A regional environmental accounting matrix and integrated environmental economic analyses to support regional planning

This research deals with the deepening and use of an environmental accounting matrix in Emilia-Romagna, RAMEA air emissions (regional NAMEA), carried out by the Regional Environment Agency (Arpa) in an European project. After a depiction of the international context regarding the widespread needing to integrate economic indicators and go beyond conventional reporting system, this study explains the structure, update and development of the tool. The overall aim is to outline the matrix for environmental assessments of regional plans, draw up sustainable reports and monitor effects of regional policies in a sustainable development perspective. The work focused on an application of a Shift-Share model, on the integration with eco-taxes, industrial waste production, energy consumptions, on applications of the extended RAMEA as a policy tool, following Eurostat guidelines. The common thread is the eco-efficiency (economic-environmental efficiency) index. The first part, in English, treats the methodology used to build a more complete tool; in the second part RAMEA has been applied on two regional case studies, in Italian, to support decision makers regarding Strategic Environmental Assessments’ processes (2001/42/EC). The aim is to support an evidence-based policy making by integrating sustainable development concerns at all levels. The first case study regards integrated environmental-economic analyses in support to the SEA of the Regional Waste management plan. For the industrial waste production an extended and updated RAMEA has been developed as a useful policy tool, to help in analysing and monitoring the state of environmental-economic performances. The second case study deals with the environmental report for the SEA of the Regional Program concerning productive activities. RAMEA has been applied aiming to an integrated environmental-economic analysis of the context, to investigate the performances of the regional production chains and to depict and monitor the area where the program should be carried out, from an integrated environmental-economic perspective.

What Happened to Participation? Urban Development and Authoritarian Upgrading in Cairo's Informal Neighbourhoods

Participation appeared in development discourses for the first time in the 1970s, as a generic call for the involvement of the poor in development initiatives. Over the last three decades, the initial perspectives on participation intended as a project method for poverty reduction have evolved into a coherent and articulated theoretical elaboration, in which participation figures among the paraphernalia of good governance promotion: participation has acquired the status of “new orthodoxy”. Nevertheless, the experience of the implementation of participatory approaches in development projects seemed to be in the majority of cases rather disappointing, since the transformative potential of ‘participation in development’ depends on a series of factors in which every project can actually differ from others: the ultimate aim of the approach promoted, its forms and contents and, last but not least, the socio-political context in which the participatory initiative is embedded. In Egypt, the signature of a project agreement between the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Federal Republic of Germany, in 1998, inaugurated a Participatory Urban Management Programme (PUMP) to be implemented in Greater Cairo by the German Technical Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit, GTZ) and the Ministry of Planning (now Ministry of Local Development) and the Governorates of Giza and Cairo as the main counterparts. Now, ten years after the beginning of the PUMP/PDP and close to its end (December 2010), it is possible to draw some conclusions about the scope, the significance and the effects of the participatory approach adopted by GTZ and appropriated by the Egyptian counterparts in dealing with the issue of informal areas and, more generally, of urban development. Our analysis follows three sets of questions: the first set regards the way ‘participation’ has been interpreted and concretised by PUMP and PDP. The second is about the emancipating potential of the ‘participatory approach’ and its ability to ‘empower’ the ‘marginalised’. The third focuses on one hand on the efficacy of GTZ strategy to lead to an improvement of the delivery service in informal areas (especially in terms of planning and policies), and on the other hand on the potential of GTZ development intervention to trigger an incremental process of ‘democratisation’ from below.