Wednesday, 21 October 2020

OPEN LETTER What might this be about? Any ideas anyone?

Dear Premier and Ministers, 

Be it the case or otherwise, but rumour has it that Thursday’s meeting, as advertised, is to be held:
• Behind closed doors; 
• In deadly secret; 
• In the dark; 
• Well away from any kind of community scrutiny; and 
• With a secret agenda. 

Whatever the agenda, clearly its going to be about backing the GM/AKA CEO’s personal agenda whatever that may be. 

Speculatively, and as is widely rumoured, on the agenda, is his bid to 'compulsorily acquire' the Myer Carpark site. Put another way, endorsing his ‘power thrust’, so far unsuccessful apparently, in the hope of generating a ‘vicarious buzz’ perhaps to infect ‘the entire council’who knows

But why the secrecy? 
  • Yes, the carpark site would be a good site for a transport terminal and well yes, the city’s CBD is dying as are CBDs nationally and internationally too apparently. 
  • Yes, every development project directed at reviving the CBD as gone way over budget and has fallen short. 
  • Yes, tenants are apparently fleeing the mall. 
  • Yes, property values in ‘the city’ are falling as are rents but not rates. 
  • Yes, the carpark owner’s investment in ‘his property’ is almost without doubt delivering a return pretty much unachievable elsewhere.
  • And yes, there are other venues in the city for a 21st C transport terminal. 
Likewise, the supposed ‘co-developer’ comes with compromised credentials and is apparently proposing to embark upon an enterprise laden with risk and in a fiscally struggling city. 

If they, as developers, were truly serious and focused on an appropriately credentialed operation they would be spoilt for alternative sites currently. If they were really looking for anything more than a ’free kick’ from Launceston’s ratepayers, what might that be? 

Given that it seems that it would be highly unlikely to be ‘ratepayers’ who would willingly endorse such a project/development, why meet in camera otherwise?

This ‘development’, most likely, as widely rumoured, is that which is being deliberated upon. It looks like it will be in its totality a lose, lose situation for ratepayers, so is that the rationale for secrecy? 

The level of transparency in the decision making here might well be equated with that found inn solid concrete. Not as the Premier when Minister for Local Govt. advocated for, transparency and accountability. 

Why isn’t the city ‘collaborating’ with the owner rather than, as it seems, bureaucratically bullying the owner into submission via council’s – given the GM/AKA CEO’S SECTION 62/2 of the Act – extraordinary powers to compulsorily acquire property for the ‘greater good’

What is the greater good here? In fact, is anything like the ‘greater good’ the case here? It does seem however that ‘the deal’ as discussed/rumoured has anything but the greater good driving it. Winning an aspiration maybe, but the ‘greater good’?

Ratepayers and residents are to be locked out it seems as it seems councillors too apparently. This meeting is, apparently, all about the assertion of ‘power’, nothing more, nothing less. 

Ratepayers, in the rumoured scenarios, will be victims rather than beneficiaries, but who cares? It is widely rumoured that the operational wing think that if you, as administrators/managers, make a mistake you can always tax the ratepayers. It is in-house wisdom apparently.

What seems to be missing at every turn is the ‘social licence’

However, is it being sought? SECTION 62/2 of the Local Govt. Act is careless of such things. Does anyone remember the social licence Gunns assumed that they had, or should have had, or indeed they said they were entitled to, for a pulp mill on the Tamar? 

This missive might well be peeing up wind into a force10 gale, but that’s the lot of hapless ratepayers. And, the ‘elected councillors’ will quite probably not see ANY veracity at all in the rumouring that is being passed on here or indeed have a concern for ‘the citizenry’

Council’s civic accountability will inevitably reveal itself as such things do. That famous quote about truth ... “The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself” ... is as reliable as it has always been down the centuries. Will anyone confront the lion? 

The fear of judgment is the mark of guilty knowledge and the burden of insecurity which is why shonky decisions are made in the dark, and murder trials take place in the light of day out in the open with citizens determining guilt or otherwise. 

Yours sincerely,
Ray Norman
For and on behalf of the Launceston Concerned Citizens' Network


Monday, 12 October 2020

Launceston's Mayor Albert van Zetten sees the light but will he do anything?


If Mayor Albert van Zetten's 
words in the Examiner Thursday 8 Oct are anything to go by, it looks like he has had an epiphany on flood risk and flood levees - floods can happen and they will! 

Now that the mayor has seen the light, ratepayers would be interested to know why has he been such a strong supporter of the scam by UTas to move its campus to the area of high risk, when it is already on safe ground well above any flood risk and with all its facilities and appropriate traffic management. 

UTas has applied to build right next to the levee where the North Esk river bank is at its most unstable. A levee failure or breach at that spot would look like this photo - there goes UTas, down the drain. 

Council must stop this relocation madness and look to the Newnham campus. 

Basil Fitch, ex-alderperson with a long and sound memory is stating the bleeding obvious here! Why don’t the Council see it?

Wouldn't we all like to know the answer to that. 

Some of the then aldermen who were BIG supporters right from 2015 were Hugh McKenzie, Janie Finlay, Albert Van Zetten, and the one who went to Hobart, Darren Alexander.

Basil Fitch says on his facebook ..."they all fell for the lies of then general manager, Dobrzunski and UTas disgrace Peter Rathjen (one of the biggest liars and con artist of all it turns out) without bothering to listen to anything from any ratepayer or resident had to say

Most of what ratepayers had to say was evidence based, not ideologically or profit driven, but why should/would this team of UTas sycophants be inclined to pay any attention.

 An absolute disgrace!

Sunday, 11 October 2020

Mayor Albert van Zetten says no yet again


This is not the first time that the mayor has taken it upon himself to deny the community access to an open and transparent community consultation process. There is no evidence that this answer is endorsed by the councillors or even that they have even been given the opportunity to discuss the subject. 

So, it appears the the mayor has taken this 'decision' all by himself and presumably the City of Launceston's (CoL) GM (aka CEO) endorses his stance.

What might the CoL administration be so concerned about as to deny their constituents a meaningful opportunity to contribute to any kind of open discourses about issues that impact upon them, planning issues and legitimate their placemaking aspirations. 

When the election is over that does not mean that ratepayers and residents need "shut up and get out of the way." 

SO, just what is it that Citizen's Assemblies deliver that Local Government, council operations and council's bureaucratic 'civil servants'  might be fearful of?
  • Might it be the fact that their membership is drawn randomly from within a constituency and therefore they tend to represent a broader cohort of people than those who vote?
  • Might it be the fact that they tend to call expert witnesses from outside the orbit of council operations?
  • Might it be the fact that they are open and transparent processes that are likely to seriously examine a council's processes and offer new opportunities for communities to challenge comfortable decision making?
  • Might it be the fact that they tend to identify levels of expertise and expert groups with qualifications that exceed those of the elected councillors and large numbers of council staff?
  • Might it be the fact that in many instances they tend to speak with an authoritative voice that exceeds/challenges councillors' and their administrators' knowledge base and/or skills levels?
  • Might it be the fact that some have exposed corruption and/or incompetence?
It could be all of that or any one of those factors. If so, it is a very poor foundation upon which to stand upon and to be flatfootedly denying communities their opportunities to contribute to meaningfully, and possibly innovatively, and surely, towards more inclusive solutions.

The really worrying factor is that not a single  CoL councillor will endorse the concept of a Citizen's Assembly – often called a jury –  on the agenda and around the table in an open deliberation at a council meeting. 

Apparently, there is not a solitary one who is prepared to test the credibility of her/his fellow councillors for fear of "looking silly". This is so very, very sad.

The big question is, is the mayor there, and are the councillors there, to contribute or is their purpose solely to do with being there and collecting their councillors' allowances? It is question that begs for an answer.
Click here to watch and learn more  https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/

Saturday, 10 October 2020

Launceston's GM's team at work with SECTION 62/2 to back them up!

Here we have as good an example as you'll get of the 'bureaucratic imperative' at work in Launceston's Town Hall. Mr Davey calls it blackmail others might well call it bullying and there is a very strong case for both propositions.

Whatever, it is not a good look and Mr Davey really does deserve a hearing in order that there is at least an allusion of accountability and transparency.

BTW: SECTION 62/2 IS NOT AN EMERGENCY POWER ALBEIT THAT IT RENDERS COUNCIL ELECTIONS POINTLESS GIVEN ITS APPLICATION.



 The Revenue Imperative??
CBD parking patrols to resume Published on 20 May 2020

In coming weeks, more Launceston businesses will be re-opening and we expect to see increasing activity in our CBD as State and Federal Government health restrictions ease.

While we've been undertaking minimal parking enforcement work since March, we'd like people to be aware that our parking patrols will resume from Monday, May 25.

It is important for the effective functioning of the city to ensure regular turnover of parking spaces in our CBD, which gives more people a chance to park in any given space throughout the day to access our many businesses.

Parking in one of our off-street car parks is cheaper if you plan to stay longer, and there is two hours' free parking in our multi-storey car parks every day between 3.30pm and 5.30pm.

If you don't carry coins, download the EasyPark smartphone app - a convenient, contactless and cashless way to pay for parking, which allows you to pay only for the time you use.

If you'd prefer not to have to find a parking space in the CBD at all, consider parking at Inveresk and catching the FREE Tiger Bus into town, or using other forms of public transport.

Parking in Launceston remains in high demand and its management is important to ensure there is a level playing field for both businesses and shoppers.

Thursday, 8 October 2020

LAUNCESTON'S 'SPECTRE OF THE FLOOD' LOOMS LARGE AGAIN


 With La Nina confirmed in the Pacific pointing to months of well-above-average rainfall, Launceston's new flood levee system could face an even larger challenge than that posed during the 2016 floods.

And since then, a 700-metre levee has been added at Newstead.

But what level of flooding could cause inundation of low-lying areas such as Invermay? And with climate change predicted to increase the frequency and intensity of flooding in Northern Tasmania, how prepared is the city?

 The floods of June, 2016, were caused by rainfall often exceeding the one-in-100 year levels, but Launceston's new flood levees prevented widespread damage.

Mayor Albert van Zetten said that even with the improved protection afforded by the levees, it was impossible to defend against all flood events. It made preparation all the more important.

"It is important for Launceston residents to be aware that the levees are not a guarantee against flood," he said.

"There will always be a risk of a flood event greater than what the levee system can provide protection for.

"Given the ground conditions in Invermay, there is also a risk of failure. Although the council and the Launceston Flood Authority continually inspect and maintain the levee system, the adequacy of the system can't be guaranteed in every scenario." [WILL MATOR VAN ZETTEN BE REPEATING THESE WORDS AND PROVIDING ASSURANCES TO THE COMMUNITY WHEN HE CONSIDERS THE UTAS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS?]

MORE ON FLOODING AND CLIMATE IN LAUNCESTON:

In 1929, Launceston was effectively at the mercy of the rushing flood waters as they destroyed 2000 homes and buildings in low-lying areas. The flood level system was started in the 1960s and put to the test in 1969 when, again, the convergence of the North Esk, South Esk and Tamar rose.

In the 2010s, a further 12 kilometres of earth and concrete levees were built, including about 20 Bauer and sliding flood gates with a network of river height sensors. In 2017, a Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC report found the system prevented $216 million in property damage during the 2016 floods. [BUT CAN THE LEVEES BE RELIED UPON AS LISMORE RELIED UPON THAT CITY'S PRAGMATIC DECISION RTELATIVE TO ITS FLOOD MITIGATION PLANNING ... SEE http://lcc63.blogspot.com/p/the-lismore-flood-history-and-that.html]

The extent of damage likely in a one-in-200 flood event. Image: BMT

 The extent of damage likely in a one-in-200 flood event. Image: BMT

The new system can protect against a one-in-100 year flood, but authorities also have the latest mapping for worsening future scenarios. [BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING AT TOWN HALL OR ARE PROMOTING THE IDEA THAT BUILDING IN A FLOOD PRONE ZONE IS A RISK WORTH TAKING?]

In a one-in-200 year event under current climate conditions, buildings in the area stretching from Newstead College, across Invermay and all the way to Star Theatre could be unsafe for people and vehicles, and vulnerable to structural damage. [BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING ?]

In a one-in-500 year event, flooding could extend to Heritage Forest, with all building types in Invermay "vulnerable to failure". [BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING OR ARE ANY ALRM BELLS RINGING?]

As climate change scenarios by 2040 are laid across the maps, the picture becomes even more dangerous for these areas with waters deepening and the flood footprint extending - in the worst case scenario - across Launceston College, Woolworths and towards Brickfields Reserve. [BUT IS ANYONE LISTENING OR DO THE DECISION MAKERS SEE THEMSELVES 'OUT OF THE GAME' WHEN DISASTER HITS SAFE FROM BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE?]

Cr van Zetten said current modelling indicated that intense rainfall events would become more common in the North and South Esk catchments throughout the 21st century.

"This modelling indicates that while Launceston won't necessarily be at risk of more substantial flooding events in the future, rainfall events will happen with increasing frequency due to the impacts of climate change," he said. "Launceston's reconstructed flood levee system has been designed to a high standard and is expected to provide flood protection to low-lying parts of Launceston for many decades.

"However, no system is failsafe, and Launceston should not be complacent about flood risk." [BUT THIS IS THE LINE, ESSENTIALLY, THAT LISMORE'S COUNCILS RELIED UPON FOR 17 YEARS UNTIL THE LEVEE PROVED INADEQUATE WHEN BUSINESS AND RESIDENTS SUFFERED $MILLIONS IN LOSSES

Jim Collier, a long-term advocate for sediment raking in the Tamar, believed either a dredging or raking program should be carried out in the river's upper reaches, and levees raised further.

"If a significant major flood event does occur, and it really is not a case of 'if' but 'when', this flooding event will only be exacerbated by the risen river bed as the river's upper reaches have, slowly but surely, filled up with more and more sediment since the last raking/dredging program," he said.

In response, Cr van Zetten said a review of sediment raking had found it ineffective in flood defence. [ABOUT THIS THE MAYOR IS CORRECT NONETHELESS HIS APPARENT ACCEPTANCE OF 'THE FLOOD RISK' LACKS CREDIBILITY AND HIS APPARENT PREDISPOSITION EXPOSE THE CITY'S COMMUNITIES TO A LONG LIST OF RISKS IS UNFATHOMABLE]

"The City of Launceston completed a review into its sediment raking trial in 2019, with the review finding that sediment raking and prop washing did not achieve their primary goal of net loss of sediment from the upper estuary for the purposes of flood defence," he said.

Cr van Zetten encouraged residents in low-lying areas to have a plan in case of flooding.  [HOWEVER, WHAT MIGHT HE SAY TO PEOPLE WHO NOW PAY VERY HIGH INSURANCES IN LAUNCESTON'S FLOOD PRONE AREAS, THAT IS THOSE WHO CAN GET,  EVENOR AFFORD, INSURANCE DUE TO VARIOUS COUNCILS OVER TIME TAKING WHAT THEY ASSUMED WERE ACCEPTABLE RISKS?]

[IT  IS HIGH TIME THAT LAUNCESTON'S COUNCILLORS LOOKED AROUND THEMSELVES AND CEASED TAKING UBACCEPTABLE RISKS WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES, LIVELIHOODS, INVESTMENTS AND CIOVIOC LIABILITIES] ... Dr T Vale


BREAKING NEWS
Launceston evacuation has started (Elphin area), and UNBELIEVABLY Albert Hall is the evacuation Centre.
Deja vue?


https://www.police.tas.gov.au/news-events/media-releases/ses-media-release-flood-update-1pm/

Sunday, 4 October 2020

Launceston Town Hall a Bureaucratic Burial Zone

The team at Launceston's Town Hall will hide anything at the drop of a hat. The GM (AKA CEO) has that wonderful provision in the Local Govt Act, SECTION 62/2 that allows him to do  whatever he likes and all by themselves representations to Council get to be 'buried bureaucratically' in order to keep critics and ratepayers confused and at bay.

Finally, the UTas Development Applications are on the agenda for approval and it appears that all and sundry at Town Hall are busily trying to convince themselves that it is OK in 2020 to still give this imprudent public expenditure for wrong thing in the wrong place a tick despite everything.

Ratepayers representations, detailed as they are, challenging the wisdom of the developments are bound to get the most cursory consideration albeit there has been four years of community protest.

 In regard to how these UTas Inveresk Development Applications one representation has already been archived on this site to ensure easier access to it and below there are links to two more

• DA0320/2020 7 Willis Street Launceston

• DA0321/2020 2-4 Invermay Road

The representations present important information regarding the inadvisability of relocating the Newnham campus of the University of Tasmania (UTas), a project named by UTas as the Inveresk Precinct Redevelopment (IPR) as part of its Northern Tasmanian Transformation Program (NTP). The IPR is a major component of the Commonwealth Government’s Launceston City Deal (LCD), significantly funded by the Commonwealth Government, Tasmanian Government, and the ratepayers of the City of Launceston Council.

That the circumstances have changed and quite dramatically given that UTas is lurching headlong into  reconfiguring itself as a corporate entity and increasingly away from the 'social licence' it enjoys as an institution dedicated to scholarship and teaching. Increasingly, as a corporate citizen UTas uses civic infrastructure while contributing less and less.

Northern Tasmanian Networks Partners & Associates opposes the relocation of the University of Tasmania Campus from Newnham to the Inveresk and Willis Street floodplains, which will be subjected to increasing threat from climate change affecting sea level rises in the Tamar/Esk estuary, and further threatened by predicted seismic activity that could cause the collapse/damage to the levee system. 

The group and ratepayers are also concerned that this new UTas infrastructure and also existing infrastructure such as the flood levees that give some protection but mainly give time to effect orderly evacuation, and bridges crossing the North Esk River, may be damaged or compromised by untimely seismic events.

Accordingly Councillors' attention is drawn to the many reports it has previously commissioned that warn of inevitable seismic activity, flood inundation and the impacts of the current climate emergency. Yet, the indications are that despite declaring a climate emergency Councillors appear disinclined the read and absorb independent expert advice.

Every dollar invested in and spent on these developments comes from taxpayers and ratepayers and to disregard this is quite simply 'civic delinquency'. Yet, it seems that Councillors are prepared to look away.

It is an old quyote but one that is invested with truth “One day everything will be well, that is our hope. Everything's fine today, that is our illusion” ― Voltaire

A timely reality check for UTas and the City of Launceston

FOREWORD ... Launceston’s Councillors, those who can, should be reading this before they think about giving UTas’s DA to facilitate building on a flood plain cum tidal zone any kind of tick. This along with a number of other considerations on their agenda need to be rebooted just as their computers, for those who know how to use one, need rebooting quite regularly.

 

Given the circumstances the city, and indeed UTas, find themselves in the reboot analogy is more than appropriate. Relative to mistake making there three rules to follow: 

  • Firstly, correct the mistakes that you have made whenever it is possible;
  • Secondly, don't repeat those mistakes;
  • Thirdly, learn from the mistakes.

Progress is never made without mistake making but the biggest mistake is to repeat or compound them. Launceston, and UTas, it seems is on the cusp of making a monumental mistake albeit that the people gambling with the community’s future see themselves as being dead or well away from being held accountable by the communities who would want them in the stocks so that they could throw rotting rubbish at them.

 

So, for the Councillors and UTas personnel who have the slightest inclination to read anything and become informed about issues beyond their personal interest, this University of Cambridge contribution to the public discourse this is a promising read and well worth the 9 minutes time investment – perhaps over a cup of coffee???

 



In 2020, the world is grappling with COVID-19 along with several other major crises. The International Monetary Fund predicts that the world could experience the worst recession since the 1930s this year, with the global economy contracting by 3% as advanced economies shrink by 6.1%. The World Trade Organization expects global trade to fall by as much as 32% in 2020. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports that inequality in the world’s most developed economies is at its highest level in 50 years. The World Meteorological Organization recently warned that over the next five years, annual global temperatures could potentially rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, leading to catastrophic climate change.


There is much talk now about “rebooting” the economy, akin to rebooting a computer. But the operating system that runs most economies in the world, namely capitalism, has become obsolete, for four main reasons. First, capitalism extols the virtues of private ownership, individualism, and competition, which drives companies to accumulate and hoard assets and compete with one another in a zero-sum game. Second, it seeks economies of scale through mass production and global supply chains, which are heavily polluting and resource-hungry, and lack the flexibility to deal with cataclysmic disruptions like COVID-19. Third, it incentivizes companies to maximize short-term profits solely for shareholders rather than create long-term value for all stakeholders. Fourth, capitalism neglects to hold businesses accountable for the negative consequences of their activities, such as social inequality and ecological degradation.

 

Given these deep systemic flaws, it makes no sense to reboot a dysfunctional capitalist economy. Instead, we need to upgrade and reinvent it to make it more efficient and agile, socially inclusive, and ecologically beneficial. Even before COVID-19, the discussion around “stakeholder capitalism” and “eco-capitalism” had been underway for quite some time. But while these concepts address some of the flaws of capitalism mentioned above, they don’t tackle all of them. Although these concepts have enabled individual companies to boost the impact of their corporate social responsibility programs, they haven’t created breakthrough multicompany business models that fundamentally reshape the structures and dynamics of entire industries.


It’s time to think bigger and bolder. To build and support radically new industry value chains that are truly beneficial to people, society, and the planet, we need a new operating system that I call a frugal economy.


A frugal economy strives to create more economic, social, and ecological value simultaneously while wisely optimizing the use of all available resources. Unlike the “do more with more” capitalistic system, which uses ever more resources to create ever more products, the frugal economy aims to do better with less by making the most of all existing resources to maximize the value for all stakeholders. A frugal economy responds to the needs of cost-conscious consumers hard-hit by the recession and seeking a healthier and more eco-friendly lifestyle in the aftermath of COVID-19.


This multitrillion-dollar new economy is already emerging, fueled by three megatrends that will reshape the next decade: B2B sharing, distributed micromanufacturing, and triple regeneration.

 

Cocreate better value from all resources with B2B sharing. Millions of citizens worldwide are already practicing collaborative consumption by sharing their cars and apartments with one another through platforms like Uber and Airbnb. This is the business-to-consumer sharing economy, which PwC has estimated will grow to a $335 billion market by 2025.


Visionary companies are, in turn, shaping the business-to-business sharing economy by sharing their physical and intangible resources and assets with one another. By keeping their resources and assets fully utilized, companies can maximize value, generate new revenue, drastically reduce waste, and amplify their positive impact on society. Given its sheer size, this B2B sharing market could potentially be worth several trillion dollars.


B2B sharing is already well underway in Asia and Europe but is struggling to take off in individualistic and competitive corporate America. In India, for instance, EM3 Agri Services’ B2B sharing platform gives small farms on-demand access to equipment like tractors and crop management services on an affordable pay-as-you-go basis. This enables farmers to produce more — and earn more — using fewer resources. At Les Deux Rives, a business district in the heart of Paris, 30 colocated enterprises share office space, equipment, and services, and recycle/upcycle waste as an integrated, synergistic network. In the Netherlands, Floow2’s B2B sharing platform enables organizations to share business equipment, enabling hospitals, for example, to share their medical devices and services, thus maximizing their asset use and patient care.


B2B sharing isn’t limited to equipment and physical assets. Companies can also share their employees with one another. Vénétis is an association of 360 small French businesses that hires experts — in fields as diverse as industrial quality control and web marketing — as full-time employees and shares them on a project basis among its member businesses, thus replacing unstable part-time jobs with safe, “shared-time” jobs. People + Work Connect is a new analytics-based employer-to-employer platform colaunched by Accenture, Lincoln Financial Group, ServiceNow, and Verizon that helps people laid off during COVID-19 rapidly find work in another organization.

 

Boost resilience and agility with distributed micromanufacturing. Europe in the 19th century, America in the 20th century, and China in recent decades all achieved rapid economic growth by scaling up manufacturing with big centralized factories. But this energy-hungry mass-production model has depleted natural resources and seriously damaged our environment. As the COVID-19 crisis emerged, the U.S. and European nations faced dire shortages of critical products like medical supplies; having massively offshored their industrial activities to lower-cost countries, they quickly recognized the urgent need to “reshore” and bring manufacturing back to their home countries.


Rather than scale up, what if we were to scale out manufacturing by building smaller, more agile, and eco-friendly factories located closer to the points of consumption? This would help produce goods more quickly and cheaply using local talent and resources, bringing benefits for both the local economy and the environment. For instance, in partnership with Local Motors, an open-source hardware innovator, GE Appliances has set up a microfactory, called FirstBuild, in Louisville, Kentucky. FirstBuild engages local community members — students, designers, engineers, and makers — and a global network of innovators to cocreate next-generation consumer appliances faster, better, and more cheaply using agile techniques such as digital prototyping, 3D printing, rapid iteration, and small-batch production. FirstBuild swiftly responded to COVID-19 by making 3D-printed face shields for health care workers.


Companies like Imaginarium, India’s largest 3D printing service company, are making distributed micromanufacturing a reality in emerging markets. Unlike the high-volume, low-variety Chinese mass-manufacturing model, Imaginarium uses its 3D printing facility in Mumbai to enable mass customization through low-volume but high-variety and high-value production. For example, Imaginarium was able to quickly 3D-print a customized titanium cranial implant for a patient who had lost a skull fragment in an accident, saving his life.


Businesses can now access distributed manufacturing services on demand, rather than buying and owning microfactories themselves. Maryland-based Xometry, an on-demand manufacturing marketplace, uses artificial intelligence and machine learning to rapidly identify and connect small U.S. manufacturers with Fortune 500 giants like GE and Dell. These big companies use Xometry’s worldwide network of 4,000 highly specialized machine shops to quickly produce high-quality, custom-made, cost-effective parts. Xometry allows financially struggling owners of small U.S. factories to gain access to global markets and run their machines continuously, thus gaining stable income and sustaining local communities.


Raise the bar on sustainability with triple regeneration. To effectively fight climate change, many companies are adopting the principles of the circular economy to recycle waste materials into new products. Unlike the linear “take-make-waste” economic model — wherein we take raw materials from the earth to make new products, which, after being used, go to waste — the circular economy seeks to reduce consumption by reusing and recycling resources and materials in a closed loop along the value chain.


For instance, in 2016, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) launched the Realcar (Recycled Aluminium Car) initiative that produced Jaguars made from 75% recycled aluminum. This success led JLR to launch Reality, an ambitious companywide initiative to recover aluminum from end-of-life vehicles to build next-generation vehicles, including an all-electric car.


Companies can raise the bar on sustainability even higher by adopting the principles of regeneration. While sustainable businesses simply try to reduce their carbon footprints to curb their negative impact on the planet, regenerative companies intentionally increase their positive impact on society and the environment. According to a ReGenFriends study, nearly 80% of American consumers prefer regenerative brands to sustainable ones and find the term sustainable too passive.


To attract and retain environmentally minded customers, manufacturers must upgrade their value chains from sustainability to regeneration. They can do so by emulating Interface, the world’s largest modular carpet manufacturer, which has built a “factory as a forest” in Australia. This virtuous plant goes beyond the goal of having a zero environmental footprint to instead provide the same benefits as high-performing ecosystems, such as clean air and water, carbon sequestration, and nutrient cycling.


While regenerating the planet is very noble, we also need to regenerate communities, particularly the people and places afflicted by COVID-19 and the recession. Vanguard companies should practice what I call triple regeneration, which aims to restore, renew, and grow people, places, and the planet in an integrated and synergistic way.


The food giant Danone is pioneering triple regeneration through its “One Planet. One Health” agenda. Danone is helping its farming suppliers transition to regenerative agriculture, a science-based approach using natural methods like crop rotation to enrich the soil and increase yields while dramatically minimizing emissions and the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and irrigation water. As a result, Danone is revitalizing fragile rural farming, allowing farmers to produce more — and earn more — at lower cost and to boost the quality and value of their land in the long run. High-vitality soil also yields foods richer in nutrients, which is better for Danone’s consumers’ health.


Some progressive companies focus their triple regeneration efforts on people, by ensuring that human talent — the most valuable of all resources — is not wasted. For instance, Recygo— a joint venture between the French postal service and the water and waste management giant Suez — hires, trains, and employs socioeconomically disadvantaged people for its office-paper recycling service. Fiam, a high-end Italian glass furniture company, tapped the talent and imagination of young artists to upcycle glass waste from its factory into magnificent pieces of furniture. These young artists became design celebrities overnight.

 

By regenerating people, places, and the planet, companies could bolster the well-being of millions of individuals, reinvigorate thousands of communities, and usher the world into a low-carbon economy that could generate $26 trillion in financial value and create more than 65 million new green jobs globally by 2030.


Corporate leaders must reframe the current pandemic crisis and recession as a historic opportunity not only to reinvent their company’s business models but to reshape the entire economy. By boldly adopting B2B sharing, distributed micromanufacturing, and triple regeneration, companies can cobuild a human-centered frugal economy that is financially profitable, socially inclusive, and ecologically virtuous.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Navi Radjou (@naviradjou) is an innovation and leadership author and adviser based in New York. He is a fellow at Cambridge Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge in England.

 

ALSO GO TO https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-rising-frugal-economy/#:~:text=A%20frugal%20economy%20strives%20to,use%20of%20all%20available%20resources.