Panel 1: Governing at the Local Level Tuesday November 15 (9:00- 10:30)

1. 12th Symposium on Development and Social Transformation Panel 1: Governing at the Local LevelTuesday November 15 (9:00- 10:30)

2. 12th Symposium on Development and Social Transformation Panel 1: Governing at the Local Level Provisioning of Open Spaces – Policies and Experiences in United States of AmericaD.S. Ravindran

3. USA – a Megalopolis? • 80 % urban population • 115 m to 225 m by 2000 • Sprawl – after IInd WW • 41 % to 62 % • 3.0 m ac farm and forest lands annually lost. • 26 m ha forest lands to vanish by 2030. • Environmental costs “Imageless megalopolis”

4. Open Space means … • Different things to different people • Parks, wetlands, trails, forests, lakes, reservoirs • Functionalism • Cultural – educational, artistic, historic, archeological values; - way of life • Ecological – habitat, vegetation, wildlife values; • Developmental – green spaces as part • Agricultural – farm preservation; and • Recreational – leisure and outdoor activities • Both public and private domain

5. Values of open space • Natural Ecosystem Functions • Recharge of groundwater • Flood mitigation - $ 10 m vs $100 m • Enhancement value - $ 6425/ha • Tourism value - $ 59 B from wildlife (1991) • Amenity value of farm lands – $ 830 – 1555 per ac • Recreational value • Fiscal savings: $ 1.13 vs $ 0.29

6. Open space is a function of… • Outcome of Multiple perspectives, multiple ideologies and multiple objectives • Theory – Urban containment – Open space • Public goods • Environmental Theory • Land ethic (Aldo Leopold) • Limits to growth • Citizen demand – Resource preservation • Landscape ecology (Ecological systems theory) • Multiple actors • State to Civil Society • Federal, State, Local, Civil Society • Multi - faceted responses • Eminent domain - police power - market incentives

7. What and Why of Policy?

8. Where are the open spaces? ACQUIRE INCENTIVE OWN Where are the open spaces? Fed–state 35.8 m Fed – 600 m Fed lwcf – 4.5 m State – 2.3 m – 27000 projects State – 85 m Land trust – 29.4 m

9. Euclidean zoning Growth phasing reg Cluster zoning Agri Zoning TDRs Green Belts Urban Growth Boundary Planning mandate Smart Growth From Residual to integral element Residual Local Parks Integral Regional Greenways

10. From public to citizen demand Uncertainty Steady increase 800 375 375 800 Cumulative $ 14.3 b in 40 years

11. From public to partnerships 29.4 m acres

12. Environmentalism Public Good Demand for open space values Landscape ecology and economy 32/50 states programmes since 1990 66 % rapidly urbanising High income states Linkage with disasters From Environmentalism to Economics

13. Learnings • Need for COMPLEMENTARY & COORDINATED action at multiple levels • Mutually reinforcing policy mix – • a range of instruments • Open space stewardships - LOCAL • Citizen participation/awareness – critical • Harness potential of open spaces to meet other more pressing public goals • Resource raising possibilities – • Impact fees, Harness consumer surplus in property tax

14. 12th Symposium on Development and Social Transformation Panel 1: Governing at the Local Level Community Policing Initiatives in USARohit Choudhary

15. DEFINITION- • Combination of traditional policing and prevention, problem solving, community engagement & partnership. • Proactive problem-solving centred on the causes of crime and disorder. • Police and citizens to join together as partners in the course of both identifying and effectively addressing these issues.

16. CORE ELEMENTS • Organizational • Tactical • External

17. ORGANISATIONAL • Philosophy Adopted Organization-Wide. • Decentralized Decision-Making and Accountability. • Fixed Geographic Accountability and Generalist Responsibilities. • Utilization of Volunteer Resources.

18. TACTICAL • Enforcement of Laws. • Proactive, Crime Prevention Oriented. • Problem-solving.

19. EXTERNAL • Public Involvement in Community Partnerships. • Government and Other Agency Partnerships.

20. U.S. FEDERAL POLICY • ‘Crime remains among the top concerns of Americans, and to fight it, cities and countries across the nation are turning to Community policing’. • Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice was established. • Office has granted more than 9 billion dollars in grants across the nation.

21. COPS INITIATIVES • Financial Crimes Against the Elderly • Gangs • Providing Homeland Security • Identity Theft • Ensuring School Safety • Solving Crime Problems • Stalking • Using Technology • Police Training Model

22. COMMUNITY POLICING IN DIFFERENT CITIES ACROSS U.S • Fighting juvenile crime. • Combating domestic violence. • Anti gang initiatives . • Retired senior volunteer patrol. • operation roundup against narcotics dealers. • Street terrorist offender project . • Neighborhood watch, home watch, child watch. • Business and residential security surveys . • Residential Area Policing Program . Knoxville police, Boston police Chicago police, Fort Worth ,TX police, San Diego, CA police ,Santa Ana police ,Cleveland police & Charlotte Mecklenburg

23. Continued.. • Knoxville police throughout the 80’s worked internally to change their infrastructure and improve their officer deployment strategy • Boston police department changed organizational process to support a new patrol strategy and creation of Neighborhood Beat teams • Chicago police department developed a community assessment center • San Diego, CA the police department implemented an Automated Field Reporting (AFR ) • Santa Ana, CA Performance standards were developed in 1989 to support community policing methods and procedures • Cleveland police department created a community policing bureau • Charlotte Mecklenburg brought in Herman Goldstein, who is considered the father of people oriented policing

24. COMMUNITY POLICING IN SYRACUSE • Ordinance enforcement & license section • T.O.P. section • Storefront section • Neighborhood watch section -Neighborhood Protection Initiative

25. STRENGTHS OF THE US POLICY • Full support with the policy elites at the federal, state and the city level . • Department-wide adoption of community policing. • Adequate authority delegated to take decisions and solve the problems at the local level. • Links with other agencies in the government and outside the government. • Updated technology and information systems. • System of advancement of internal research and planning.

26. WEAKNESSES IN THE US POLICY • Became a victim of politics of product differentiation. • Too much of money was spend by US government over a period of about six years. • Target achievement approach, at times emphasis shifted on spending rather than judicious utilization.

27. LESSONS FOR INDIA • Institutionalization. • Re engineering of department components. • Decentralization. • Police-public partnership & research.

28. CONCLUSION • Community policing successful wherever evolved from the bottom and provide necessary support from the top, as was the case with many cities across the US. • Most important aspect is the conviction and belief, in community policing, in the minds of policemen on the street, who can work both as policemen and community officers at the same time.

29. 12th Symposium on Development and Social Transformation Panel 1: Governing at the Local Level Urban Management Planning and Policies for Sustainable Municipal Solid Waste ManagementPramod Kumar

30. Solid waste Management System in USA • solid waste management is a state subject • Federal Govt. has passed two acts regarding this subject which are as follows- 1) The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 2) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The former speaks of the management and disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in the US, while the latter requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that may have adverse environmental impacts.  These, are the two main controlling federal laws that impact solid waste management systems across the U.S.  

31. MSW Programs • EPA’s goals for the nation are • a) to recycle 35 percent of MSW generated; • b) to reduce waste generation to 4.3 pounds per person per day; • c) to empower state, local, and tribal governments to better manage solid waste; • d) to provide leadership in source reduction and recycling; • e) to build stronger public and private partnerships; • f) and to ensure the environmental soundness of source reduction, recycling, combustion, and land disposal.

32. New York State Solid Waste Management Program • In New York State, responsibility for the collection and disposal of solid waste has rested with cities, towns and villages. • counties have been involved in shoring up local collection efforts. • It was not until 1988 that the State passed legislation formally requiring counties to develop Solid Waste Management Plans which would help coordinate local efforts to collect and dispose of waste. • In Onondaga County, municipalities have traditionally used three mechanisms for garbage collection: • • municipal (public) garbage collection, • • municipal contracting for private garbage collection, or • • licensing a number of companies to negotiate directly with businesses and homeowners to collect the waste (essentially, a free market for waste). • Sometimes these mechanisms for collection vary for commercial and residential waste, or recyclables and regular waste.

34. OCRRA • The Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency (OCRRA) is a public benefit corporation created under the New York Public Authorities Law to manage the integrated Solid Waste Management Program for the County of Onondaga. • OCRRA is not a division or branch of county government. • The Agency’s responsibility includes a full array of waste management techniques inclusive of • waste reduction, recycling, waste-to-energy, future design and development of a landfill, yard waste composting, processing construction debris and other system related activities. • The system-wide service area consists of thirty-three (33) of the thirty-five (35) municipalities located in Onondaga County covering over 181,000 households.

35. Financial resources of OCCRA • The Agency’s financial resources are provided primarily from the fee charges paid by public and private system users for trash disposal and electricity generated from the trash. Other revenue sources are investment earnings, processing charges, and sales of recycled and recovered materials. • OCRRA receives no local or county tax support.

37. Municipal solid waste management system in India • In India, this service falls short of the desired level, as the systems adopted are outdated and inefficient. Institutional weakness, shortage of human and financial resources, improper choice of technology, inadequate coverage and lack of short and long term planning are responsible for the inadequacy of service. • The municipal authorities in the country are responsible for managing municipal solid waste, but, most of the authorities in the country have failed to perform their primary duty to keep the cities clean and dispose of the waste scientifically.

38. MSW Rules 2000 • The MSW Rules 2000 so framed envisaged that all the cities in the country would implement the rules by 31st December, 2003 and take the following seven steps to improve the solid waste management services in the country. • Storage of waste at source in two bins. One for biodegradable waste and another for recyclable material. • Primary collection of biodegradable waste from the doorstep on a day to day basis using containerized tricycle/handcarts/pick up vans, and collection of recyclable material through NGOs at appropriate intervals. • Street sweeping covering all the residential and commercial areas on all the days of the year irrespective of Sundays and public holidays. • Abolition of open waste storage depots and provision of covered containers or closed body waste storage depots. • Transportation of waste in covered vehicles on a day to day basis. • Treatment of biodegradable waste using composting or waste to energy technologies meeting the standards laid down. • Minimize the waste gong to the land fill and dispose of only inert material at the landfills which should be constructed as per the specifications given in the rules.

39. CONSTRAINTS / DIFFICULTIES IN IMPLEMENTATION • 1] Non availability of suitable land and handing over of the same to concerned local bodies. • 2] Lack of technical awareness among personnel’s with respect to waste processing technologies, Selection of proper waste processing technology with respect to waste quantum generation , development of landfill sites. • 3] The local bodies in coastal area are facing the difficulties in identification of suitable land due to CRZ notifications . • 4] The location policy of State Government in respect of notified Rivers ( RRZ Policy) doesn’t allow for such type of activity. • 5] Non availability of sufficient funds with local bodies. • 6] Lack of public awareness/participation. • 7] Negligent / reluctant personnel’s with ULB’s. • 8] Inadequate manpower with the state boards for implementation and compliance verification with MSW Rules.

40. 12th Symposium on Development and Social Transformation Panel 1: Governing at the Local Level Private Protected Areas in Chile: Emergence and Implications in ChileLaura Meza

41. The World Park Congress (2003) defined Private Protected Area (PPA) as: “a land parcel of any size that is • predominantly managed for biodiversity conservation; • protected with or without formal government recognition; • and is owned or otherwise secured by individuals, communities, corporations or non-governmental organizations”.

42. 500 PPA Public System covers 14 million hectares Private System covers 1.5 million hectares

43. The Facts • The National System of Protected Areas does not represent adequately the ecosystems of the country. • Almost 80% of the land in Chile is privately owned • Government with budgetary constrains is calling the private sector to unify efforts for conservation. • A new regulation providing the framework for private protected areas is being developed. • There are conflicts because land ownership in indigenous territories.

44. The Questions Why private conservation emerges? What is the relevance of private conservation in Chile? What are the potential implications?

45. Methodology Conservation Land Trust CMPC

46. Conclusions Private conservation is tremendously relevant for protection of nature. Ecotourism is viewed as part of future rural development. Chile does not promote conservation projects conducted by communities. Nature conservation is not a “tension free” terrain and policies could exacerbate conflicts related to certain territories.

47. 12th Symposium on Development and Social Transformation Panel 1: Governing at the Local Level Witness Protection – A Study of Global Practices to Evolve a Policy for IndiaK.Laxminarayana Rao

48. VICTORIA POLICEWITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM –LESSONS FOR INDIA K L N RAO PGPPM 05 MAXWELL SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY NEW YORK

49. INTRODUCTION • Administration of criminal justice, witness protection would seldom be an early topic raised. • crime statistics; policing and detection; • conviction rates; penal policy, sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders; youth crime; court proceedings and evidentiary matters; civil rights of citizens and legal representation

50. “NO WITNESS – NO JUSTICE” Last decade at least 10 per cent of crimes reported to police result in witness intimidation; at least 20 per cent of crimes not reported by witnesses are not reported because of fear of reprisals; fear of intimidation deters a greater number of witnesses than victims in the vast majority of cases (85 per cent) reported in a 1998 British Crime Survey, harassers of victims and witnesses were the original offender; in other cases, the harasser was from the offender’s family or friends; 30per cent went unreported due to fear of reprisal.