Difference between revisions of "Bringing sustainable infrastructure - carefully engaging in public-private partnerships"

From Urban Arena Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Imagine a city where sustainable urban infrastructure is brought by private actors to degraded neighborhoods, for local residents to enjoy green spaces and cultural activities.'''
This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world [[Dealing flexibly with and learning from resistance in Barcelona | case]]


This intervention could develop even in a context of economic crisis. In such a situation, the municipality, close to bankruptcy, may not have the capacity to address the social problems associated with a degraded neighborhood. Yet, a private actor may be motivated by these problems to support weakened public authorities. In this case, such an actor could engage in urban regeneration by conceptualizing an urban renewal project and offering to develop it in the framework of a public-private partnership with the public authorities still owning the land.  
[[File:SNFCC picture.jpg | 500px]]


The cornerstone of such a partnership may be its financial arrangements. Whereas public actors would be weakened by the crisis, the private actor may be able to cover all project costs and donate it to public authorities after completion. In return, the donor could have the leading role in operating the project. It could take over the responsibility for decision making whereas public governmental and non-governmental actors would only have a limited agency.
'''Imagine a city where urban infrastructure is brought by private actors to degraded neighborhoods, for local residents to enjoy green spaces and cultural activities.'''
To facilitate the process, the legal agreement linking the public to the private actor may be submitted ready-made to the public authorities. However, letting one actor operate on its own may centralize knowledge and resources and would not necessarily provide learning for other actors involved in the project, including municipal agents.
More crucial, a public-private partnership likely entails a high dependency of public authorities on the private actor. Unscrupulous donors could be expecting a financial guarantee for their operation, including reimbursement of some costs if the project is not financially viable once it starts operating. In this case, public authorities may be at risk of sliding even further into debt. Such an example highlights the need to agree on fair terms between private and public partners.  


Some public-private partnerships are inspirational while others are informative on what to avoid. However, the emergence of such a partnership may be closely related to a specific context of economic crisis and austerity. In all cases, such partnerships should be clearly beneficial, e.g. as the only possible way of bringing essential services to those in need. The possibility of unintended (long-term) consequences need to be considered, though, e.g. that democratically elected authorities may lose a significant part of their autonomy.
'''How might a city create this future?'''


==Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==
This intervention could develop even in a context of economic crisis [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#9. Problematization and priority:|(Q9a)]]. In such a situation, the municipality, close to bankruptcy, may not have the capacity to address the social problems associated with a degraded neighborhood. Yet, a private actor may be motivated by these problems to support weakened public authorities [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens|(Q3)]]. In this case, such an actor could engage in urban regeneration by conceptualizing an urban renewal project and offering to develop it in the framework of a public-private partnership with the public authorities still owning the land [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#10. Who initiated the intervention?|(Q10)]].


Take a look at the detailed description of [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens]] that has inspired this scenario.
The cornerstone of such a partnership may be its financial arrangements [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#18. Are particular substantive (multi-level) governmental policies considered to be highly influential in the genesis and shaping of the intervention? (If easily possible, please specify the policy, the policy field and the governance level mainly addressed, and characterize it along Appendix 2: Policy typology)|(Q18)]]. Whereas public actors would be weakened by the crisis [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#17. What circumstances or events are reported to have triggered the intervention? (In what ways?)|(Q17)]], the private actor may be able to cover all project costs and donate it to public authorities after completion. In return, the donor could have the leading role in operating the project [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#13. Which particular interactions among various stakeholders (stakeholder configurations) were crucial in enabling the intervention to emerge successfully? This could include direct or indirect impacts on interventions.|(Q13)]]. It could take over the responsibility for decision making whereas public governmental and non-governmental actors would only have a limited agency [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#15. How are responsibilities and/or decision-making power distributed among actors?|(Q15)]].
 
'''What are the dangers in giving away responsibility to private actors?'''
 
To facilitate the process, the legal agreement linking the public to the private actor may be submitted ready-made to the public authorities [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#23. What obstacles to implementing the intervention (both generally, and in this particular context) have been identified, relating to:|(Q23 & Q24)]]. However, letting one actor operate on its own may centralize knowledge and resources [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#30. Please list any tools that enabled the learning process (e.g. various Knowledge Brokerage Activities from pg. 24 of FOODLINK’s Deliverable 7.1 - linked in footnote) and the actors involved in using them.|(Q30)]] and would not necessarily provide learning for other actors involved in the project, including municipal agents.
 
More crucial, a public-private partnership likely entails a high dependency of public authorities on the private actor. Unscrupulous donors could be expecting a financial guarantee for their operation, including reimbursement of some costs if the project is not financially viable once it starts operating [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#21. What are financial arrangements that support the intervention?|(Q21)]]. In this case, public authorities may be at risk of sliding even further into debt. Such an example highlights the need to agree on fair terms between private and public partners.
 
'''What can we learn from this?'''
 
Some public-private partnerships are inspirational while others are informative on what to avoid. However, the emergence of such a partnership may be closely related to a specific context of economic crisis and austerity. In all cases, such partnerships should be clearly beneficial, e.g. as the only possible way of bringing essential services to those in need. The possibility of unintended (long-term) consequences need to be considered, though, e.g. that democratically elected authorities may lose a significant part of their autonomy [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens#31. Suggestions regarding transferability.|(Q31)]].
 
'''How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?'''
 
== Do you want to learn more about this scenario?==
 
Take a look at the detailed description of [[Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens |'''Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens''']] that has inspired this scenario. In Athens, a public-private partnership was established to create a sustainable infrastructure hosting a cultural center. However, such partnership established in a context of austerity gives a lot of decision-making power to private investors at the expense of public authorities and risks the privatization of publicly owned space. Check out their website, https://www.snfcc.org/en


This scenario fits under the '''approach''':
This scenario fits under the '''approach''':
*[[Nature-based solutions]]. This approach refers to solutions for urban sustainability that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience’.
*[[Nature-based solutions]].  


It addresses some '''drivers of injustice''':
It relates to some '''drivers of injustice''':
*[[ Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]]. This driver refers to the ways in which territory, identity, education, knowledge, and information are used to draw lines, privileges, and hierarchies between social groups, and especially to how this leads to an uneven distribution of benefits from urban sustainability efforts.
*[[ Exclusive access to the benefits of sustainability infrastructure]].  
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]]. This driver refers to unequal exposure to harmful and health-impairing pollutants, conditions and urban environments and/or unequal access to safe and healthy environments.
*[[Uneven environmental health and pollution patterns]].  
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]]. This driver refers to processes of privatization, commercialization, budget cuts and state withdrawal from various sectors and how they can undermine urban sustainability, guided by an ideology of unfettered economic growth which often aligns with austerity policies.
*[[Unquestioned Neoliberal growth and austerity urbanism]].

Latest revision as of 18:29, 18 February 2021

This scenario has been developed on the basis of a real-world case

SNFCC picture.jpg

Imagine a city where urban infrastructure is brought by private actors to degraded neighborhoods, for local residents to enjoy green spaces and cultural activities.

How might a city create this future?

This intervention could develop even in a context of economic crisis (Q9a). In such a situation, the municipality, close to bankruptcy, may not have the capacity to address the social problems associated with a degraded neighborhood. Yet, a private actor may be motivated by these problems to support weakened public authorities (Q3). In this case, such an actor could engage in urban regeneration by conceptualizing an urban renewal project and offering to develop it in the framework of a public-private partnership with the public authorities still owning the land (Q10).

The cornerstone of such a partnership may be its financial arrangements (Q18). Whereas public actors would be weakened by the crisis (Q17), the private actor may be able to cover all project costs and donate it to public authorities after completion. In return, the donor could have the leading role in operating the project (Q13). It could take over the responsibility for decision making whereas public governmental and non-governmental actors would only have a limited agency (Q15).

What are the dangers in giving away responsibility to private actors?

To facilitate the process, the legal agreement linking the public to the private actor may be submitted ready-made to the public authorities (Q23 & Q24). However, letting one actor operate on its own may centralize knowledge and resources (Q30) and would not necessarily provide learning for other actors involved in the project, including municipal agents.

More crucial, a public-private partnership likely entails a high dependency of public authorities on the private actor. Unscrupulous donors could be expecting a financial guarantee for their operation, including reimbursement of some costs if the project is not financially viable once it starts operating (Q21). In this case, public authorities may be at risk of sliding even further into debt. Such an example highlights the need to agree on fair terms between private and public partners.

What can we learn from this?

Some public-private partnerships are inspirational while others are informative on what to avoid. However, the emergence of such a partnership may be closely related to a specific context of economic crisis and austerity. In all cases, such partnerships should be clearly beneficial, e.g. as the only possible way of bringing essential services to those in need. The possibility of unintended (long-term) consequences need to be considered, though, e.g. that democratically elected authorities may lose a significant part of their autonomy (Q31).

How could this reality be created in your city? What obstacles would have to be overcome?

Do you want to learn more about this scenario?

Take a look at the detailed description of Public-private partnerships for sustainability infrastructure in Athens that has inspired this scenario. In Athens, a public-private partnership was established to create a sustainable infrastructure hosting a cultural center. However, such partnership established in a context of austerity gives a lot of decision-making power to private investors at the expense of public authorities and risks the privatization of publicly owned space. Check out their website, https://www.snfcc.org/en

This scenario fits under the approach:

It relates to some drivers of injustice: