Has anybody’s interests been protected by what has happened at the ‘Priory Hall’ Apartment Development, in Donaghmede, Dublin 13 ?   NO.

Now that the buildings there have been completed … will it be possible to effectively repair the most serious fire protection, sound transmission and energy conservation problems with the buildings ??   NO.

At the heart of these problems lie Fundamental Design and Construction Flaws … because, back in the 1990′s and early 2000′s, indigenous builders of simple two storey semi-detached houses suddenly became ‘developers’ of apartment complexes … and these were very different building animals altogether, requiring a degree of technical competence well beyond their reach.  And, of course, during the actual construction process everything had to be finished ‘yesterday’, and as cheaply as possible (a policy of cheap product substitution was the un-stated national norm !).  In fact, so many corners were cut on Irish Building Sites, at the time, that we should refer to almost the entire construction output from this era as: The Celtic Tiger Round Towers !

And guess who is going to carry out the Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works at ‘Priory Hall’ ?   The very same Construction Organization which created the mess in the first place !!   Can you believe it ??

Furthermore … once these Corrective/Repair/Refurbishment Works are eventually finished … the performance of the Fire Protection Measures in ‘Priory Hall’ will still be compromised, because you can only do so much, physically, when a building is completed.  BUT … it would be possible to achieve a Proper Level of Fire Safety in ‘Priory Hall’ … by installing a Fire Suppression System (sprinklers or mist) throughout the development.  That’s what it will take !!

.

Tremendous fire damage was caused to the local environment in Buncefield ... but SOCIETY can no longer suffer this scale of damage ... and these Criminal Human Acts! Click to enlarge.

.

WHO IS PROTECTING SOCIETY ?

So extensive is the damage caused by fire … throughout Europe … that not all of the Direct and Indirect Fire Losses have yet been identified.

Pause, to consider this definition …

Environmental Impact:  Any effect caused by a given activity on the environment, including human health, safety and welfare, flora, fauna, soil, air, water, and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, climate, landscape and historical monuments or other physical structures, or the interactions among these factors; it also includes effects on accessibility, cultural heritage or socio-economic conditions resulting from alterations to those factors.

And this means, of course, that our current Fire Loss Data and Statistics are unreliable.

.

It is not well known, or widely publicised, that the Fire Safety Objectives of Building Regulations are limited to protecting building occupants.  The Objectives are only concerned with protecting property, insofar as it is relevant to the protection of those building occupants.

Can you image the look of astonishment on the face of a Managing Director, after his/her factory has been entirely destroyed by a fire, when told by a fire consultant …

” We complied with Part B of the Building Regulations, and here is your Fire Safety Certificate to prove it”  ??

.

What should be happening instead ?

     1.  Fire Engineering Design & Practice cannot … and must not … be concerned merely with the ‘cost-effective’ compliance with minimal (which they most certainly are !) Fire Safety Objectives mandated by Building Legislation.

     2.  To properly protect the interests of Society and Clients/Client Organizations … Fire Engineering Design & Practice must also take into account: Safety at Work Legislation; Rights, Equality & Anti-Discrimination Legislation; Environmental Impact Legislation; Public Procurement Legislation; Product Liability Legislation; etc., etc.

     3.  There is an evolving realization in Ethical Fire Engineering Design & Practice, however, that there is still a significant gap to be bridged.  There is no legislation (effective, or otherwise) yet in place, anywhere, which deals with such issues as …

• Resistance to Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse – as very strongly recommended in the 2005 & 2008 U.S. NIST Final Reports on the 9-11 World Trade Center Building 1, 2 & 7 Collapses ;
• Protection of Vulnerable Building Users in ‘Situations of Risk’ – as required, for example, by Article 11 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) ;
• Safety of Firefighters/Rescue Teams – as specified in Basic Requirement for Construction Works No.2, in Annex I of European Union Construction Product Regulation 305/2011 ;
• Adaptation to Climate Change and Severe Weather Events – the Developed World Economies appear to have no interest, whatsoever, in these issues ;
• Sustainable Human & Social Development !

     4.  We must clearly distinguish, therefore, between the Fire Safety Objectives of Building Regulations/Codes … and Project-Specific Fire Engineering Design Objectives.  This difference must be fully understood by the Fire Engineer himself/herself … and then, in all circumstances, properly explained to the Client/Client Organization.

.

In designing a Building for conditions of fire, and its aftermath … which may take place at any time during the Life Cycle of that Building … Project-Specific Fire Engineering Design Objectives should cover the following spectrum of concerns … in order to properly protect the interests of Society and our Clients/Client Organizations …

  -   Protection of the Health & Safety of All Building Users … including People with Activity Limitations (2001 WHO ICF), visitors to the building who may be unfamiliar with its layout, and contractors or product/service suppliers temporarily engaged in work or business transactions on the premises ;

  -   Protection of Property … including the building, its contents, and adjoining or adjacent properties … from loss or damage ;

  -   Protection of the Health & Safety of Firefighters, Rescue Teams & Other Emergency First Response Personnel ;

  -   Facility, Ease & Efficient Cost of Carrying Out Effective Reconstruction, Refurbishment or Repair Works after a Fire ;

  -   Sustainability of the Human Environment (social, built, virtual, economic, …) – including Fitness for Intended Use and Life Cycle Costing of fire engineering related products, components, systems, etc., fixed, installed or incorporated in the building ;

  -   Protection of the Natural Environment from Harm, i.e. Adverse Impacts.

.

.

CRIMINAL RESPONSE TO 1981 DUBLIN STARDUST TRAGEDY !

As I write … a stampede has just commenced by the various Construction-Related Professional Institutes and Organizations … to demand closer independent monitoring of what is happening on Irish Building Sites.  Far too little … and definitely, far too late !   Back in the early 1990′s, everybody stood by … and co-operated with the installation of an entirely ineffective and dysfunctional system of National Building Control in Ireland … which, let us not forget, survives intact to this day … while, at the same time, the strong long-established and well-resourced Building Control Sections in Dublin and Cork were being quietly dismantled.

The Minister for the Environment, Community & Local Government, Mr. Phil Hogan T.D. … is also chirping in from his ivory tower !

Crocodile Tears !!

.

Take a Fire Safety Certificate for a Building, for example …

With or Without Conditions … this document confirms that the Local Building Control/Fire Authority is satisfied that the Design Documentation for that building shows proper compliance with the Legal Requirements of Part B of the Irish Building Regulations.

Focus in on the relevant wording of a Fire Safety Certificate, which is as follows …

‘ … hereby certify that the works or building to which the application relates, will, if constructed in accordance with the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted, comply with the requirements of Part B of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations 1997 to 2008.’

Fire Safety Related Inspections of Construction Projects are not carried out by Competent Local Authority Personnel, or by Competent Independent Technical Controllers.  Therefore … a Fire Safety Certificate cannot give, and is not intended to give, any indication with regard to Fire Safety in the Completed Building.  The ‘Fire’ Establishment in Ireland knows full well that this is the situation !

Is this any sort of a reasonable, caring or competent response to the 1981 Stardust Discotheque Fire Tragedy in Dublin ??

.

.

END

For me, it was an enjoyable few days in Cardiff.

The Immediate Past President of the IFE, Mr John Woodcock, had initiated an important programme of activities during his 2010/2011 Term of Office on the theme of ‘Fire Engineering & Sustainability’.  The New IFE President for 2011/2012, Mr. H.G. (Hao-Giang) Tay, has stated that he will continue this work with enthusiasm.

This brings me very neatly to the reason for my attendance at the Cardiff ‘Gig’.  I had been invited by HG Tay to make a presentation on ‘Sustainable Fire Engineering’.  This, I was very pleased and honoured to do.

.

” The audience found the conference extremely valuable and I had many delegates who spoke to me specifically about how good the conference was and the high standard of the presentations.  The number of questions on each presentation was a testament to the interest of the audience.

The subject is of such importance that we really need to make sure the voice of the profession is firmly planted in all decision-making on design, protection and management of buildings.”

[Short Extract, Letter from HG Tay, International IFE President, dated 27 July 2011]

.

Tremendous Injury was caused to the Local Environment in Buncefield ... but Our Planet can no longer suffer these Criminal Human Acts !

2011 IFE Cardiff Overhead Presentation

CJ Walsh: “Sustainable Fire Engineering IS THE FUTURE !”

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (3.98 Mb)

.

In order to properly protect the interests of Society and our Clients/Client Organizations … and to effectively realize a Safe and Sustainable Built Environment in the 21st Century … it is necessary, in designing a building for fire and its immediate aftermath, for the Fire Engineer to develop Project-Specific Fire Engineering Design Objectives … which must never be confused with the minimal Fire Safety Objectives mandated in Building and Fire Regulations and Codes.

Sustainable Fire Engineering is concerned with far more than compliance with Legislation !   For this reason, a Fire Engineering Code of Ethics is essential.

.

Ethically Based Sustainable Fire Engineering must also consider the following issues, which are relevant to Today’s Human Environment :

1. Sustainable Human & Social Development.
2. Adaptation to Climate Change and Severe Weather Events … not less than a recurrence interval of 100 years should be used in design, always bearing in mind that the minimum Building Life Cycle for a Sustainable Building is 100 years.
3. Resistance to Fire-Induced Progressive Building Collapse and Disproportionate Damage.
4. Sufficient attention and care for Vulnerable Building Users in ‘situations of risk’ – refer to Article 11 of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
5. Safety of Firefighters & Rescue Teams – refer to Essential Requirement 2 of the European Union’s Construction Products Directive 89/106/EEC.

.

In this Overhead Presentation …

• Clearly outlined is a Holistic Perspective of the much wider scope for Sustainable Fire Engineering in the Future … Fire Engineering which has an empirical and scientifically robust foundation … Fire Engineering which is not afraid to confront and absorb the lessons of the 9-11 WTC Incident (2001) in New York, or the 2008 Mumbai ‘Hive Attacks’ … Fire Engineering which discards its outrageously shameful disregard for People with Activity Limitations … Fire Engineering which understands Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse and Disproportionate Damage in Buildings and, most importantly, understands the difference between these two related structural concepts … Fire Engineering which is capable of full integration with the Mainstream Construction Sector ;
• Sustainable Human & Social Development is clearly defined, and the current widespread confusion about the far more limited concept of ‘Green’ is removed ;
• The UNESCO WFEO/FMOI Model Code of Ethics, updated by CJ Walsh in 2011, is proposed as a suitable and very necessary template for the Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) ;
• As Sustainable Design Solutions are appropriate to Local Geography, Culture, Climate (and Climate Change), Economy, Social Need, Language/Dialect, etc … it is strongly recommended that the IFE should develop Global Regional Guidance Documents on Sustainable Fire Engineering, i.e. separate documents for Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, etc ;
• Finally … this Presentation initiates a fresh and entirely new dialogue within the International Fire Science and Engineering Community.

.

What are your views and comments ?

.

.

END

Regular visitors, here, will have very little doubt about my understanding of Sustainable Human & Social Development … which is an intricate, open, dynamic and continuously evolving concept.  And about my firm conviction that Sustainable Design involves far more than merely substituting the word ‘sustainable’ … for ‘green’, ‘ecological’ or ‘environment-friendly’ … or any number of insipid alternatives which still regularly appear in the popular and/or academic media !   Who, in their right minds, wouldn’t be confused ?!?

‘Sustainability’ is Not … and Cannot … be just another graft onto Conventional Design Practice … whether that be Spatial Planning, Architectural / Engineering / Industrial Design or e-Design !

Sustainable Design & Construction … is the ethical response, in built or wrought (worked) form, to the concept of ‘Sustainable Human & Social Development’.

.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLEMENTATION

Opinion:  At the Heart of Implementation which is Authentically ‘Sustainable’ … (a colleague of mine is very fond of using that word ‘authentic’) … must lie a Personal Code of Ethics.  By that, I do Not mean … and I am Not referring to … a Professional Code of Conduct … which is mainly about the self-protection and self-preservation of a professional class !

Everyday Reality:  If we examine, for a moment, two interesting examples … Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation or the 9-11(2001) Collapses of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2 & 7 in New York … such is the great timelag between general societal recognition of a critical design challenge … and then, the passing of relevant national legislation which can really only demarcate a minimal threshold of performance … and next, the associated production of standardized design guidelines … and finally, the imposition of effective monitoring and verification procedures … that the only practical approach is to base Sustainability Implementation on a robust Personal Code of Ethics … with an overt emphasis on Continuing Personal Development (CPD).

I hasten to add that this is not how we (society) are currently educating the design disciplines … and this is not how the professional institutes are operating.

.

PERSONAL CODE OF ETHICS

For many years, in my presentations around Europe, the Arab Gulf Region, India and South America … I have been actively promoting the WFEO/FMOI (UNESCO) Model Code of Ethics as a suitable template for use by all of the design-related disciplines.  Recently, however, our Organization … Sustainable Design International … has undertaken a major review of this 2001 Code, and produced a 2011 Update which tackles the following matters of major concern in our world of shameful waste and socially inequality:

• Sustainable Human & Social Development ;
• Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation ;
• Strengthening the Voice of Vulnerable Social Groups, particularly People with Activity Limitations.

.

WFEO/FMOI (UNESCO)

World Federation of Engineering Organizations – Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d’Ingénieurs

MODEL CODE OF ETHICS

Since 1990, WFEO/FMOI has worked to prepare a Code of Ethics under the supervision of Donald Laplante (Canada), David Thom (New Zealand), Bud Carroll (USA), and others.  It is expected that the Model Code, adopted in 2001, will be used to define and support the creation of codes in member and related professional institutions.  This version of the Model Code was updated by C.J. Walsh (Ireland) in 2011.

CONTENTS

                   I.            BROAD PRINCIPLES

                  II.            PRACTICE PROVISION ETHICS

                 III.            ETHICS OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING

                IV.           CONCLUSION

INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE

• Sustainable Development & Climate Change
• Protection of the Public, and the Natural Environment
• Faithful Agent of Clients and Employers
• Competence & Knowledge
• Fairness and Integrity in the Workplace
• Professional Accountability & Leadership

WFEO/FMOI MODEL CODE OF ETHICS

I.  BROAD PRINCIPLES

Ethics is generally understood as the discipline or field of study dealing with moral duty or obligation.  This typically gives rise to a set of governing principles or values, which in turn are used to judge the appropriateness of a particular conduct or behaviour.  These principles are usually presented either as broad guiding principles of an idealistic or inspirational nature or, alternatively, as a detailed and specific set of rules couched in legalistic or imperative terms to make them more enforceable.  Professions which have been given the privilege and responsibility of self regulation, including the engineering professions, have tended to opt for the first alternative, espousing sets of underlying principles as codes of professional ethics which form the basis and framework for responsible professional practice.  Arising from this context, professional codes of ethics have sometimes been incorrectly interpreted as a set of ‘rules’ of conduct intended for passive observance.  A more appropriate use by practicing professionals is to interpret the essence of the underlying principles within their daily decision-making situations in a dynamic manner, responsive to the needs of the situation.  As a consequence, a code of professional ethics is more than a minimum standard of conduct ;  rather, it is a set of principles which should guide professionals in their daily work.

In summary, the Model Code presented herein elaborates the expectations of engineers and society in discriminating engineers’ professional responsibilities.  The Code is based on broad principles of truth, honesty and trustworthiness, respect for human life and social wellbeing, fairness, openness, competence and accountability.  Some of these broader ethical principles or issues deemed more universally applicable are not specifically defined in the Code, although they are understood to be applicable as well.  Only those tenets deemed to be particularly applicable to the practice of professional engineering are specified.  Nevertheless, certain ethical principles or issues not commonly considered to be part of professional ethics should be implicitly accepted to judge the engineer’s professional performance.

Issues regarding protection of the natural environment, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and sustainable development know no geographical boundaries.  The engineers and citizens of all nations should know and respect the ethics of sustainability.  It is desirable, therefore, that engineers in each nation continue to observe the philosophy of the Principles of Sustainable Ethics, as delineated in Section III of this code.

II.  PRACTICE PROVISION ETHICS

Professional engineers shall:

• hold paramount the safety, health and wellbeing of the public, particularly people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups in society … and the protection of both the natural and the built environments in accordance with the Principles of Sustainable Human & Social Development ;
• promote health and safety within the workplace ;
• offer services, advise on or undertake engineering assignments only in areas of their competence, and practice in a careful and diligent manner ;
• act as faithful agents of their clients or employers, maintain confidentially and disclose conflicts of interest ;
• keep themselves informed in order to maintain their competence, strive to advance the body of knowledge within which they practice and provide opportunities for the professional development of their subordinates and fellow practitioners ;
• conduct themselves with fairness, and good faith towards clients, colleagues and others, give credit where it is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair professional criticism ;
• be aware of and ensure that clients and employers are made aware of the environmental and socio-economic consequences of actions or projects, and endeavour to interpret engineering issues to the public in an objective and truthful manner ;
• present clearly to employers and clients the possible consequences of overruling or disregarding engineering decisions or judgment ;
• report to their association and/or appropriate agencies any illegal or unethical engineering decisions or practices of engineers or others.

III.  ETHICS OF SUSTAINABLE ENGINEERING

Engineers, as they develop any professional activity, shall:

• try with the best of their ability, courage, enthusiasm and dedication, to obtain a superior technical achievement, which will contribute to and promote a healthy and agreeable surrounding for all people, including indigenous peoples and other vulnerable social groups, in open spaces as well as indoors ;
• strive to accomplish the beneficial objectives of their work with the lowest possible consumption of raw materials and energy and the lowest production of wastes and any kind of pollution ;
• discuss in particular the consequences of their proposals and actions, direct or indirect, immediate or long term, upon human health, social equity and the local culture and system of values ;
• study thoroughly the environment that will be affected, assess all the impacts that might arise in the structure, dynamics and aesthetics of the eco-systems involved, urbanized or natural, as well as in the pertinent socio-economic systems … and select the best alternative for development which is environmentally sound, resilient to climate change and sustainable ;
• promote a clear understanding of the actions required to restore and, if possible, to improve the environment that may be disturbed, and include them in their proposals ;
• reject any kind of commitment that involves unfair damages for human surroundings and nature, and aim for the best possible technical, socio-economic, and political solution ;
• be aware that the principles of eco-system interdependence, biodiversity maintenance, resource recovery and inter-relational harmony form the basis of humankind’s continued existence and that each of these bases poses a threshold of sustainability that should not be exceeded.

IV. CONCLUSION

Always remember that war, greed, misery and ignorance, plus natural disasters and human-induced pollution, climate change and destruction of resources, are the main causes for the progressive impairment of the environment and that engineers, as active members of society, deeply involved in the promotion of development, must use our talent, knowledge and imagination to assist society in removing those evils and improving the quality of life for all people, including indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups.

INTERPRETATION OF THE WFEO/FMOI MODEL CODE

The interpretive articles which follow expand on and discuss some of the more difficult and inter-related components of the Code, especially with regard to the Practice Provisions.  No attempt is made to expand on all clauses of the Code, nor is the elaboration presented on a clause-by-clause basis.  The objective of this approach is to broaden the interpretation, rather than narrow its focus.  The ethics of professional engineering is an integrated whole and cannot be reduced to fixed ‘rules’.  Therefore, the issues and questions arising from the Code are discussed in a general framework, drawing on any and all portions of the Code to demonstrate their inter-relationship and to expand on the basic intent of the Code.

Sustainable Development & Climate Change

Engineers shall strive to enhance the quality, durability and climate change resilience of the Human Environment (including the built, social, economic and virtual environments), and to promote the Principles of Sustainable Human & Social Development.

Engineers shall seek opportunities to work for the enhancement of safety, health, and the social wellbeing of both their local community and the global community through the practice of sustainable development.

Engineers whose recommendations are overruled or ignored on issues of safety, health, social wellbeing, or sustainable development, shall inform their contractor or employer of the possible consequences.

Protection of the Public, and the Natural Environment

Professional Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and wellbeing of the public, including people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups in society … and protection of the natural environment.  This obligation to the safety, health and wellbeing of the general public, which includes his/her own work environment, is often dependent upon engineering judgments, risk assessments, decisions and practices incorporated into structures, machines, products, processes and devices.  Therefore, engineers must control and ensure that what they are involved with is in conformity with accepted engineering practices, standards and applicable codes, and would be considered safe based on peer adjudication.  This responsibility extends to include all and any situations which an engineer encounters, and includes an obligation to advise the appropriate authority if there is reason to believe that any engineering activity, or its products, processes, etc., do not conform with the above stated conditions.

The meaning of paramount in this basic tenet is that all other requirements of the Code are subordinate, if protection of public safety, the natural environment or other substantive public interests are involved.

Faithful Agent of Clients and Employers

Engineers shall act as faithful agents or trustees of their clients and employers with objectivity, fairness and justice to all parties.  With respect to the handling of confidential or proprietary information, the concept of ownership of the information and protecting that party’s rights is appropriate.  Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information obtained in a professional capacity without the prior consent of its owner.  The only exception to respecting confidentially and maintaining a trustee’s position is in instances where the public interest or the natural environment is at risk, as discussed in the preceding section ;  but even in these circumstances, the engineer should endeavour to have the client and/or employer appropriately redress the situation, or at least, in the absence of a compelling reason to the contrary, should make every reasonable effort to contact them and explain clearly the potential risks, prior to informing the appropriate authority.

Professional Engineers shall avoid conflict of interest situations with employers and clients but, should such conflict arise, it is the engineer’s responsibility to fully disclose, without delay, the nature of the conflict to the party/parties with whom the conflict exists.  In those circumstances where full disclosure is insufficient, or seen to be insufficient, to protect all parties’ interests, as well as the public, the engineer shall withdraw totally from the issue or use extraordinary means, involving independent parties if possible, to monitor the situation.  For example, it is inappropriate to act simultaneously as agent for both the provider and the recipient of professional services.  If a client’s and an employer’s interests are at odds, the engineer shall attempt to deal fairly with both.  If the conflict of interest is between the intent of a corporate employer and a regulatory standard, the engineer must attempt to reconcile the difference, and if that is unsuccessful, it may become necessary to inform his/her association and the appropriate regulatory agency.

Being a faithful agent or trustee includes the obligation of engaging, or advising to engage, experts or specialists when such services are deemed to be in the client’s or employer’s best interests.  It also means being accurate, objective and truthful in making public statements on behalf of the client or employer when required to do so, while respecting the client’s and employer’s rights of confidentiality and proprietary information.

Being a faithful agent includes not using a previous employer’s or client’s specific privileged or proprietary information and trade practices or process information, without the owner’s knowledge and consent.  However, general technical knowledge, experience and expertise gained by the engineer through involvement with the previous work may be freely used without consent or subsequent undertakings.

Competence & Knowledge

Professional Engineers shall offer services, advise on or undertake engineering assignments only in areas of their competence by virtue of their training and experience.  This includes exercising care and communicating clearly in accepting or interpreting assignments, and in setting expected outcomes.  It also includes the responsibility to obtain the services of an expert if required or, if the knowledge is unknown, to proceed only with full disclosure of the circumstances and, if necessary, of the experimental nature of the activity to all parties involved.  Hence, this requirement is more than simply duty to a standard of care, it also involves acting with honesty and integrity with one’s client or employer, and one’s self.  Professional Engineers have the responsibility to remain abreast of developments and knowledge in their area of expertise, that is, to maintain their own competence.  Should there be a technologically driven or individually motivated shift in the area of technical activity, it is the engineer’s duty to attain and maintain competence in all areas of involvement including being knowledgeable with the technical and legal framework and regulations governing their work.  In effect, it requires a personal commitment to ongoing professional development, continuing education and self-testing.

In addition to maintaining their own competence, Professional Engineers have an obligation to strive to contribute to the advancement of the body of knowledge within which they practice, and to the profession in general.  Moreover, within the framework of the practice of their profession, they are expected to participate in providing opportunities to further the professional development of their colleagues.

This competence requirement of the Code extends to include an obligation to the public, the profession and one’s peers, that opinions on engineering issues are expressed honestly and only in areas of one’s competence.  It applies equally to reporting or advising on professional matters and to issuing public statements.  This requires honesty with one’s self to present issues fairly, accurately and with appropriate qualifiers and disclaimers, and to avoid personal, political and other non-technical biases.  The latter is particularly important for public statements or when involved in a technical forum.

Fairness and Integrity in the Workplace

Honesty, integrity, continuously updated competence, devotion to service and dedication to enhancing the life quality of society are cornerstones of professional responsibility.  Within this framework, engineers shall be objective and truthful and include all known and pertinent information in professional reports, statements and testimony.  They shall accurately and objectively represent their clients, employers, associates and themselves, consistent with their academic experience and professional qualifications.  This tenet is more than ‘not misrepresenting’ ;  it also implies disclosure of all relevant information and issues, especially when serving in an advisory capacity or as an expert witness.  Similarly, fairness, honesty and accuracy in advertising are expected.

If called upon to verify another engineer’s work, there is an obligation to inform (or make every effort to inform) the other engineer, whether the other engineer is still actively involved or not.  In this situation, and in any circumstance, engineers shall give proper recognition and credit where credit is due and accept, as well as give, honest and fair criticism on professional matters, all the while maintaining dignity and respect for everyone involved.

Engineers shall not accept, nor offer covert payment or other considerations for the purpose of securing, or as remuneration for, engineering assignments.  Engineers should prevent their personal or political involvement from influencing or compromising their professional role or responsibility.

Consistent with the Code, and having attempted to remedy any situation within their organization, engineers are obligated to report to their association or other appropriate agency any illegal or unethical engineering decisions by engineers or others.  Care must be taken not to enter into legal arrangements which compromise this obligation.

Professional Accountability & Leadership

Engineers have a duty to practice in a careful and diligent manner, and accept responsibility and be accountable for their actions.  This duty is not limited to design, or its supervision and management, but applies to all areas of practice.  For example, it includes construction supervision and management, preparation of drawings, engineering reports, feasibility studies, sustainability impact assessments, engineering developmental work, etc.

The signing and sealing of engineering documents indicates the taking of responsibility for the work.  This practice is required for all types of engineering endeavour, regardless of where or for whom the work is done, including but not limited to, privately and publicly owned firms, large corporations, and government agencies or departments.  There are no exceptions ;  signing and sealing documents is appropriate whenever engineering principles have been used and public wellbeing may be at risk.

Taking responsibility for engineering activity includes being accountable for one’s own work and, in the case of a senior engineer, accepting responsibility for the work of a team.  The latter implies responsible supervision where the engineer is actually in a position to review, modify and direct the entirety of the engineering work.  This concept requires setting reasonable limits on the extent of activities, and the number of engineers and others, whose work can be supervised by the responsible engineer.  The practice of a ‘symbolic’ responsibility or supervision is the situation where an engineer, say with the title of Chief Engineer, takes full responsibility for all engineering on behalf of a large corporation, utility or governmental agency, even though the engineer may not be aware of many of the engineering activities or decisions being made daily throughout the firm or agency.  The essence of this approach is that the firm is taking the responsibility by default, whether engineering supervision or direction is applied or not.

Engineers have a duty to advise their employer and, if necessary, their clients and even their professional association, in that order, in situations when the overturning of an engineering decision may result in breaching their duty to safeguard the public, including people with activity limitations, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable social groups.  The initial action is to discuss the problem with the supervisor/employer.  If the employer does not adequately respond to the engineer’s concern, then the client must be advised in the case of a consultancy situation, or the most senior officer should be informed in the case of a manufacturing process plant or government agency.  Failing this attempt to rectify the situation, the engineer must advise in confidence his/her professional association of his/her concerns.

In the same order as mentioned above, the engineer must report unethical engineering activity undertaken by other engineers, or by non-engineers.  This extends to include, for example, situations in which senior officials of a firm make ‘executive’ decisions which clearly and substantially alter the engineering aspects of the work, or protection of public wellbeing or the natural environment arising from that work.

Because of developments in technology and the increasing ability of engineering activities to impact on the environment, engineers have an obligation to be mindful of the effect that their decisions will have on the environment and the wellbeing of society, and to report any concerns of this nature in the same manner as previously mentioned.  Further to the above, with the rapid advancement of technology in today’s world and the possible social impacts on large populations of people, engineers must endeavour to foster the public’s understanding of technical issues and the role of Engineering more than ever before.

Sustainable development is the challenge of meeting current human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and, if possible enhancing, the Earth’s environmental quality, natural resources, ethical, intellectual, working and affectionate capabilities of people and the socio-economic bases essential for the human needs of future generations.  The proper observance of these principles will considerably help to eradicate world poverty.

.

WFEO/FMOI Model Code of Ethics, Adopted 2001.

This Version, Updated 2011 & Communicated to UNESCO.

[Footnote to the Code]

Sustainable Human & Social Development:  Development which meets the responsible needs, i.e. the Human & Social Rights*, of this generation – without stealing the life and living resources from future generations, especially our children, their children, and the next five generations of children.

*As defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

.

.

END

Note:  Human Environment … Anywhere there is, or has been, an intrusion by a human being in the natural environment.

Note:  Social Wellbeing … A general condition – in a community, society or culture – of health, creativity, responsible fulfilment, and sustainable development.

Simply stated … Biodiversity is Critical for the Good Health of the Natural Environment !   And yes … the Natural Environment is a Living System … and we must become comfortable when using such terms as ‘health’, ‘injury’ or ‘harm’ in relation to its condition.  Or, should I say ‘her’ condition ??

Furthermore … a Flourishing Natural Environment is an essential foundation for Biodiversity within a Sustainable Built Environment.

Note:  Built Environment … Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the natural environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, roads, bridges, tunnels, transport systems, service utilities, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, seas, etc. … including the virtual environment.

[A Short Digression:  One important point needs immediate and unequivocal clarification ... it is only in the context of Biodiversity within the Built Environment can there be any consideration or discussion about the Sustainable Use/Exploitation of that Biodiversity !]

.

Shamefully … as Human Beings … we have made a terrible, terrible mess of Our Planet.  And it continues … and continues …

Initiated at the time of the Deepwater Horizon Offshore Drilling Rig Explosion and Fire, on 20th April 2010 … this summer’s BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico … an unprecedented Local Environmental, Social and Economic Tragedy and a Regional Disaster … unfolded very quickly and very prominently in front of our eyes.  It was a long time, however, before the full nature and extent of this catastrophic incident was revealed.

Excluding the issues of Public Relations Spin, Withholding and/or Concealment of Vital Information, Individual Incompetence, and Lies … Institutional Failure (or, to put it another way, Lack of Institutional Capacity) alone … i.e. failure to properly anticipate, or to be adequately prepared, and/or to respond effectively and in a timely manner … added to, and magnified, the scale of this disaster.

.

On Wednesday, 14 July 2010, the following brief overview describes the United States Disaster Response … my sincere apologies for reproducing the quaint, but prehistoric, Imperial Units of Measure …

Disaster Response Vessels

• Vessels of Opportunity:  2,754
• Barges:  more than 540
• Skimmers:  more than 580
• Other Vessels:  more than 3,000
• Total Active Response Vessels:  more than 6,870

and

• Aircraft:  119

Boom Data

• Boom deployed:  more than 3.27 million feet
• Boom available:  more than 855,000 feet
• Total Boom:  more than 4.12 million feet

Oil Recovered

• Oily Water Recovered:  nearly 32.9 million gallons
• Amount Estimated Burned:  nearly 10.97 million gallons
• Oil Captured (CAP) over last 24hrs:  more than 539,000 gallons

Oil Dispersants

• Surface dispersant used:  more than 1.07 million gallons
• Sub-sea dispersant used:  more than 762,000 gallons
• Total Dispersant Used:  more than 1.83 million gallons

Personnel Involved

• Overall Personnel Responding:  more than 44,000 personnel

[Source ... http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/07/15/operations-and-ongoing-response-july-15-2010]

.

United States National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling

 Staff Working Paper No.2 – 6 October 2010

Decision-Making within the Unified Command

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (276kb)

.

.

IN EUROPE … during this International Year of Biodiversity … a Major and Widespread Regional Disaster is unfolding quietly, slowly … hidden from the view of the general European public … and in relation to which important lessons must be learned from the Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster.  Please examine closely that U.S. National Commission’s Staff Working Paper No.2 above.

On 4th October 2010 … the European Environment Agency (EEA) published Report No.5 : ‘Assessing Biodiversity in Europe’ … which clearly stated (in the final paragraph of the final chapter … and then, only when quoting from another document !) …

‘ a large proportion of European species and habitats are either facing extinction, have an unfavourable conservation status, or their status is unknown.’

.

THE QUESTION which must be asked is … whether there is yet proper … or even sufficient … Institutional Capacity at European Union and EU Member State levels to implement Any European Biodiversity Strategy … with the clearly specified target of protecting, conserving and nurturing Biological Diversity in Europe ???

.

Does the following cautiously worded text convince you ?   Not me, I’m afraid !

EEA Technical Report No.5 / 2010 – Chapter 4 – ‘Conclusions, Way Forward & Knowledge Gaps’

European Biodiversity has declined dramatically in the last two centuries, with the conversion of natural habitats to meet growing demands for food, energy and infrastructure.  Although the pace of change has varied across the region and has generally slowed considerably in the last couple of decades, agricultural land use now accounts for almost half of the European terrestrial area.

In coastal and marine areas, industrial fishery operations have had similarly large impacts, affecting both fish populations and habitats throughout European coastal and marine waters.  Nearly half of assessed fish stocks in Europe fall outside safe biological limits.  The majority of biodiversity in Europe now exists within a mosaic of heavily managed land and seascapes, and is to a large degree linked to agricultural, forestry and fishery practices across the continent.

In recent decades, growing awareness of biodiversity decline has led to improved commitments, policies and practices for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity throughout much of Europe.  Biodiversity is now higher on the political agenda in Europe than ever before.  Significant targeted responses have been made by public, civil society and private institutions to restore habitats, protect threatened species and reduce the main threats to biodiversity in Europe.

As a result of the policies adopted and implemented at international and European scales, including the Birds, Habitats, and Water Framework Directives, there are indications that some aspects of biodiversity are improving in status in parts of Europe.  There have been significant increases in forest cover in the last two decades across northern Europe and the status of many waterways has improved across Europe as a result of reduced industrial and agricultural pollution in many countries.  Recovery plans have been documented and are being implemented for many of Europe’s threatened species, with some successes.

While ambitious targets are being set in Europe to halt biodiversity loss and some progress is being made, many threats remain and new ones are growing.  This erodes the ability of ecosystems to provide services to people in Europe and beyond.

Threats to Europe’s biodiversity include habitat loss and degradation, unsustainable harvesting, establishment and spread of invasive alien species, pollution from agricultural runoff in many countries, unsustainable forest and agriculture management, increasing water abstraction and use, and increasing climatic change impacts, especially in southern and northern Europe, and in mountainous areas across the region.  The loss of wetland and dryland habitats also continues.

Future Progress in addressing these threats and conserving Europe’s Remaining Biodiversity will depend on success in Four Key Areas:

1.  Enhanced Implementation Of Measures Targeted At Biodiversity Conservation.  There has been progress in protecting and restoring threatened species and habitats across much of Europe, and protected areas and sustainable farmland and forestry management practices have grown steadily.  However, there remains considerable opportunity to scale up such practices across the region, including coastal and marine areas.  Such direct efforts for biodiversity conservation are a cornerstone of conservation.  They are essential to manage the most important threats and conserve the most threatened biodiversity.  However, alone they are insufficient to address biodiversity loss in the medium and long term because many of the direct drivers, and all of the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, emanate from other sectors.

2.  Policy Coherence On Biodiversity Is Required With Other Sectors.  In order to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity, policies in other sectors that have an impact on or depend on biodiversity need to be supportive.  These include those on trade, agriculture, fisheries, planning, transport, health, tourism, and the financial sector, including insurance.  In many EU countries, considerable funding for managing biodiversity in landscapes is obtained from the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).  Mainstreaming biodiversity into these areas – in both the public and private sectors – is essential for an integrated approach to biodiversity conservation.  Successful mainstreaming will require all sectors to recognise the value of biodiversity.  Recent efforts to ascribe accurate economic values to biodiversity and ecosystem services, for example ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB, 2010), provide a basis for mainstreaming.

3.  A More Integrated Approach Across Sectors And Administrative Boundaries, At Landscape And Seascape Scales.  This entails applying the ecosystem approach more widely, and requires co-operation across sectors for successful implementation.  The present report shows that management of some habitat types, such as forestry and freshwater systems, is already starting to apply such approaches.  Others, such as marine habitats, mountains and agricultural land, have not yet been adjusted sufficiently.  Integrating protected areas, ecological networks, connectivity areas, production and urban landscapes into multifunctional land-use planning at a regional scale will be an essential element of a successful European conservation strategy.  Likewise at watershed and landscape scales, the integration of biodiversity and natural resources management, including that of water, will require dialogue and agreement between the multiple stakeholders using, depending on, and managing such resources.

4.  Public Awareness Of The Relevance Of Biodiversity To The Lives Of European Citizens, And The Consequences Of Biodiversity Loss At Local, European And Global Scales, Needs To Be Raised.  Significant efforts are therefore required on communication, education and public awareness, to complement the policy framework and to encourage both individual action for biodiversity conservation, and a supportive public opinion for changes in policy and practice.

This report shows that, particularly regarding forest habitats, public awareness of the value of sustainable practices and recycling is increasing.  This can be enhanced by publicising how more sustainable practices can benefit both society and the ecosystems themselves.

Despite being the region with the longest and broadest biodiversity knowledge base, key knowledge gaps remain across Europe.  Filling such gaps would support action and policies across the four key areas.

Knowledge gaps exist in individual elements of biodiversity.  Little is known, for example, about many aquatic systems (and especially floodplains and deltas), genetic diversity beyond the agricultural sector, and for many taxa at the species level.  Considerable further work is required to assess the status of plants, invertebrates and fungi, and to assess trends in species status.  A global base of species level assessments (or ‘Barometer of Life’) would cost some €45 million (Euros), according to recent estimates (Stuart et al., 2010).

My Note: Taxon (plural Taxa) … Any unit used in the science of Biological Classification, or Taxonomy.  Taxa are arranged in a hierarchy from kingdom to sub-species, a given taxon ordinarily including several taxa of lower rank.  In the classification of protists, plants and animals, certain taxonomic categories are universally recognized; in descending order, these are kingdom, phylum (in plants, division), class, order, family, genus, species, and sub-species, or race.

In addition to knowledge of specific elements of biodiversity, interdisciplinary knowledge gaps are particularly apparent, with little in the way of accumulated knowledge on the interlinkages between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human wellbeing.  Recent efforts to link biodiversity science with economics have been particularly promising but further interdisciplinary research and assessment would support strengthened decision-making and policymaking processes on European biodiversity in the 21st century.

Key Gaps in Knowledge that emerge from this report are as follows …

• Data Availability:  Data beyond EU-27 Member States are often limited, especially European-level information on biodiversity (species, communities and genetic stock).  Generally, data for marine species and habitats are much scarcer than for terrestrial ecosystems, and across Europe some important ecosystem types (e.g. marine and coastal) are among the least studied.  Data are often lacking at relevant scales, e.g. for key environmental drivers or habitat change.  This information would help set solid and relevant targets and continually improve sustainable management schemes.
• Climate Change Adaptation Strategies:  Information on adaptation measures and strategies is often insufficient for many European ecosystems to counteract adverse climate change impacts and maintain ecosystem goods and services (e.g. FAO, 2009).  While climate change considerations have largely driven the debate on adaptive capacity and vulnerability, there is now increased recognition of the multidimensional nature of drivers of change, responses and feedback mechanisms (e.g. CDE, 2009).
• Ecosystem Services:  Enhanced information on environmental, economic and social benefits of the ecosystem services supplied by biodiversity is lacking to inform sustainable management of ecosystems and raise public awareness of biodiversity’s value and the link to livelihoods.  The value of non-marketed goods and services are an important element in this.
• Optimal Land-Use Strategies:  It is important to finding the optimal mix of protected and productive areas, whether used for intensive agriculture or biomass for energy.  More detailed data and analysis are needed to assess the extent and consequences of losing natural habitats through land conversion for increased biomass, e.g. biofuel feedstock production (FAO, 2008).  Ecosystem approaches are also particularly well suited for addressing competing land-use issues in a systematic and holistic framework, even in the absence of economic valuations, and they have considerable potential as an integrated management tool (Hicks et al., 2008).
• Sustainable Management Indicators:  More knowledge on sustainable management indicators is required along the lines of the pan-European indicators of sustainable forest management.
• Green Infrastructure:  More information is required on the potential benefits of a green infrastructure approach to facilitate land development and land conservation together in a way that is consistent with existing natural features to deliver multiple benefits to people and biodiversity.

Recognising the urgent need to address these issues and reverse the trends of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, the Environment Council adopted the 2020 Headline Target on 15 March 2010 and the European Council endorsed the Long-Term Biodiversity Vision on 26 March 2010.  These ambitious initiatives will underpin the new EU Biodiversity Strategy to be finalised by the end of 2010.  In its conclusions, the European Council specified that the strategy to address biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation should set a clear baseline outlining the criteria against which achievements are to be assessed.

EEA developed the EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline (EEA, 2010) to respond to this need.  It offers a comprehensive snapshot of the current state of biodiversity.  It thereby supports the EU in developing the post 2010 sub-targets as part of the biodiversity strategy and provides factual data for measuring and monitoring progress in the EU from 2011 to 2020.  This new information tool demonstrates that a large proportion of European species and habitats are either facing extinction, have an unfavourable conservation status or their status is unknown.  It highlights the urgent need for conservation actions and intensified efforts.

.

In Ireland … am I convinced that the New National Biodiversity Plan 2010-2015 (draft for public consultation, dated 1st September 2010) will turn out to be anything more than just another slick looking public relations document issued by our one and only Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (DEHLG) ?   I’ll give you one guess what my answer is !!!

.

.

END

This is also a question for the Stop Climate Chaos Campaign here in Ireland !?!

.

Back on 10th January 2007 … the European Commission issued COM(2007) 2 final … a Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions … having the title: Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 Degrees Celsius – The Way Ahead for 2020 and Beyond.  [ This document is freely available for download ... at EUR-Lex (a link to the WebSite is provided at the right hand side of this Page). ]

On Page 3 of the Communication, you will read the following …

‘ The EU’s objective is to limit global average temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.  This will limit the impacts of climate change and the likelihood of massive and irreversible disruptions of the global ecosystem.  The Council has noted that this will require atmospheric concentrations of GHG (greenhouse gases) to remain well below 550 parts per million by volume (ppmv) CO₂ equivalent (eq.).  By stabilising long-term concentrations at around 450 ppmv CO₂ eq., there is a 50% chance of doing so.  This will require global GHG emissions to peak before 2025 and then fall by up to 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.  The Council has agreed that developed countries will have to continue to take the lead to reduce their emissions between 15 to 30% by 2020.  The European Parliament has proposed an EU CO₂ reduction target of 30% for 2020 and 60-80% for 2050.’

What a really sloppy, imprecise expression … and explanation … to give to a critical Climate Change Performance Indicator !!   And … please note the overly optimistic ’50% chance’.

On the evidence of Europe’s ‘real’ climate change mitigation performance to date … there is no chance, whatever, of hitting that target.

.

In Copenhagen, the Group of 77 & China and the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), in particular, demanded that the planetary temperature rise be limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius !

Outside Europe … irreversible climate change is already happening … and people must adapt in order to survive !!!

For example … climate change is seriously affecting the people of the Sundarbans.  Located at the mouth of the Ganges River in Bangladesh and West Bengal in India, this area is part of the largest delta in the world.  Sundarban means ‘beautiful forest’ in Bengali, as the region is covered in mangrove forests …

.

Under the Aegis of the European Environment Agency ... these 3 Photographs were taken by Mikkel Stenbaek Hansen. In each case, click to enlarge !

.

Colour photograph showing Ruhul Khan, who has lost three houses in recent years. His former homes were located to the left of the picture, an area now covered by water.

.

Colour photograph showing that the rising sea level brings salt water inland, damaging the soil’s fertility. Some residents have adapted by using their farmland for fish breeding. Others are experimenting with crop species that are resilient to salt water.

.

.

END

The 2009 Copenhagen Accord was a political agreement between a small number of Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and Heads of Delegation – Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) and the USA – who attended the Climate Summit, which concluded on Saturday, 19th December.  At the time of writing, many countries have made voluntary submissions, i.e. they are not legally binding, to Appendices I and II of the Accord.

A general overview of the submissions made by Developed Countries, however, reveals the following about the Voluntary Emissions Targets being undertaken …

-   they are highly conditional on the performance of other countries ;

-   they are very disappointing, being far below what is required to cap the planetary temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius ;   and

-   there is no consistent emission base year … varying from 1990 and 1992, up to 2000 and 2005.

This is very far from being a signal of serious intent from Developed Countries … and is not … in any way, shape or manner … an acceptance of historical responsibilities.  It would be reasonable, therefore, to surmise that the process of achieving a global, legally binding, consensus agreement on greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be long and difficult.  The Climate Change Mitigation Agenda is, to put it mildly, fraught with problems … and has an unclear future in the short term.

On the other hand, anyone involved in the design, construction, management or operation of the Built Environment must think ‘long-term’ … the minimum life cycle for a sustainable building should be at least 100 years.  Today in Dublin, buildings which are 250 or 350 years old still look remarkably good, and are well capable of fulfilling an important function within the social and economic environments of the city.  ‘Politically’ and ‘technically’, therefore, it would be more appropriate for the built environment if we were concerned with the Long-Term Climate Change Adaptation Agenda … rather than a problematic, short-term Mitigation Agenda.  But, in terms of a building … is there really a clear difference between measures undertaken for the purpose of mitigation and those undertaken for adaptation ?   For example, measures to incrementally improve energy efficiency and conserve energy, in accordance with short-term legally binding targets, will serve to mitigate CO₂ emissions … but the same measures will also serve to adapt the building to rapidly dwindling supplies of climate-damaging fossil fuels.  The long-term perspective will exert pressure for more radical actions in the short-term.

But, should we not already be undertaking these sorts of measures as part of the Mainstream Sustainability Agenda … in order to increase building durability and prolong life cycle ?

Generally … Climate Change Adaptation encompasses urgent and immediate short, near and long-term actions at local, national, regional and international levels to reduce the vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of the Human Environment, including ecological and social systems, institutions and economic sectors … to present and future adverse effects of climate change and the impacts of response measure implementation … in order to minimize the local threats to life, human health, livelihoods, food security, assets, amenities, ecosystems and sustainable development.

More specifically … Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation means reliably implementing policies, practices, projects and institutional reforms in the Built Environment … with the aim of reducing the adverse impacts and/or realizing the benefits directly/indirectly associated with climate change, including variability and extremes … in a manner which is compatible with Sustainable Human and Social Development.

Climate Change Adaptation is one of the most important drivers for Sustainable Design !

.

.

END

‘ The Conference of the Parties,

Resolving to urgently enhance implementation of the Convention in order to achieve its ultimate objective in full accordance with its principles and commitments ;

Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are global priorities ;   …

Recognizing that deep cuts in global emissions will be required to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention and emphasizing the urgency to address climate change as indicated in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ;

1.  Decides to launch a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session, by addressing …

(a)   A shared vision for long-term co-operative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions … in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities ;

(b)   Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change …

(c)   Enhanced action on adaptation …

(d)   Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation …

(e)   Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology co-operation … ‘

.

Just a few weeks later, on 12th February 2008, in New York … Ambassador John Ashe, Permanent Representative of Antigua & Barbuda to the United Nations, delivered an Important Statement on behalf of the Group of 77 & China (comprising 130 countries) … at the Thematic Debate of the U.N. General Assembly: ‘Addressing Climate Change – The United Nations and the World at Work’.  Fully reflecting and supporting the Bali Action Plan, this Statement clearly set out the Climate Change Priorities for the Developing and Least Developed Countries, including the Small Island Developing States (SIDS).  It included the following important extract …

‘ Climate Change as a Sustainable Development Challenge

5.  Mr. President, the Group of 77 and China is of the view that discussions on climate change should be placed within the proper context of sustainable development.  It is imperative that our discussion reinforces the promotion of sustainable development …

6.  We must not lose sight of the fact that climate change is a sustainable development challenge.  As such we should adhere steadfastly to the Rio principles, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.  We must take fully into account that poverty eradication, economic and social development are the paramount priorities of developing countries …

7.  Mr. President, urgent action is needed now to fully implement the commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, especially commitments on financing for adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building, if we are to make progress towards the achievement of the sustainable development goals of developing countries …

8.  Urgent action is particularly needed on commitments, as climate change threatens the livelihoods of the very poor and vulnerable developing countries, in particular Africa, the Least Developed Countries, the Land-Locked Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States, and disaster prone developing countries.  The G77 and China is of the view that while addressing the challenge of climate, the most affected countries and most vulnerable countries should be given adequate attention and support.

9.  Developed countries Parties must take the lead in addressing the implementation gap, since the extent to which developing countries Parties can effectively respond to the challenge depends on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments relating to financing and technology transfer.’

.

The Developed Countries, i.e. those listed in Annex I of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, did not listen to the words of John Ashe.  This helps to explain the Fracture of the 2007 Bali Consensus at Copenhagen, in December 2009 … the sharp division between the ‘have’s’ and the ‘have-not’s’ of our small planet.

Within Developed Countries … there may be a certain comfort, at an intellectual level, in linking Sustainable Development and Climate Change.  However, in vulnerable Developing Countries this link is critical … where poverty eradication, and economic and social development are paramount priorities.  All are ‘responsible needs’ which are clearly specified and supported by International Law.  Yet, the Developed Countries persist in disregarding their legal obligations under Articles 2.3 and 3.14 of the 1997 UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol … and, more importantly, evading their historical responsibility for causing the problem of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the first place.

Closer to home, in the European Union Member States, far too much emphasis is being placed on fully exploiting the various ‘flexibility mechanisms’ within the UNFCCC Process … rather than on direct and proper compliance with their individual Kyoto Mitigation Commitments.  There is little or no interest in Adaptation.  Meanwhile, the reality shown by the latest analysis of observations from the World Meteorological Organization’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Programme is that the globally averaged mixing ratios of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) reached new highs in 2008 with CO₂ at 385.2 parts per million, CH₄ at 1797 parts per billion (ppb) and N₂O at 321.8 ppb … higher than those in pre-industrial times (before 1750) by 38%, 157% and 19%, respectively !

.

.

END

However, at levels above or beyond the Individual … reference must be made to a common understanding of Sustainable Human & Social Development which has a foundation in a robust Framework of International Law.  It is this approach which continues to facilitate, at Sustainable Design International, our development of the theory of ‘sustainability’ … and its more effective application to frontline design practice.

Sustainable Human and Social Development:  Development which meets the responsible needs, i.e. the Human and Social Rights¹, of this generation – without stealing the life and living resources from future generations, especially our children … their children … and the next five generations of children.

[1]  As defined, in International Law, by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN OHCHR).

Inspired by the Culture of the North American Indigenous Peoples … this definition also incorporates the concept of ’7 Generation Thinking’.

.

Sustainable Design²:  The ethical design response, in built or wrought form, to the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development.

[2]  Includes Spatial Planning, Architectural/Engineering/Interior/Industrial Design and e-Design, etc.

.

Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate and future climate change, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s), etc.

Our Ultimate Goal, however, must be to achieve a dynamic and harmonious balance between a Sustainable Human Environment (including the social, built, virtual and economic environments …) and a flourishing, not just a surviving, Natural Environment … with the Overall Aim of achieving Social Wellbeing for All.

Please see previous Posts on this Technical Blog … www.cjwalsh.ie … for supporting definitions to the above text.

.

.

END

Today, however, I want to focus on just one of his themes …

Quality Education + Quality Research & Development + Facilitating and Fostering Creativity & Innovation in Society

Since the 1990′s … we have had to listen to endless amounts of bullshit and hot air … until we are blue in the face … about the Information Society, the Knowledge Society, the Smart Society, the Green Society [what is 'Green' anyway ?], etc., etc., etc … and the biggest anti-climax of them all … the European Union’s Lisbon Strategy … boring, boring, boring !!!!

.

When you hit the bottom of the barrel, there is only one place to look … and that’s up … with an engaged mind feverishly picturing what’s around outside !   So … for one wild moment, let’s join together some nice ideas …

Could Sustainable Cities be that essential driving force which forges a ‘Creative’ Society ???

What is the Sustainable Urban Environment (City) ?   A geographical region, with open and flexible boundaries, consisting of:

• An interwoven, densely constructed core (built environment) ;
• A large resident population of more than 500,000 people (social environment) ;
• A supporting hinterland of lands, waters and other natural resources (cultivated or ‘wrought’ landscape) ;

And together functioning as …

1. A complex living system (analogous to, yet different from, other living systems such as ecosystems and organisms) ;    and
2. A synergetic community capable of providing a high level of individual welfare and social wellbeing for all of its inhabitants.

Our Ultimate Goal must be to achieve a dynamic and harmonious balance between a sustainable ‘human’ environment and a flourishing, not just a surviving, ‘natural’ environment … with the Overall Aim of achieving social wellbeing for all.

Sustainable Design Solutions must be appropriate to local geography, climate and future climate changes, economy, culture, social need and language(s)/dialect(s).

.

Supporting Definitions

Human Environment:  Anywhere there is, or has been, an intrusion by a human being in the ‘natural’ environment.

Built Environment:  Anywhere there is, or has been, a man-made or wrought (worked) intervention by humans in the ‘natural’ environment, e.g. cities, towns, villages, rural settlements, services, transport systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, and cultivated lands, lakes, rivers, coasts, and seas, etc … including the ‘virtual’ environment.

Social Environment:  The complex network of real and virtual human interaction – at a communal or larger group level – which operates for reasons of tradition, culture, business, pleasure, information exchange, institutional organization, legal procedure, governance, human betterment, social progress and spiritual enlightenment, etc.

The ‘social’ environment shapes, binds together, and directs the future development of, the ‘built’ (including ‘virtual’) environment.

Economic Environment:  The intricate web of real and virtual human commercial activity – operating at micro and macro-economic levels – which facilitates, supports, but sometimes hampers or disrupts, human interaction in the ‘social’ environment.

Virtual Environment:  A designed environment, electronically-generated from within the ‘built’ environment, which may have the appearance, form, functionality and impact – to the person perceiving and actually experiencing it – of a real, imagined and/or utopian world.

Human Health:  A state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.  (World Health Organization)

Individual Welfare:  A person’s general feeling of health, happiness and fulfilment.

Social Wellbeing:  A general condition – in a community, society or culture – of health, happiness, creativity, responsible fulfilment, and sustainable development.

Sustainable Human & Social Development:  Development which meets the responsible needs, i.e. the Human & Social Rights*, of this generation – without stealing the life and living resources from future generations, especially our children … and their children.

*As defined, in International Law, by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN OHCHR).

Sustainable Design*:  The ethical design response, in built or wrought form, to the concept of Sustainable Human and Social Development.

*Includes Spatial Planning, Architectural / Engineering / Interior / Industrial Design and e-Design, etc.

.

. 

END

Yes, there definitely were !   Almost two years beforehand !!   Take a deep breath … and suck this up …

Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 & China by Ambassador John Ashe, Permanent Representative of Antigua and Barbuda to the United Nations, at the Thematic Debate of the General Assembly on ‘Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and The World at Work’  (New York, 12th February 2008)

Introduction

1.  Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China thank you for convening this debate in the General Assembly on the theme ‘Addressing Climate Change: The United Nations and The World at Work’.  It provides the Assembly with an additional opportunity to exchange views among Member States and with other partners on one of the important issues on the development agenda of the UN.

2.  At the outset, the Group of 77 & China reiterates that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is, and should remain, the primary comprehensive framework for addressing climate change.  Therefore, this thematic debate should be recognized as an opportunity for Member States to dialogue on ways of increasing support for the Framework and on meeting the urgent need for immediate action to fully implement commitments under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol; supporting the Bali Action Plan and other mechanisms of the Convention.

3.  Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China is of the view that there should not be a parallel process of debates that would detract from the negotiation process under the Convention.  The Group of 77 & China believes that multilateral action to address climate change should remain firmly rooted in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.

4.  Furthermore, this thematic debate, as well as the Secretary General’s report on the Overview of UN activities in relation to Climate Change should not attempt to influence any other processes such as the system wide coherence debate or the discussions on international environmental governance.

*** Climate Change as a Sustainable Development Challenge ***

5.  Mr. President, the Group of 77 & China is of the view that discussions on climate change should be placed within the proper context of sustainable development.  It is imperative that our discussion reinforces the promotion of sustainable development, highlighting the three pillars – economic development, social development and environmental protection – and the need to promote all three in an integrated, co-ordinated and balanced manner.

6.  We must not lose sight of the fact that climate change is a sustainable development challenge.  As such we should adhere steadfastly to the Rio Principles, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.  We must take fully into account that poverty eradication, economic and social development are the paramount priorities of developing countries.  Hence, we must ensure that the discussion on climate change is placed in its proper context so that it does not undermine the overall discourse on sustainable development.

7.  Mr. President, urgent action is needed now to fully implement the commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, especially commitments on financing for adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building, if we are to make progress towards the achievement of the sustainable development goals of developing countries, in particular the Internationally Agreed Development Goals (IADG’s), including the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s).

8.  Urgent action is particularly needed on commitments, as climate change threatens the livelihoods of the very poor and vulnerable developing countries, in particular Africa, the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s), Land-Locked Developing Countries (LLDC’s), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and disaster prone developing countries.  The G-77 & China is of the view that while addressing the challenge of climate, the most affected countries and most vulnerable countries should be given adequate attention and support.

9.  Developed countries Parties must take the lead in addressing the implementation gap, since the extent to which developing countries Parties can effectively respond to the challenge depends on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments relating to financing and technology transfer.

Scaling-Up Financing, Technology Transfer and Capacity Building Support

10.  While the UN can support the efforts of developing countries in formulating policies for attracting climate change related investment flows, adaptation and nationally appropriate mitigation actions will have to be enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building that are commensurate with the magnitude of the tasks ahead of us, that is, in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner, as agreed in the Bali Action Plan.  The provision of financial resources is a binding commitment of developed country Parties.  Clear guidance should be given to facilitate access to financial resources and investments without conditionalities.  It is essential that such financial resources not be considered as Official Development Assistance (ODA), but additional, and in compliance with existing binding commitments under the Convention.  Further, financing for adaptation to climate change and the impact of response measures should not be a reallocation or realignment of existing development financing.

11.  Developing countries should be provided with greater access to cost-effective, efficient and affordable advanced clean technologies.  The Group of 77 & China has repeatedly led calls for developing countries to have greater access to climate-friendly technologies.  Efforts in this regard need to be scaled up.  Furthermore, the UN can play an important role through the promotion of an Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Regime that facilitates the transfer of such technologies.

12.  The Group of 77 & China reiterates its call for increased support for capacity building in developing countries to enhance national efforts to promote an integrated approach to climate change response measures and sustainable development planning.

Greater Support by the UN System for Developing Countries to Address the Climate Change Challenge

13.  The UN’s efforts in supporting national adaptation activities must be strengthened, so that developing countries can achieve their sustainable development goals while responding to the challenges of climate change.  The role of the UN in supporting the overall development efforts is vital.  However, the G-77 & China finds that technology transfer and financing, have not been addressed adequately in the background documents made available in preparation for today’s debate.

14.  On the issue of partnerships, Mr. President, the G-77 & China is of the view that multi-stakeholder partnerships have an important role to play in addressing climate change.  The UN system should assist in fostering and promoting partnerships in support of national efforts.  However, partnerships should not replace ODA or international co-operation.

15.  Additionally, South-South co-operation is useful in the area of adaptation efforts, and greater support for South-South co-operation can also help developing countries better respond to the challenges of climate change.  However, South-South co-operation should not be considered within the context of multi-stakeholder partnerships.  Further, South-South co-operation on climate change should complement North-South co-operation.

Report on the Overview of UN Activities in Relation to Climate Change

16.  Mr. President, in General Assembly Resolution 62/8 Member States requested a comprehensive report providing an overview of the activities of the UN system in relation to climate change.  Based on this mandate the G-77 & China anticipated a factual report that takes stock of current UN system activities in this regard.  As such, there is no mandate with regard to ‘an indication of the way forward’, and ‘co-ordination of the UN system action on climate change’.  This remains the purview of the Member States to decide on.  Work on co-ordination mechanisms, and structures or frameworks, including clusters of activity or lead agencies, must be subject of inter-governmental consideration and decision prior to implementation.

17.  In general, the UN system entities should assist in the effective implementation of the provisions, commitments and action plans of the UNFCCC.  Co-ordination of UN system activities to enhance its role in meeting the challenge of climate change requires inter-governmental consideration, agreement and oversight by Member States.

18.  The G-77 & China recognizes the primacy of the UN in directing and supporting global efforts to meet the global challenge of climate change, and in supporting its Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  The General Assembly, given its universality, should unequivocally urge Parties to undertake urgent action now to meet their commitments under the Convention, provide clear policy direction in this regard and to support to the Bali Plan of Action.

19.  Mr. President, the G-77 & China believes that the road to Copenhagen, where the concluding talks on the current process on the Bali Roadmap will be held in 2009, will be a difficult one, particularly for developing countries and the poorest and most vulnerable.  Leadership will therefore be critical if our response is to reflect the scale of the challenge.  We need an effective and comprehensive global response, within the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, to cover adaptation, technology transfer and financing, as well as mitigation.  Without rapid and tangible efforts by developed countries in this regard, climate change will lead to increased poverty and will negate our efforts at achieving sustainable development.

Thank you, Mr. President.

.

NOTE:  The Group of 77 (G-77) was established on 15th June 1964 by seventy-seven developing countries – signatories of the ‘Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Countries’, issued at the end of the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva.  Beginning with the first Ministerial Meeting of the Group of 77 in Algiers (Algeria), from 10-25 October 1967, which adopted the ‘Charter of Algiers‘, a permanent institutional structure gradually developed which led to the creation of Chapters of the Group of 77, with Liaison Offices in Geneva (UNCTAD), Nairobi (UNEP), Paris (UNESCO), Rome (FAO/IFAD), Vienna (UNIDO), and the Group of 24 (G-24) in Washington, D.C. (IMF and World Bank).  Although the Members of the G-77 have increased to 130 Countries, the original name was retained because of its historic significance.

Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) are all Members of G-77.

Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and the Caribbean island states of Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Dominica (ALBA – Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América / Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) are also all Members of G-77.

The Group of 77 (G-77) WebSite is located at … www.g77.org

.

.

END