The popular sectors in most Latin American cities are at a serious disadvantage in influencing land use planning and management in their communities. Although neighborhood activists may be well-organized locally, their interests are generally absent from decision making that can have broad implications for both urban land management and human rights. As part of its ongoing effort to help community leaders and public officials in Latin America become more effective in implementing critical land management policies, the Lincoln Institute supported an innovative educational program in Quito, Ecuador, in October.

“Urban Land Policies for Popular Sectors” was cosponsored by the Institute, the Center for Investigations CIUDAD, and the Center for Research in Urbanism and Design at the School of Architecture of Catholic University in Quito. This pilot program served as a forum for more than 50 representatives of low-income communities throughout Ecuador who met for the first time. They discussed ambiguities surrounding the formulation and implementation of urban land policies, and the causes and impacts of these policies on the use and regulation of land. Particular attention was given to equitable access to land ownership, affordable housing and self-help construction on the urban periphery.

Ecuador’s Minister of Housing and Urban Development opened the first session, and a team of academics, professional policy advisors, local and national government authorities, and opinion leaders offered a number of strategic planning workshops and panel presentations. The forum included both conceptual and practical discussions on urban land legislation that recognized the noticeable lack of information on land policy at the grassroots level.

Many questions underscored the situation in Ecuador, where insecurity of land, home and person has often led to violence and evictions. This important issue served to highlight the primacy of human rights in the urban land debate, and to reinforce the urgent need to consider a broad range of public policies and planning mechanisms. In addition to encouraging organizational networks among the urban poor and partnerships with other local and national popular movement leaders, the forum explored strategies to build solidarity among the various sectors.

Mayors from other Latin American cities attended the final roundtable session and concluded that the forces affecting poor urban residents in Ecuador are strikingly similar throughout the region. One clear lesson is that access to information is needed to allow every individual and community to influence the formulation and implementation of urban land policies based on democratic participation. An inventory of comparative case studies of community-based land use practices will be incorporated into follow-up programs to assist public officials and administrators in future land use planning and policymaking.

This Quito forum is an example of the Lincoln Institute’s educational goal to provide better knowledge to citizens affected by urban land policies. One outcome is the “Document of Quito,” a summary of the strategies arrived at by consensus among the participants. The challenge of turning their consensus into action will be the true test of the pilot program. The Institute may also collaborate with the United Nations Program on Urban Management for Latin America and the Caribbean to develop a common agenda in education, research and publications. The results would help expand discussions of urban land issues at the grassroots level and improve the ways public officials and popular leaders can work together to generate more effective policies.

Sonia Pereira is a visiting fellow of the Lincoln Institute. An environmental lawyer, biologist, social psychologist and activist on behalf of human rights, she has been widely recognized for her work on environmental protection for low-income communities in Brazil. She is a Citizen of the World Laureate (World Peace University, 1992) and a Global 500 Laureate (United Nations Environment Programme-UNEP, 1996).

Over the past several years, the Lincoln Institute has sponsored executive courses for state planning directors in the Northeast and in the West. In October 2002, more than 25 planning officials from 14 western states met in Portland, Oregon, to compare their experiences, learn from each other’s successes and failures, and receive briefings, lectures and case presentations. A featured panel discussion during that course addressed “The Role of Water in Managing Growth.” This article provides a brief review of alternative policy options to link land use and water supply, and offers some suggestions for further research, education and policy development.

During the summer of 2002, many Colorado communities imposed watering restrictions as historic drought gripped the state. Along Colorado’s Front Range, from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, officials are now contemplating the possibility of adopting a coordinated program to help homeowners understand when they can, and cannot, water (Smith 2002). At the same time, Governor Bill Owens and other state officials hope to work with the Bush administration to harvest more trees in Colorado’s high-country in hopes of increasing water supply (Stein 2002). The basic idea behind this proposal, based on decades of study of state forests in Colorado, is that by removing around 40 percent of all trees in an area, the runoff from spring snowmelt can be increased significantly (Denver Post 2003). Such a proposal could change the face of Colorado for decades to come.

The situation in Colorado is symptomatic of urban areas throughout the Rocky Mountain West, one of the fastest growing regions in the country, and one of the driest. Finding sufficient water to meet the demands of burgeoning urban areas while also providing water for agricultural, commercial, recreational and environmental uses is one of the region’s most challenging land use issues.

But water is not a problem only in the West. Communities from Florida to Massachusetts experienced some form of water rationing during the summer drought in 2002 (Snyder 2002). Frederick, Maryland, for example, has experienced a water supply crisis due to rapid growth and bad planning. After imposing a ban on new development, city officials approved an ordinance in September 2002 that will limit developers’ access to water once Frederick moves beyond the immediate crisis and lifts the moratorium on construction. As further evidence of the growing need to link growth and land use with water supply, the Environmental Law Institute, the American Planning Association and other organizations cosponsored a conference in February 2003 titled Wet Growth: Should Water Law Control Land Use? It was cosponsored by and held at the Center for Land Resources at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California.

Policy Options

Water and land are inseparable, yet the need to link growth with water supply in the process of making land use decisions appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon. A preliminary review suggests four prominent policy options to achieve this linkage.

Water Markets

In their 2001 report, Water and Growth in Colorado, researchers at the University of Colorado’s Natural Resources Law Center write, “. . . managing growth through water policy . . . is probably not an option worth considering.” Their conclusion is based, at least in part, on two observations: abundant water supplies in the city of Pueblo have not spurred growth there, and a lack of water has not restricted development in the nation’s fastest-growing region, Douglas County. The authors explain that a more compelling set of issues revolve around the impact of land use and growth on water resources. The increasing demand for municipal water use tends to deplete stream-flows and thereby degrade fisheries, recreational opportunities and other environmental values; increase water pollution; foster inter-state disputes; and increase the price of water. While these impacts are undeniable and create their own set of problems, they distract us from the question of whether, and to what degree, water supply can or should direct growth.

In the West, water is considered a private property right (Getches 1984). It can be separated from the land and may be bought and sold in the free market like any other commodity. In Colorado and other western states, it is common to hear people say, “water flows uphill toward money.” This means that water is reallocated to where it is most highly valued (or to those who can pay the most), as illustrated by the trans-boundary system that diverts water from the western slope of Colorado across the Continental Divide to the metropolitan areas along the eastern slope. Under this legal and institutional system, it is quite common to transfer water rights from agriculture, which accounts for about 75 percent of water use in the West, to ever-expanding urban areas.

Water markets thus facilitate growth by acquiring the water necessary for land use and urban development (Anderson and Leal 2001). But what if a community or region is interested in managing growth to sustain some open space, wildlife corridors, and sufficient water flows for fish, recreational and other environmental values? How can water availability, or more accurately the lack of water, direct growth and land use into more desirable areas, thereby reducing conflicts with other community goals?

Public Trust Doctrine

One way is to establish priorities for water use through the political process. Article II, Section 1, of Hawaii’s constitution states, “All public natural resources are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.” Article II, Section 7, says, “The State has an obligation to protect, control, and regulate the use of Hawaii’s water resources for the benefit of its people.” Section 7 goes on to say that the state’s water resources agency shall “establish criteria for water use priorities while assuring appurtenant rights and existing correlative and riparian uses …” Interpreting these constitutional provisions, the Hawaii State Water Code clarifies that the state has both the authority and duty to preserve the rights of present and future generations in the waters of the state, and the state has a duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources.

Hawaii’s public trust doctrine is not uncommon; most western states have similar language in their constitutions (Sax 1993). Hawaii appears to be unique, however, in the degree to which it allocates water on the basis of the public trust doctrine. The state’s water code declares that water should not only be allocated to domestic, agricultural, commercial and industrial uses, but also to protect traditional and customary Hawaiian rights, maintain ecological balance and scenic beauty, provide for fish and wildlife, and offer opportunities for public recreation. To achieve these purposes, the Commission on Water Resource Management is responsible for developing a water plan that allocates water on the basis of “reasonable beneficial use,” and for regulating water development and use (Derrickson et al. 2002).

In 1997, the Commission issued water use permits for agricultural and other out-of-stream uses on the Waiahole Ditch water system. The decision was appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which overturned the Commission decision and ruled that the public trust doctrine and the state’s water code provide that, at least in this case, in-stream public uses of water receive special consideration over off-stream private uses. This and similar applications of the public trust doctrine suggest that it is possible for appropriate jurisdictions to establish priorities for water use, and then to allow the market to reallocate water rights from one use to another consistent with the priorities established by law and the political process (Sax 1993).

“Prove-it” Policies

Rather than rely on water markets, a public trust doctrine, or some combination of the two, several jurisdictions around the country have crafted policies that specifically require a link between water availability and development. According to the ordinance adopted in Frederick, Maryland, city officials will review every proposed development and decide whether the city can provide the necessary water. Under the ordinance, 45 percent of surplus water will be allocated for new residential developments, 30 percent for commercial and industrial projects, and 25 percent for other uses, including government buildings and hospitals.

Other states have adopted similar policies that require developers to prove that they have adequate water supplies prior to approving development proposals. According to Charles Unseld, the director of Colorado’s Office of Smart Growth, several communities along Colorado’s Front Range are imposing such restrictions, at least on an ad hoc basis. In October 2001, California Governor Gray Davis signed Senate Bill 221, which requires developers of proposals for subdivisions of 500 units or more to prove they have water rights before they can receive final approval. While this requirement can be avoided by building smaller developments, it nevertheless represents an incremental step in directing growth according to the availability of water.

Perhaps the most sweeping policy framework linking water supply to growth is Arizona’s Groundwater Management Act. Groundwater sources supply roughly one-half of the total annual demand for water in Arizona (Jacobs and Holway, undated). Like most western states, agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of water use in Arizona, although this percent is slowly decreasing as municipal demand increases and the agricultural economy declines. In response to a growing concern over groundwater mining (that is, pumping and using groundwater at a rate faster than it can naturally replenish itself), the legislature passed the Groundwater Management Act (GMA) in 1980, and it was signed by then-Governor Bruce Babbitt.

The GMA created four “active management areas” (AMAs) around the state’s most populous areas: Phoenix, Pinal, Prescott and Tucson; a fifth AMA was created in Santa Cruz in 1993. The primary intent of the GMA is to sustain a long-term balance between the amount of groundwater withdrawn in each management area and the amount of natural and artificial recharge. This is accomplished through a combination of mandatory water conservation requirements and incentives to augment existing supplies. To help achieve the goal of “safe yield,” the GMA prevents new subdivisions from being approved in AMAs unless developers can prove that renewable water supplies are available for 100 years.

During a recent review of the GMA by a Governor’s Commission, water managers in Arizona concluded that the “assured water supply” program is responsible for much of the substantial progress that has been made in fast-growing municipalities to move away from groundwater overdraft toward renewable water supplies, including water from the Colorado River and reuse of effluent.

Another potential policy mechanism to link growth and land use to water supply is the use of urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The statutes that authorize UGBs in Oregon do not currently single out water availability as a variable for determining where the boundary should be located. However, Ethan Seltzer, director of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies at Portland State University, has commented that it is not inconceivable to create a UGB within which developers would be required to prove that water is available for proposed growth.

Water and Land Management Strategies

In addition to asserting policies that explicitly link the availability of water supply to proposed development, there are other ways to meet the demand for more water to support development. Using existing water supplies more efficiently through conservation, xeriscaping and other water-saving measures can free up some water. Drought planning, water harvesting and the use of on-site gray-water systems can also help manage supply to meet demand. Groundwater development and the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater may be appropriate for some communities. Small-scale and off-stream water storage, while potentially expensive and environmentally controversial, also could help some communities satisfy their thirst for growth.

Another option, mentioned earlier, is to increase water supply through timber harvesting and vegetation management. While some people debate the technical merits of this option, nearly everyone must question its political feasibility. During the past decade, conservation and environmental groups have consistently challenged timber harvesting practices on federal lands throughout the West, often tying-up much needed salvage logging and restoration projects for years in the courts.

The Search for a Land and Water Ethic

A recent issue of National Geographic reports, “Among the environmental specters confronting humanity in the 21st century—global warming, the destruction of rain forests, over-fishing of the oceans—a shortage of fresh water is at the top of the list …” (Montaigne 2002). In the face of what the World Bank refers to as the “grim arithmetic of water,” the author concludes that people around the world seem to emphasize two common approaches to this problem: efficient use of available water supplies, and a belief in using local solutions and free market incentives to emphasize conservation.

The relationship among water, growth and land use is a global problem that will be resolved most effectively at the local and regional level. While this article has reviewed several policy options, it is clear that there is much to be learned from other countries. More research, documentation and analysis of the effectiveness of alternative policies and practices are surely needed if the National Geographic story is correct: that limited water supplies are or will be the number-one environmental issue facing communities.

As we search for effective ways to integrate water, growth and land use, it is instructive to keep in mind the “land ethic” articulated by conservationist Aldo Leopold (1949, 224-225): “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” The land ethic, according to Leopold, is based on the premise that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts. It provides moral direction on relationships between individuals and society and between humans and the biotic community, which includes soil, plants and animals, or collectively, land and water. This principle should inspire and guide us as we develop effective public policies to sustain communities and landscapes.

Matthew McKinney is director of the Montana Consensus Council, which is housed in the Office of the Governor in Helena, Montana. He is also a faculty associate of the Lincoln Institute, where he teaches courses on resolving land use disputes and regional collaboration, and coordinates the annual course for state planning directors in the West.

References

Anderson, Terry L. and Donald R. Leal. 2001. Free market environmentalism, rev. ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Denver Post. 2003. Keep forest bill’s focus on fire (February 11).

Derrickson, S.A.K., et al. 2002. Watershed management and policy in Hawai’i: Coming full circle. American Water Resources Association 38(2).

Getches, David H. 1984. Water law in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Jacobs, Katharine L. and James M. Holway. Undated. Managing for sustainability in Arizona: Lessons learned from 20 years of groundwater management. Unpublished manuscript available from the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

Montaigne, Fen. 2002. Water pressure. National Geographic (September):9.

Sax, Joseph L.1993. Bringing an ecological perspective to natural resources: Fulfilling the promise of the public trust. In Natural resources law and policy: Trends and directions, Lawrence J. MacDonnell and Sarah F. Bates, eds. 148-161. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Smith, Jerd. 2002. Cities may equalize water rules. Rocky Mountain News (November 8): 11A.

Snyder, David. 2002. A new direction in water law: Frederick ordinance resembles western U.S. approach. Washington Post (September 23): B01.

Stein, Theo. 2002. A clear-cut drought solution? Logging urged to boost runoff, but eco-groups object. Denver Post (November 10): 1.

The debate about the reality of global warming, and the human role in precipitating climate change, has been largely put to rest. Four working groups from the United Nations–sponsored Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (2007) have come to a consensus that would be gratifying if it were not so frightening. Yes, the globe is warming they say. Yes, humans are the primary agent for this change. Yes, the consequences may be dire. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2007) was also released last year by the Treasury Department of the British Government, whose only task was to assess the financial implications of global warming. That report warned that the costs of correcting this problem were affordable in the short term, but if nothing was done soon, the coming global economic calamity would make the depression of the 1930s look like a period of great luxury.

Canfei He earned his Ph.D. degree in geography from Arizona State University in 2001, and then moved to the University of Memphis, Tennessee, where he taught as an assistant professor. In August 2003, he returned to China as an associate professor in Peking University’s College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, and was promoted to full professor in 2009. In addition to his academic duties at Peking University, Dr. He has served as associate director of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy since 2007. He is also the associate director of the Economic Geography Specialty Group of the China Geographical Society.

Dr. He’s research interests include multinational corporations, industrial location and spatial clustering of firms, and energy and the environment in China. The World Bank invited him to write a background paper on industrial agglomeration in China for the World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Global Economic Geography.

Dr. He has authored four academic books and his work is published widely in English journals including Regional Studies, Urban Studies, Annals of Regional Science, International Migration Review, Eurasian Geography and Economics, Post-Communist Economies, and China & the World Economy. Dr. He also serves on the editorial board of three journals: Eurasian Geography and Economics, International Urban Planning, and China Regional Economics.

Land Lines: How did you become associated with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and its programs in China?

Canfei He: I learned about the activities of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s recently established China Program from one of my colleagues at Peking University in 2003soon after I returned from the United States. At that time, the Lincoln Institute was working in China on a number of specific programs, and I became involved in several associated research projects.

My official relationship with the Institute began with the establishment of the Peking University–Lincoln Institute Center for Urban Development and Land Policy (PLC) in October 2007. The Institute had been exploring a more long-term partnership with Peking University for some time, and as those discussions progressed, my previous contacts offered opportunities for me to serve as a liaison between the two institutions. I was nominated by Peking University to serve as the associate director with its director, Joyce Yanyun Man, who is also a senior fellow of the Lincoln Institute and director of its Program on the People’s Republic of China. Over the past two years or more, I have been helping to develop the center and coordinate its work with other partners at Peking University, as well as serving as a research fellow of the center.

Land Lines: Why are urban development studies so important in China?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization during the past three decades has been remarkable. As an overwhelmingly rural population in 1978 when reforms began, China is now 45.7 percent urbanized, and the country is projected to be 60 percent urbanized by 2020. This means that China’s cities will need to accommodate more than 100 million new urban residents in this decade.

Market forces, local forces, and global forces are all conspiring to influence the pattern of China’s urbanization and development. Accompanying large-scale and rapid urbanization are revolutionary spatial, structural, industrial, institutional, and environmental changes in an incredibly brief span of time. The multiplicity of these driving forces makes the study of urban development in China both complex and challenging. The next wave of urbanization will have far-reaching implications for the country’s future development, and thus there is a critical need for more high-quality, objective research on the subject.

Land Lines: What are some of the most unusual aspects of urban development in China?

Canfei He: China’s current urban development is quite different institutionally from that of most Western countries. Urbanization in China has occurred at the same time that its economy has become market-oriented, globalized, and decentralized. Whereas most Western urbanization occurred in a period of greater economic isolation, China’s urban development has been directly influenced by international investment and global economic trends.

A second factor is China’s hukou system of personal registration that limits the mobility of its people in part by linking their access to social services to the location of their registration. This system thus presents an institutional barrier that inhibits rural-urban migration despite ongoing reforms.

Regional decentralization is another important aspect that, combined with the state and collective ownership of land, has allowed local governments to play a distinct role in China’s urban development. Land acquisition fees resulting from the sale of multi-decade leases for the use and development of state-owned lands have generated enormous revenues, and have been a critical source of municipal financial resources for urban infrastructure investment. This fee-based revenue, in turn, creates incentives that have promoted even more intense urbanization. On the other hand, the major planning role afforded to local governments in China means that urban planning practice lacks consistency across the country’s diverse regions, and is often hostage to local interest groups.

China is facing increasing global challenges and pressures from many sources including multinational corporations, nongovernmental organizations, global environmental standards, and rising energy prices. These challenges may increase the costs of urban development, but at the same time they may encourage a more sustainable process of urbanization.

Land Lines: How do you approach urban development studies in China through your own research?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization goes hand in hand with its industrialization, and foreign investment has played a significant role in the country’s growth. Urbanization demands labor, land, capital, and technology, as well as supporting institutions. Consequently, there are myriad approaches to studying urban development in China that focus on a particular factor or set of factors.

My own research interests fall within the capital and institutional approaches. Specifically, I investigate industrial agglomeration and foreign direct investment in Chinese cities by highlighting the institutional environment of economic transition. Investigating the elements driving industrial agglomeration in different cities and understanding the locational preferences of foreign and domestic firms are crucial for designing coherent and focused urban planning policies.

For instance, my research on foreign direct investment in real estate development and the locational preferences of international banks found that local market conditions and regional institutions largely determine the locational preferences of multinational services. This type of observation can be of use to planners and politicians in China seeking to foster the growth of the service industry.

With the increasing emphasis on global climate change and acknowledgement of the environmental impacts of China’s first 30 years of reform and development, I am also becoming more involved in research on the environmental impacts of urbanization, including energy consumption and carbon emissions. China has made a commitment to reduce its CO₂ emission by 40–45 percent per unit of GDP by 2020, relative to 2005. This means that building low-carbon and energy-efficient cities is another goal on the already lengthy list of challenges that includes servicing, housing, and employing the country’s millions of future urban dwellers.

Land Lines: Given this ongoing international dialogue, how can China best learn from Western urbanization experiences?

Canfei He: We recognize that there is much to learn from the West, including alternative approaches to land policy, housing policy, transportation policy, environmental policy, suburbanization, and the development and planning of megacity regions. China has the benefit of using the West’s experience as a roadmap to help it avoid many of the problems that have arisen in Western cities, such as urban sprawl and gridlock. That economic, political, and geographic diversity offers a wealth of reference points for China’s cities that should not be ignored and can help China avoid problems that have plagued many Western metropolises.

However, it is necessary to research the applicability of particular international experiences, considering the uniqueness of China’s history and culture. Too often analyses of Western urbanization are presented as a blueprint for China, when in fact institutional, economic, and political differences mean that, for one reason or another, those solutions are impractical or unfeasible.

Land Lines: Why is China’s urbanization and urban development so important to the West?

Canfei He: China’s urbanization will be one of the most important dynamics of the twenty-first century, not only for China but also for the West and the rest of the world. Millions of newly affluent consumers and empowered global citizens will exert significant new demands on the world’s finite natural resources in several ways.

First, with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, China and the world committed themselves to halving the number of people living on less than $1 per day by 2015. Given China’s large number of rural poor, the country’s urbanization and economic development will be instrumental in meeting this important goal, as well as in achieving other goals such as those related to education and improving children’s health. Only cities have the institutional reach and financial capacity to meet these goals on a large scale.

Second, much has been made of the gulf in understanding between China and the West in recent years. Urbanization and urban development will help to integrate China further into the global community, but it may also create more opportunities for cultural friction. The West has a vested interest in seeing that China urbanizes in an atmosphere that encourages openness and intercultural exchange.

Third, history demonstrates that urbanization entails a much greater demand for energy and other resources as living standards rise and as consumption and dietary patterns change. It has become a cliché to say that “as China goes, so goes the world,” but China’s urbanization and its related environmental impacts will have direct implications for the West and the rest of the world.

The recent memory of $150 per barrel of oil shows that this future demand is likely to put great stress on international energy markets and the global economy. This latent demand also has broad implications for China’s CO₂ emissions and for global climate change. The United States and China are key to any real hope of keeping the increase in average global temperatures less than 2 degrees Celsius warmer than preindustrial levels, as proposed at the recent climate conference in Copenhagen. Whereas the high level of development in Western countries means that changes happen incrementally, China’s rapid urbanization offers hope to limit the world’s future emissions by making significant changes now as the country develops.

El cambio climático está presentando una variedad de riesgos, incertidumbres y opciones difíciles que las comunidades deben aprender a analizar: ¿Cómo deben considerarse el riesgo y la incertidumbre sobre el futuro en los procesos de toma de decisiones actuales sobre el uso del suelo? ¿Cómo pueden involucrarse las partes interesadas en la toma de decisiones para ayudar a clarificar las ventajas y desventajas de cada opción y construir un consenso sobre la mejor manera de proceder?

Por medio de una iniciativa conjunta entre el Consensus Building Institute (CBI) y el Lincoln Institute of Land Policy estamos ayudando a responder a estas preguntas utilizando la teoría y práctica de resolución de conflictos propia de CBI y los conocimientos de otros socios en temas tales como la gestión de riesgo y la planificación de escenarios. Hemos desarrollado una serie de talleres sobre enfoques colaborativos para manejar el riesgo y la incertidumbre en la toma de decisiones. En este artículo describimos estas experiencias y las lecciones sobre la adaptación al cambio climático que se pueden extraer de las mismas.

Como organización neutral que ayuda a resolver conflictos sobre el uso de suelo de todo tipo, CBI ha extraído distintas lecciones y buenas prácticas para planificadores y otras personas que están en la posición de dirimir conflictos sobre el uso del suelo (Nolon, Ferguson, y Field 2013). Cada vez más, sin embargo, el cambio climático y los riesgos, incertidumbres y complejidades asociadas se consideran una parte importante de la “historia” del conflicto más amplio sobre el uso del suelo. Por ejemplo, los debates sobre la ubicación de una planta cerca de la costa generan cuestiones acerca del impacto de la misma sobre el área circundante y el medio ambiente, como también preocupación sobre la posibilidad de que el ascenso del nivel del mar pueda hacer que la planta sea inviable al cabo de varios años.

Cada parte interesada tendrá una percepción distinta de cuán certero, inminente y evitable será el cambio climático, y cuáles son los riesgos que presentará. Más aún, los problemas vinculados con el cambio climático son increíblemente complejos. Para comprender el impacto del cambio climático en el Río Colorado, por ejemplo, hay que considerar una red de factores hidrológicos, legales, sociales, económicos, históricos, y otros.

En resumen, para afrontar el cambio climático hay que reconciliar distintas percepciones de riesgo, avanzar a pesar de un alto grado de incertidumbre y encontrar maneras de dejar lugar para adaptarse y cambiar de curso en un entorno complejo. Nuestra serie de talleres se ha centrado en reunir todas estas corrientes de pensamiento por medio de investigaciones articuladas, gestión de riesgo conjunto y toma de decisiones colaborativas.

Talleres sobre la gestión de riesgo

En 2009, con el respaldo del Instituto Lincoln, CBI desarrolló su primer taller de dos días de duración sobre la adaptación al cambio climático, con el objetivo de reunir expertos en gestión de riesgo, planificación de escenarios y construcción de consenso. Nuestro objetivo fue compartir las mejores prácticas en estas áreas para ayudar a aquellos que toman decisiones sobre el uso del suelo a evaluar distintas maneras de considerar el clima como un elemento clave de incertidumbre en el proceso de planificación. Los capacitadores de CBI fueron Paul Kirshen, experto en gestión de riesgo, y Stephen Aldrich, presidente de Bio Economic Research Associates (bio-era), una empresa de investigación y consultoría independiente, y profesional en planificación de escenarios desde hace mucho tiempo.

Desarrollamos en conjunto un programa de estudio con presentaciones en cada área temática, junto con un ejercicio interactivo basado en las amenazas reales que el ascenso en el nivel del mar presentará a la zona de East Boston, Massachusetts. El curso fue revisado y repetido en 2010 y 2011. En paralelo, desarrollamos una versión en línea que está disponible ahora en el sitio web del Instituto Lincoln (ver la contratapa interna).

La premisa principal de esta serie de talleres es que el cambio climático se debería considerar a la luz de la gestión de riesgo, y se debería tratar por medio de un proceso que incluya la gama más amplia de opiniones de las partes interesadas sobre la probabilidad de un resultado o impacto en particular debido al cambio climático. Si las partes interesadas sienten que, durante el proceso, sus opiniones y creencias se consideran legítimas, es mucho más probable que participen y acepten el resultado.

Además, la planificación de escenarios puede ayudar a que las partes interesadas consideren el impacto potencial del cambio climático probando acciones alternativas en función de distintos pronósticos posibles, para identificar las acciones que mejor representen una decisión “de la que no haya que lamentarse posteriormente”. En este enfoque queda implícito que no sería sensato ignorar los posibles impactos del cambio climático, como también lo sería invertir fondos de manera exagerada para prepararse frente a amenazas que quizás no se produzcan en el futuro. De esta manera, la planificación de escenarios reconoce realmente la incertidumbre.

CBI comenzó a trabajar en 2011 con el Sonoran Institute en Phoenix, Arizona, para llevar el taller al oeste de los Estados Unidos, haciendo hincapié en la planificación de escenarios colaborativos. Con Jim Holway, director del Programa de Comunidades y Suelos del Oeste del Sonoran Institute (otro socio del Instituto Lincoln) y Stephen Aldrich desarrollamos un taller de un día y medio de duración, que se llevó a cabo en Phoenix en marzo de 2012. Se centró en los métodos de planificación de escenarios como una manera de avanzar en intereses diversos y contradictorios, a pesar de la incertidumbre y los desacuerdos y hasta la polarización política, en temas como el cambio climático, la planificación de recursos hídricos y la gestión del crecimiento.

El método de planificación de escenarios desarrollado por Aldrich consiste en formar un grupo de múltiples partes interesadas para generar de forma conjunta una serie de escenarios plausibles para el futuro de un lugar o de un problema en un horizonte de tiempo dado. Las opciones políticas se miden en función de cada uno de los escenarios usando una serie de criterios que también se generan conjuntamente. Dos características distintivas de este enfoque son la participación de las partes interesadas en todo el proceso y la suposición de que todos los escenarios se consideran igualmente probables.

Este enfoque de la planificación de escenarios no es simplemente un análisis de alternativas sino un esfuerzo por imaginar futuros distintos en función de lo que sabemos hoy, de cuáles son las mayores incertidumbres y cuáles son los factores de cambio que se consideran más importantes en el sistema analizado. El siguiente paso es considerar de qué manera se comportan las múltiples opciones políticas y otras medidas en estos distintos futuros, cuando se las mide en función de criterios clave, como costo, eficacia y adaptabilidad.

Durante el desarrollo del taller de Phoenix reforzamos estos conceptos y los pasos del proceso usando un ejercicio interactivo que considera las amenazas reales que el cambio climático podrá presentar para el suministro de agua en el sudoeste de los Estados Unidos. El ejercicio, llamado “Planificación en el condado de Robert”, presentó un condado ficticio del “Corredor del Sol” sometido a la presión del desarrollo inmobiliario aun cuando se proyecta que el suministro de agua se reducirá debido al cambio climático. Los participantes usaron este caso de estudio para identificar los factores más importantes para el condado, para después traducirlos a elementos de escenarios futuros clasificándolos como “elementos predeterminados”, “incertidumbres principales” o “factores de desarrollo gobernantes”.

En el ejercicio final, se asignó a los participantes roles que representaban a grupos e intereses comunes (por ejemplo, la Junta de Comisionados del condado de Robert, la Asociación Agrícola del condado de Robert, o la Organización Medioambiental del Río Andrés). También se les dio un marco de referencia de escenarios en función de dos incertidumbres principales: ¿Volvería el condado de Robert a tener un crecimiento económico rápido, y se producirían realmente las reducciones en el suministro de agua debido al cambio climático pronosticadas en el “Informe de Cambio Climático de NRL” ficticio (figura 1)? Los participantes tuvieron que evaluar una serie de políticas hídricas usando este marco de referencia de escenarios, teniendo en cuenta también los intereses y percepciones proporcionadas en la descripción de los roles asignados a cada uno ellos.

Los participantes, que provenían de entidades estatales y locales, el mundo académico, sectores privados y organizaciones no gubernamentales, reportaron que el taller fue extremadamente útil para comprender cómo funciona la planificación colaborativa de escenarios y cómo se podría aplicar esta metodología en sus contextos profesionales. La simulación paso a paso del proceso de planificación de escenarios les ayudó a comprender con claridad cómo es el proceso y los beneficios y desafíos de trabajar con múltiples partes interesadas.

Se pidió a muchos participantes que desempeñaran un papel con intereses y percepciones del cambio climático muy distintos a los de su situación personal o profesional. Esta experiencia les brindó una oportunidad de aprender cómo otras partes interesadas podrían encarar este tipo de problema. Varios participantes solicitaron más información sobre el aspecto del proceso que tenía que ver con la construcción de consenso como, por ejemplo, ponerse de acuerdo en el proceso desde el comienzo y efectuar una evaluación para comprender a qué partes interesadas hay que involucrar y qué temas hay que resolver. Muchos participantes reconocieron que la planificación colaborativa de escenarios era una herramienta potencialmente útil para la resolución de conflictos.

Lecciones aprendidas

La progresión y el desarrollo continuo de estos talleres nos han ayudado a extraer varias lecciones sobre cómo enseñar y utilizar las herramientas colaborativas para analizar el riesgo, la incertidumbre y la complejidad en la toma de decisiones.

Clarificar la terminología desde el principio

Términos como construcción de consenso y planificación de escenarios tienen distintos significados dependiendo de la persona que los escuche. Algunos interpretan la construcción de consenso como un compromiso. Escuchamos con frecuencia de las partes interesadas que si participan en un proceso de construcción de consenso se verán obligadas a renunciar a sus intereses más importantes. Cuando CBI habla de enfoques para construir consenso, sin embargo, se refiere a satisfacer los intereses clave de las partes interesadas como forma de llegar a un acuerdo que maximice los beneficios conjuntos (Susskind, McKearnan y Thomas-Larmer 1999).

Para algunas personas, la planificación de escenarios sugiere una manera de trabajar para un futuro preferencial u “oficial”, mientras que para otras es un método para hacer pronósticos. En contraste, la metodología de Aldrich pone el énfasis en formular una cartera de futuros posibles que se consideran como igualmente probables y, después, ensaya distintas medidas y/o estrategias políticas en cada escenario para descubrir cuáles rinden buenos resultados en la mayoría o todos los escenarios, y por lo tanto serían las más sólidas.

Aldrich remarca que este método es el mejor para problemas “perversos”, que se caracterizan por un alto grado tanto de incertidumbre como de complejidad. De forma similar, distingue entre el proceso de planificación experta de escenarios y los enfoques con múltiples partes interesadas. Mantenemos la hipótesis de que el hecho de hacer participar a un conjunto diverso de partes interesadas en el proceso de planificación de escenarios ayudará a aprovechar el conocimiento local, se representarán varios puntos de vista y en última instancia las decisiones que se tomen se verán como más legítimas y por lo tanto serán más fáciles de implementar.

Dar tiempo a sentirse cómodo con la complejidad

La mayoría de la gente no se pasa el día pensando en problemas muy complejos e inciertos en términos de múltiples futuros posibles. Por el contrario, nos sentimos más cómodos con la linealidad, y con decisiones racionales basadas en los hechos y en nuestras propias percepciones y preferencias. Por su naturaleza, no obstante, los métodos para abordar el complejo tema del cambio climático exigen un modo de pensar distinto y una cierta comodidad con lo desconocido. Para mucha gente, el pensar en distintos futuros igualmente plausibles, ya sea como participantes en un taller o en el proceso real de planificación de escenarios, es nuevo.

Esta dinámica se puso en evidencia en nuestro taller de Phoenix, por ejemplo, cuando se les pidió a los participantes en el ejercicio del condado de Robert que pensaran en de qué manera ciertas políticas hídricas específicas –como la transferencia de derechos de agua existentes y el aumento del precio del agua– influirían sobre un escenario esencialmente estático o sobre un escenario en que el suministro de agua se reducía significativamente mientras que el crecimiento económico seguía constante.

Los participantes encontraron dificultades para aplicar una política a distintos futuros, y para separar su propio análisis político de los intereses y prioridades del papel que se les pidió que desempeñaran. La persona cuyo papel requería que se opusiera vehementemente a la idea de pagar más por el agua, por ejemplo, tuvo problemas para reconocer que esta política podría funcionar muy bien en un escenario de escasez de agua y alto crecimiento económico. La dificultad de separar los intereses y percepciones de los escenarios “objetivos” también tiene su correlación en la vida real.

Para ayudar a manejar esta dinámica, es importante identificar el desplazamiento mental necesario para manejar complejidad e incertidumbre, reconociendo que este desplazamiento no es siempre fácil y por ello hay que darle a la gente tiempo suficiente para acostumbrarse. Para los propósitos del taller, fue útil considerar que el ejercicio era una manera de ayudar a los participantes a medir una cierta política basada en cuatro futuros plausibles, y que este era un objetivo legítimo e importante por sí mismo. En el contexto de una planificación de escenarios real, puede ser valioso que los expertos ayuden a las partes interesadas a trabajar con escenarios desde el comienzo mismo del proceso.

Invertir tiempo en “actividades interactivas”

En general es útil que un taller sea interactivo, tanto desde el punto de vista pedagógico como para mantener el interés de la audiencia. La interactividad es particularmente importante para enseñar en detalle enfoques conceptuales como la gestión de riesgo, incertidumbre y complejidad. Muchas personas trabajan mejor cuando los conceptos y la teoría se pueden ligar directamente con una realidad relevante. Si se le da a la gente un ejemplo o ejercicio concreto que les resulta familiar, pero que no refleja de forma directa su situación de vida, ello ayudará a dar forma concreta a los conceptos, dejando lugar al mismo tiempo para que los participantes experimenten con nuevas ideas y puntos de vista (Plumb, Fierman, y Schenk 2011).

Otra razón para realizar “actividades interactivas”, como las llamábamos en Phoenix, es ayudar a la gente a comprender tanto los desafíos como el valor de llevar a cabo un proceso de planificación colaborativa de escenarios. Por ejemplo, la lógica de usar incertidumbres mayores para estructurar escenarios futuros puede ser clara en principio, pero llegado el momento de seleccionar dichas incertidumbres, el proceso de toma de decisiones se hace más difícil de lo que uno imagina.

Cuando les pedimos a los participantes que identificaran las incertidumbres mayores del condado de Robert, se produjo un debate intenso. ¿Debería tratarse el cambio climático como una incertidumbre mayor o como un elemento predeterminado? ¿El crecimiento económico es un factor de desarrollo o una incertidumbre mayor? Los participantes comentaron después que la intensidad del debate les sorprendió, pero encontraron muy valioso ver cómo un grupo de personas podía llegar a conclusiones tan diferentes a partir del mismo modelo fáctico de tres páginas.

Es fundamental entonces dar tiempo para practicar estos conceptos, ya que ello refuerza las ideas, las vincula con problemas y temas reales, e ilustra el valor de exponer distintos intereses y percepciones. En el contexto de los talleres, recomendamos ejercicios interactivos ficticios pero realistas, como el de planificación en el condado de Robert, para proporcionar información relevante, reforzar conceptos y alentar a los participantes a adoptar perspectivas a las que pueden no estar acostumbrados.

Utilizar la construcción de consenso en casos de riesgo, incertidumbre y complejidad

El elemento común a lo largo de nuestra experiencia de desarrollo y revisión de estos talleres es la noción de que las técnicas de construcción de consenso ocupan un lugar importante en la adaptación al cambio climático y en otros procesos de toma de decisiones que involucran riesgo, incertidumbre y complejidad. La participación significativa de representantes de las partes afectadas ayuda a asegurar que se exprese todo el rango de perspectivas e intereses, se utilicen los conocimientos locales y que se genere un proceso sólido que se considere ampliamente legítimo y verosímil. Más aún; de ser apropiado, se puede hacer participar a grupos de partes interesadas en la implementación de políticas, particularmente si se establece un enfoque de gestión colaborativa adaptativa (Islam y Susskind 2012).

Las herramientas y técnicas particulares para construir consenso en la planificación colaborativa de escenarios y otros procesos incluyen las evaluaciones y la gestión de procesos. Al comienzo de un proceso se puede realizar una evaluación para identificar las partes interesadas y los temas a debatir, observar la capacidad de las partes interesadas para trabajar con escenarios y diseñar un proceso para avanzar en función de los resultados.

Estas evaluaciones frecuentemente son efectuadas por una parte neutral, comenzando con entrevistas confidenciales con una amplia gama de partes interesadas. Las entrevistas se consolidan en un informe de evaluación que resume los puntos de vista y temas principales expresados, sin atribuir ninguna declaración en particular a la parte que la emitió. Se debe dar oportunidad a las partes interesadas para confirmar que su perspectiva fue recogida correctamente. Utilizando los resultados de la evaluación, el facilitador y el organizador pueden decidir si vale la pena avanzar en el proceso con la participación de múltiples partes interesadas y, en ese caso, cómo hacerlo.

También se puede usar al facilitador, o a un grupo de facilitadores, para manejar el proceso colaborativo, en el caso de que se decida seguir adelante. Se pueden usar administradores de proceso neutrales para que la conversación sea productiva y colaborativa y para ayudar a que el grupo llegue a un acuerdo sobre los puntos claves, como la selección de los elementos de los escenarios y los criterios para evaluar opciones políticas.

Por ejemplo, CBI, con el respaldo del Instituto Lincoln, hizo posible recientemente una reunión sobre el ascenso del nivel del mar, diseñada para reforzar las zonas urbanas costeras en la Ciudad de Nueva York. Los facilitadores reunieron a representantes de entidades estatales y locales, grupos de interés y otras partes interesadas que no podían progresar en sus discusiones, y promovieron una interacción que generó pasos concretos para reforzar la zona costera y comprometerse a seguir trabajando juntos. Los facilitadores también pueden ayudar a los grupos a planificar la implementación de políticas o acuerdos que resulten del proceso, incluyendo esfuerzos de gestión colaborativa adaptativa.

Conclusión

Para poder tomar hoy decisiones relacionadas con el impacto del cambio climático en el futuro, el trabajo reciente de CBI ha reforzado la noción de que es necesario construir capacidad para gestionar el riesgo, la incertidumbre y la complejidad conectándola de cerca con los problemas y temáticas reales a los que se enfrentan las comunidades. Más aún, es importante participar en procesos de toma de decisiones que puedan resolver estos desafíos, en vez de tomar decisiones ignorándolos, utilizando para ello métodos como la planificación de escenarios y la gestión adaptativa. En muchas situaciones, sin embargo, no basta con que estas herramientas sean utilizadas solo por expertos, sin consultar a otras partes interesadas. Frecuentemente, las decisiones más robustas son aquellas tomadas con la participación de las partes que se verán afectadas por el cambio climático y por las decisiones tomadas para manejarlo.

Sobre los autores

Elizabeth Fierman es integrante del personal del Consensus Building Institute en Cambridge, Massachusetts, donde trabaja en facilitación y mediación, desarrolla y brinda capacitación, y realiza investigaciones.

Patrick Field es director gerente del Consensus Building Institute, subdirector del Programa de Debates Públicas de MIT-Harvard y senior fellow del Centro de Recursos Naturales y Política de la Universidad de Montana.

Steve Aldrich es el fundador de Bio Economic Research Associates LLC (bio-eraTM), una empresa independiente de investigación y consultoría con sede en Cambridge, Massachusetts, especializada en el análisis de temas complejos en la intersección de nuestra comprensión emergente de biología y economía.

Referencias

Islam, Shafiqul, and Lawrence Susskind. 2012 (forthcoming). Water diplomacy: A negotiated approach to managing complex water networks. New York: Resources for the Future.

Nolon, Sean, Ona Ferguson, and Patrick Field. 2013 (forthcoming). Land in conflict: Managing and resolving land use disputes. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Plumb, David, Elizabeth Fierman, and Todd Schenk. Role-play simulations and managing climate change risks. Cambridge, MA: Consensus Building Institute. http://cbuilding.org/tools/bpcs/roleplay-simulations-and-managing-climate-change-risks

Susskind, Lawrence, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, eds. 1999. The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.