pattern of settlement by every account has no end in sight. So how can we do better? That scene and question are the focus of Nature and Cities: The Ecological Imperative in Urban Design and Planning

Even as land use may seem relatively clear and simple from the air, on the ground the picture grows more complicated, because of the unavoidable details. All aspects of life—human and natural intertwined, to varying degrees of success—appear before our very eyes, are heard by our ears, are felt by our skin and clothes by way of dew point, humidity, dry air, sunlight, evening breezes, and cool or warm temperatures. That is a lot of ground to comprehend, even within the limited scope of our senses.

Perhaps this view encompasses your backyard or city street; the one well from which you and your community draw water; a favorite gathering place; a beloved vacation spot; a scene ravaged by drought, flood, or fire; a place recovering from earthquake, cave-in, crime, or war. The imagination can transport us to any place we wish, but there is a bottom line to such inquiry. As you imagine or walk or ride or drive through that landscape around you, take it all in: every blade of grass that adorns your lawn or survives in the seam of a sidewalk; every field, common, or pasture that may be part of your everyday life; every hovel, condo, or mansion that gives you shelter; every tree, greenway, or park that embellishes your space; every economic entity and activity before you; every smell emanating from a bakery or foundry; every breath you take that, inevitably, is a respiratory cocktail of Earth’s natural elements (sand, pollen, and dust) and of all the human-induced chemicals too numerous to name.

Now that you have seen, heard, and felt that landscape, imagine that you are suddenly in charge of the scene. Your family, neighborhood, village, city,  region, and country are depending on you. First, to explain every aspect of what you perceive and to make some sense of it all—whether in a public setting or classroom or even corporate boardroom. And second, to envision, communicate, plan, and design improvements to what you see. Where would you begin? What would you do? Under what circumstances would or could you implement change? And how? Bottom-up or top-down? Diplomatically, democratically, or dictatorially? How will your vision, and its associated array of actions, be maintained, nurtured, and, perhaps, changed over time? And by whom and under what circumstances or authority?

This is the terrain that the landscape architect, architect, and planner inherit. So return to your “vision” of what your place wants to be, and consider a process by which change is sought and made through attention to three primary and overarching themes: the human need for clean water, ample and safe food, and humane shelter; the human need for economic well-being; and the natural need to take care of and heal the land, nature itself. How does one work with structure, purpose, and meaning to provide fulfillment, value, and public good? How does one add value to place, communities, cities, and regions by way of designs and plans that offer reprieve from single-purpose thinking and direct us to a sense of stewardship in its many manifestations? Importantly, how do we citizens, as part of increasingly large urban populations, reconnect with the natural world on which we are still dependent and become engaged in the benefits of ecology to biological and socioeconomic life?

Although nature is at the core of our being and every other life-form, plant, tree, soil, water, and rock on Earth, too often our human connections to nature take a backseat to all-too-prevalent interests of every kind that compete for social good and economic gain without the benefit of a land ethic, as espoused by Aldo Leopold.[2] When we look at the varied landscapes on the ground, questions arise as to how well we are actually doing as human beings in our care of this bountiful planet. 

If one travels far enough, long enough, one can still find longstanding human communities and cultures living intimately with the natural systems that surround them. Homes in the Amazon are still built on stilts to allow for the annual and seasonal fluctuations of the world’s second-longest river and world’s largest river basin. Homes in the American South have traditionally used the front and wraparound porch to offer shade and some relief from the noteworthy heat and humidity of the summer season, even as it allows for socialization from one neighbor’s house to another, as can be seen any day of the week in Vicksburg, Mississippi, where streets are lined by shotgun houses with shady front porches animated by conversation. Many Scandinavians still artfully use wood and the fine-art craft of notching to create some of the most energy-efficient cabin-homes anywhere, even as Nordic winters are among the most challenging on Earth. And, increasingly, LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) initiatives are helping transform the world’s new architecture into energy-efficient structures, from the geothermal-powered Aldo Leopold Center in Baraboo, Wisconsin, winner of a LEED Platinum Award, to the Shanghai Expo UBPA redevelopment, the first project outside North America to receive a LEED Neighborhood Development Platinum Award. 

Beyond LEED, landscape architects, planners, ecologists, and others designed the Sustainable Sites Initiative (SITES). Now administered by Green Building Certification Inc., SITES was envisioned as LEED for the outdoors. SITES was developed through pilot projects, including those undertaken by Andropogon, OLIN, and James Corner Field Operations. Pilot projects that received certifications include Andropogon’s Shoemaker Green on the University of Pennsylvania campus and the Phipps’ Center for Sustainable Landscapes in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, OLIN’s Washington Canal Park in the District of Columbia, and James Corner Field Operations’ Woodland Discovery Playground at Shelby Farms in Memphis, Tennessee.

Yet with every passing generation that becomes ever more urban, the direct connections to nature and its bounties are reduced in spades. In too many cities around the world, nature is an afterthought. The following story is all too common:

Not very long ago, perhaps it was ten years or so, I read a piece in the newspaper that caught my attention: A boy from Harlem in New York City was being interviewed about his views on nature. He was quoted as saying that the blade of grass at his feet, the blade of grass that was emerging from a seam in the concrete sidewalk, was, to him, the embodiment of nature. It was all he needed from the natural world. Here was a sign of wildness along his city street, his home place. The blade of green grass, somehow managing to survive a half-mile away from Central Park to the south, provided that elementary presence of nature in the urban world that was his comfort zone.[3] 

Even in cities graced by larger representations of nature, these green spaces too often feel like isolated pockets for daily use or the occasional visitor, like small museums or zoos. This need not be the case; this need not be an unintended aspiration or consequence of ignorance of the multiple benefits that nature bestows when it is more fully integrated into the urban fabric of any town or city, whether in Jerusalem or Medellín or Stuttgart, Arkansas. We know how to do better. Landscape architects, architects, and planners have often led the way.

So how is it possible that towns, cities, and counties continue to ignore floodplains and sea level and willingly allow homeowners, developers, and resorts to build and rebuild in areas that contend regularly with chronic flooding and storm surges? How is it possible that a utility company can disobey the basics of common-sense planning and be permitted to construct a 564-mile (908-kilometers) natural gas pipeline on a route that will not only penetrate and divide critical habitat for rare and endangered species within existing national forests, but also overlay an area known for its extreme karst landscape and major sinkholes—thereby endangering the aquifer that lies beneath that path, a font of the greatest significance for the supply of fresh water for cities, towns, and farms throughout that region? How is it possible that mining companies are not required to close the loop and provide for the ecological restoration and reclamation of project areas as part of the economic deal? How is it possible that Rio de Janeiro was awarded the Games of the XXXI (Summer 2016) Olympiad with full knowledge that water events will be conducted in Guanabara Bay, in conditions at times equated with raw sewage? Obviously, those landscape players do not include the principles and practices of ecological design and planning as part of their respective worldview, and behold the consequences of their chosen ignorance and greed. 

The promise of ecological design and planning as it pertains to the health and welfare of our communities and cities everywhere is there for the taking, there for action, there for implementation, there for ongoing care. But too often we dismiss the obvious in how we citizens conceive of urban design and planning: we humans, by our very presence in nearly every sphere on Earth, are the essential players not only in the eternal dance with nature that is part of life and the human condition, but also the overall health and welfare of our home ground.

The essayists in Nature and Cities reveal that monumental work has been done and is ongoing in the ecological design and planning of our cities and communities at large. Because landscape architects, architects, and planners have done so repeatedly and throughout the world, we, as a society, can say with certainty that we know how to work collaboratively with all players to provide safe water, food, and shelter; reduce runoff into city streets; accommodate areas prone to flooding and storm surges; safely locate a utility corridor and design it in such a way that it becomes more than a single-purpose pathway for natural gas obtained by the unruly practice of fracking; design parking lots in commercial developments; provide citizens of the world’s cities with more than a sliver of grass in the seam of a sidewalk; restore and heal worn and contaminated sites; and provide joy and economic vitality through green design and infrastructure.

But even more progress needs to be achieved, no matter where we live, because the world is becoming more urban, and the consequences of climate change and of poverty, disease, conflict, and war are real. Once again, landscape architects, architects, and planners have been engaged historically in the process of understanding the natural world before us and its multiple manifestations on the ground, where details and interconnections matter. And, by way of their designs and plans, some of them centuries old, we have examples of finished work that has made this a better world. Landscape architects, architects, and planners have historically offered alternative visions to the failed practice of serendipity and single-purpose thinking that have, for too long, dominated the public and private view.

The contributing authors in Nature and Cities share real-life experiences and perspectives about where we can go in the future. They discuss and reveal their respective perspectives on the historical and contemporary practice of ecological design and planning in their own work and in the work of others. In many cases, this work involves award-winning and path-breaking designs and plans known throughout the world. And so reading their essays is an eye-opening experience, as we share and explore their thoughts about nature and cities, even as they offer reflective worldviews for design and planning. Collectively, the essays convey the great hope and promise of an ecological imperative in planning and urban design, of a tried-and-true approach by which nature and culture, science and art, come together in a united but creative and fluid way to make life better for all.

As is often the case, big projects, designs, and plans tend to dominate the professional view and the ability of design and planning to contribute toward this greater good. Historically, this has included a wide range of undertakings, as large as the design and construction of national parks and new cities, and as small as the private garden and urban mall. But, to most people, ecological design and planning remains an idea and approach not yet in the vernacular. That is where additional work needs to be done. And so here is another story of how far we can travel in but one generation, if landscape architects, architects, and planners are willing to seek work in new ways:

A woman from South Africa, a naturalized American citizen, was inspired by the healing powers of nature. She was well known and highly respected in the community where she lived. She was a quiet but steadfast leader in peeling back the built environment and integrating nature more fully into areas of everyday city life. Even after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, she served the community and fellow cancer patients as if there would always be a tomorrow. When she died, she was remembered by a new serenity garden, adjacent to an existing park along a popular river. When the city organized a public dedication of the new park in her memory, an overflowing crowd of hundreds showed up on a hot, summer day.

The city manager was among the first to speak. Soon after welcoming everyone and conveying the purpose for the gathering, he began to share this message:

There is something called a “sense of place.” It is a term often hard to describe, but we certainly know a special place when we see it, be it a memorial garden such as this, an historic neighborhood or building or landscape, a community at large, or even a region. As public officials, we strive to cultivate a sense of place in many ways: by providing obvious services and an infrastructure intended to serve all, but also by making connections to the natural world. Even as we may live near one of the most popular and most visited national parks, we need nature to return to the city so that it becomes a daily experience, fully integrated into our fabric of being. Just as Anne-Marie would have wanted.[4]

We dare say that, 30 years ago, the phrase “sense of place” seemed like a pipe dream or even an illusion that had no place in our everyday lives, much less public policy. Yet today, as expressed by this 30-something city manager, the term has been fully realized and embraced. We even hear of teachers at every institutional level, proclaiming the need for and success of “place-based” education—place, of course, referring to the natural and human processes intertwined.

As the world becomes more urban, and even for those who remain tied to rural land, there is the need for “ecological design and planning” to be integrated into our collective being, into our everyday lives, in fundamental ways—just as a “sense of place” has so quickly taken hold during the preceding generation. Even as landscape architecture, urban planning and design, and architecture can continue to advance a “green” vision of a better world through specific projects, both great and small, public and private, it will require a move toward the vernacular, toward the common person, toward the common place, for that vision to be expressed, appreciated, accepted, and embraced more fully: to the point where ecological design and planning becomes an afterthought and, thus, an essential player in providing a healthy and healthful life for human beings and our compatriot life-forms. To heal Earth, our home ground, is to heal ourselves.

In many professional fields and human endeavors, a green vision for an ecological infrastructure has already been achieved. In places where this vision has been allowed to take hold, we see how an ecological approach fosters the necessary interplay between the biotic and abiotic. Establishing a watershed, for instance, as a primary unit of analysis, conservation, and concern has led to instructive work relating to combined sewer overflows (CSOs) within a hydrological system, offering citizens a safe and secure source of water. And it is easy to be impressed by the advances of rain gardens and reduced runoff and other creative solutions that mimic natural processes in biotic enrichment. The further integration of ecological, socioeconomic, and political capacities within specific communities and urban environments at large provides a tried-and-true pathway for landscape architects, architects, and planners to envision improvements at every scale and to implement them through community-based interaction and design.

Each author in Nature and Cities offers a sense of direction, purpose, and model for how landscape architecture, architecture, and planning can continue to move forward and be taken more seriously, to be engaged in community life at every scale and in every city and town in the world. This may well mean that a new generation of practitioners will need to explore pathways other than the traditional design and planning office and become instruments of enlightenment and change in occupations still very much in need of such care: notably, engineering, transportation, utilities, agriculture, resource industries, and commercial development—which, with too few exceptions, remain behind the times.

Imagine engineers embracing the tenets of ecological design and planning as they create roads, parking lots, interstates, impoundments, and other basic infrastructure. Imagine those engaged with municipal management as well as agricultural, industrial, transportation, and utility sectors abandoning single-purpose thinking and embracing something grander and more impactful in providing benefits than does a single endeavor. Imagine a young adult being able to swim in clean waters in Rio’s Guanabara Bay, a utility company finding a safe and not just the shortest path for the transfer of power and natural gas, a corporation building parking lots that percolate and repurpose runoff, a citizenry knowing that all human life begins and ends with nature, the source of all life. Imagine that.

 

George F. Thompson is the founder of George F. Thompson Publishing and the author and editor of seven books, including Ecological Design and Planning, with Frederick R. Steiner (John Wiley, 1997; 2007), and Landscape in America (Texas, 1995). Frederick R. Steiner is dean of the School of Architecture at the University of Texas at Austin and holds the Henry M. Rockwell Chair in Architecture. Armando Carbonell is chair of the department of Planning and Urban Form and a senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Photograph by Iwan Baan, courtesy of James Corner Field Operations​

 


 

Nature and Cities Contributors

José M. Almiñana, Andropogon Associates, Philadelphia

Timothy Beatley, University of Virginia

James Corner, James Corner Field Operations, New York City, and the University of Pennsylvania

Susannah Drake, dland studio, Brooklyn

Carol Franklin, Andropogon Associates, Philadelphia

Kristina Hill, University of California-Berkeley

Nina-Marie Lister, Ryerson University

Elizabeth K. Meyer, University of Virginia

Forster Ndubisi, Texas A & M University

Laurie Olin, Olin, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and the University of Pennsylvania

Kate Orff, SCAPE, New York City

Danilo Palazzo, University of Cincinnati (formerly Milan Polytechnic University)

Chris Reed, Stoss Landscape Urbanism, Boston, and Harvard University

Anne W. Spirn, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Charles Waldheim, Harvard University

Richard Weller, University of Pennsylvania

Kongjian Yu, Peking University and Turenscape, Beijing

 


 

References

[1] To which Yi-Fu Tuan, the world-renowned geographer responded, “Is it Andy Warhol who said that he is biased in favor of the city? Why? Well, one can find nature in the city, but one cannot find the city—not even a small token of it—in the midst of nature.” Personal email to George F. Thompson. October 23, 2015.

[2] Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

[3] Thompson, George F. 2010. “Our Place in the World: From Butte to Your Neck of the Woods.” Vernacular Architecture Forum. No. 123 (Spring 2010): 1 and 3–6; quoted 1.

[4] Thompson, George F. 2014. Notes at the official dedication of the Serenity Garden, Waynesboro, Virginia. June 2014. 

Muni Finance

Verifying Green Bonds
By Christopher Swope, Citiscope, July 29, 2016

Across the globe, implementing the Paris climate agreement is expected to cost more than US$12 trillion over 25 years.

So it’s not surprising that much of the conversation since the agreement was finalized in December has been about climate finance. And one of the big topics in climate finance—particularly among city leaders—is “green bonds.”

But what exactly are green bonds, and why should local authorities care about them? Here’s a brief explanation of the major issues.

What Is a Green Bond?

A green bond is a type of debt instrument much like any other bond—except that the proceeds must be earmarked for projects that produce a positive environmental impact.

The first bonds marketed this way were issued by the European Investment Bank in 2007 and World Bank in 2008. Since then, other development banks, corporations, and governments have joined the trend. According to the Climate Bonds Initiative, a research group that tracks the market, total green-bond issuances shot up from US$3 billion in 2012 to about US$42 billion in 2015.

Local authorities represent a growing slice of this market. They see green bonds as one tool that could help pay for renewable energy, transit systems, and water infrastructure, among other things.

The U.S. state of Massachusetts sold the first municipal green bond in June of 2013, followed a few months later by the city of Gothenburg, Sweden. Other recent issuers include the city of Johannesburg; the transit authorities of New York City, Seattle, and London; and the water authority of Washington, DC.

Are Green Bonds Any Different Than Other Municipal Bonds?

Not really. The mechanics work the same as any other municipal bond issuance. The main difference is the environmental aims of whatever the city is using the bond proceeds to pay for.

In addition, green-bond issuers face some additional paperwork—essentially to prove to investors that their money is actually being used to benefit the environment.

To some degree, green bonds are a marketing tool. Labeling a bond that will pay for subway repairs as “green” makes it more appealing to investors. “The reality is a lot of cities are issuing green bonds, they’re just not calling them that,” says Jeremy Gorelick, who teaches municipal finance at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S. city of Baltimore.

That may be true in advanced economies such as the United States, where a mature municipal-bond market has been functioning for more than a century. In the developing world, most cities are unable to issue bonds at all, and for a variety of reasons. In many countries, cities need to obtain legal authority from their national governments to issue a bond in the first place. They also have a lot of work to do in terms of establishing creditworthiness.

Gorelick, who is advising the city of Dakar, Senegal, on its efforts to issue its first municipal bond, recommends that cities in this situation not aim for the bond market right away. He says they can first try borrowing from central governments or their related municipal development funds before approaching development finance institutions for concessionary loans or commercial banks for market-rate debt. The idea is to build creditworthiness and the sort of transparent accounting that bond investors active in debt capital markets will demand.

Why Are Cities So Interested in Green Bonds?

There are many reasons. The key one is that investors really want green bonds in their portfolios right now. As a result, municipal issuers have seen sales of green bonds “oversubscribed”—a good problem for a city to have.

When Gothenburg issued its first green bonds in 2013, “we didn’t know if there would be any interest from investors,” says Magnus Borelius, Gothenburg’s head of treasury. Within 25 minutes, investors had placed €1.25 billion worth of orders—many times more than expected—and Gothenburg had to begin turning them away. “We were overwhelmed,” Borelius says.

Cities benefit from strong investor demand in a number of ways. Most important, it means they can attract new kinds of investors, diversifying the pool of people and institutions with an interest in their city. “It’s good to have a lot of investors know you have access to capital,” Borelius says. Since issuing green bonds, he adds,  “we’ve had increased contact with investors—they’re more interested in the city, and they’re coming to visit us.”

Strong investor demand “puts the issuer in an advantageous position,” says Lourdes Germán, a municipal finance expert with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Local authorities can use their leverage to increase the size of their offering, demand a longer payback period, or seek better pricing. While some cities have reported getting more favorable pricing on green bonds, Germán says issuers shouldn’t count on it. “It remains murky whether calling it ‘green’ gets better pricing,” she says.

What’s in It for Investors?

A growing number of investors want to see their money going toward environmentally sustainable projects. Some are motivated by the fight against climate change; others are simply hedging climate risks in their portfolios.

The result is that more pension funds and private-asset managers these days have some kind of mandate to think green. For example, last month, the Swedish public pension fund AP2 said it was allocating 1 percent of its €32 billion portfolio to green bonds. When you’re talking about huge institutional investors, commitments like this add up quickly.

On top of that, municipal bonds, at least in established markets like the U.S., are generally viewed as safe investments. So green bonds issued by cities are particularly desirable. “Institutional investors have a fiduciary duty and won’t invest in a product that won’t deliver a return,” says Justine Leigh-Bell, a senior manager at the Climate Bonds Initiative. “We have here an investment-grade product by blue-chip issuers where the risk is low.”

How Do You Know If a Bond Is “Green”?

There are no hard rules around that—which is a concern for both investors and environmentalists. However, the market for green bonds is evolving quickly, and some voluntary standards are emerging for issuers.

One, developed largely by large banks through the International Capital Market Association, is called the Green Bond Principles. Another was developed through the Climate Bonds Initiative and is known as the Climate Bonds Standard. The People’s Bank of China also recently released its own guidelines on green bonds.

Nobody has to use these standards, but there’s a strong push in the direction of doing so. “If I called my fire truck ‘green,’ investors might raise an eyebrow,” Germán says. “But it’s a two-sided market, so there’s some check and balance. An issuer will raise that money only if an investor believes it’s really for a green purpose.”

A growing number of municipal issuers are seeking out third-party opinions to validate their bonds’ “greenness.” That’s what Gothenburg does. The Swedish city also has created a “green bond framework” to be transparent with investors about what the city considers “green” and how it selects projects.

“It’s still early days in this market,” says Skye d’Almeida, who manages the sustainable infrastructure finance network for the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. “So it’s very important to avoid any ‘greenwashing’ scandals where cities say they issued a green bond and investors find out down the track that it wasn’t green. That would erode confidence in the market. So having some independent party verify and being very transparent about the use of the proceeds is something cities should be prepared to do.”

Does It Create a Lot of Extra Work or Cost for the City to Issue a Green Bond?

Some. Leigh-Bell puts the cost of an independent review at between US$10,000 andUS$50,000, depending on who is doing the review and other factors. That’s a rounding error on deals that are often valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Issuing green bonds can create extra work for city staff. Ahead of an issuance, there’s the need to scour the city’s capital investment plans for projects that qualify as green. Afterward, there’s work involved in tracking the use of proceeds and reporting that information to investors. According to d’Almeida, these jobs have the positive side effect of forcing people to work across their silos—finance staff must collaborate with transportation or environmental staff, for instance.

Borelius says that has been the case in Gothenburg. “The first question people ask me about green bonds is, ‘How much extra work is it?’” he says. “If you don’t put treasury people and sustainability people at the same table, it will be a lot of extra work. But if you’re issuing a green bond, you should have that in place.”

Johannesburg Mayor Mpho Parks Tau agrees that mobilizing around green bonds has paid organizational dividends. Asked recently if labeling bonds “green” is mostly about marketing, the mayor responded that the exercise has been useful for aligning local government as an institution around his environmental agenda. “We are able to say to the institution, actually, the bulk of our capital program is going to be about sustainability.”

 

Christopher Swope is managing editor of Citiscope.

Image credit: Dennis Tarnay, Jr. / Alamy

This article originally appeared at Citiscope.org. Citiscope is a nonprofit news outlet that covers innovations in cities around the world. More at Citiscope.org.

Course

Environmental Concerns in Urban Land Policies

May 7, 2016 - May 25, 2016

Online

Free, offered in Spanish


Nowadays it is necessary to analyze a set of policy initiatives on sustainable cities with a broad perspective that not only focuses on explaining the instruments that have been proposed in various cities, but rather identify possible points of contradiction with the theory of land. This course, offered in Spanish, aims to discuss the impact that new urban environmental sustainability initiatives could have on urban land policies.

Specific requirements: Participants must have knowledge of operation of land markets, urban capital gains, fundamentals of urban planning, access to land and urban marginality.


Details

Date
May 7, 2016 - May 25, 2016
Application Period
April 11, 2016 - April 24, 2016
Selection Notification Date
May 5, 2016 at 6:00 PM
Location
Online
Language
Spanish
Cost
Free
Educational Credit Type
Lincoln Institute certificate

Keywords

Environment, Environmental Management, Environmental Planning, Land Use Planning, Planning, Resilience, Sustainable Development