American Society for Engineering Education

An AAES/ASEE Newsletter

January 2001

Sustainability Promoted Locally and Globally

This issue of the Forum Newsletter describes activities and programs promoting sustainability at university, state, national and global levels. To illustrate, included is a summary of sustainability efforts at U.S. universities, a report on sustainability practices in the State of Maryland, a summary of the National Academy of Engineering Symposium on Earth Systems Engineering, and an announcement of a Critical Ecosystem Partnership, a joint initiative of Conservation International, the World Bank, and the Global Environment Facility.

The next meeting will be held on Friday, January 26, 2001 from 9:00 a.m. to Noon, at the National Academies building, Room 150, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. The agenda will include a presentation on current practices and issues related to genetically engineered foods, a summary of the sustainable transportation developments reported at the January meeting of the Transportation Research Board, a report on a prototype sustainable village in China and briefings on climate change issues and the World Water Forum. The complete agenda will be distributed in mid-January.

Further information about the Forum and its newsletters can be found by contacting William Kelly, ASEE, by e-mail at publicaffairs@asee.org

Best wishes to all Forum readers for a Happy New Year!

Al Grant, Forum Chair

• "Sustainable Engineering for Cities," by William J. Carroll
• Campuses Move Toward Sustainability
• Georgia Tech Offers Sustainable Facilities and Infrastructure Program
• Maryland DNR Practices Sustainability
• RNRF Congress Held on Promoting Sustainability
• Congressional Briefing Held on Smart Growth Policy Agenda
• NAE Hosts Symposium on Earth Systems Engineering
• Critical Ecosystem Partnership Launched
• ASCE Planning World Congress on Disaster Reduction
• Virtual Library Planned for Sustainable Development

“Sustainable Engineering for Cities,” by William J. Carroll

(Editor’s Note: This article is the second in a series of guest articles to be featured in the Forum Newsletter. Mr. Carroll served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Montgomery-Watson , Pasadena, CA. He is a past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers and was the first US President of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations. Mr. Carroll recently received the Sustained Achievement Award of the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation for his contributions to sustainable development and his global leadership in water and wastewater projects. This article is drawn from his remarks at an international conference in Moscow on science and engineering.)

“Environmental concerns and sustainable development concerns are now prevalent throughout the world and considerable emphasis is being placed on them by national governments. Many governments are setting national strategies for attaining sustainable development and are giving considerable attention to the long-term consequences of their actions. They are bringing into the planning cycles such concepts as life-cycle analysis, risk versus benefits analysis, impact assessments, recycling and reuse of materials, and pollution prevention. 

It is also necessary that cities develop similar strategic plans in developing their industrial and manufacturing bases, so that industries that are attracted to the city enhance the city’s economic well-being, but do not adversely impact the economic health of the city. As part of a city’s plan, a framework has to be developed within which industry understands its responsibility to employ technologies that are both clean and resource-efficient. Its products must be safe in their intended use, efficient in their consumption of energy and natural resources, and can be recycled, or disposed of safely. There is increasing evidence that industry is accepting this mandate from governments and people. 

The report, “Technology for a Sustainable Future,” prepared by the US National Science and Technology Council, states that “one major change will be in the nature of environmental technology itself. The past focus has been largely on controlling releases and cleaning up pollution that is already in existence; building scrubbers that remove sulfur dioxide from a smokestack, for example, or cleaning up waste sites that are already contaminated. Increasingly, environmental technology is being designed and deployed to avoid pollution altogether. Energy systems will shift toward clean fuels....Manufacturing firms will increasingly adopt products and processes designed from the outset to minimize the use of raw materials and the output of pollutants.”

Industrial development is very important to cities and they must work in partnership with industry to bring this development about. Industry has to recognize that cities must integrate very complex issues dealing with social, economic, environmental and political conditions. 

Cities must be concerned with the health problems created by inadequate infrastructure to handle the treatment and distribution of water and the disposition of domestic sewage and industrial waste. At one time these functions were basically municipal functions, but there is now a major trend toward privatization, wherein these facilities are designed, constructed, operated, and owned by private enterprises. In planning its future infrastructure, cities must recognize the rapid changes occurring in technology. In my field, which is water and waste water, we are doing research continually on treatment processes, and have been concentrating on membrane technologies, such as micro and ultra filtration and reverse osmosis. They are very effective in removing microbiological contaminants, viruses, and such difficult protozoa as giardia and cryptosporidium. In the near future we will have the ability to recycle our waste water back into our potable water systems in a safe manner.” 

Campuses Move Toward Sustainability

(Note: The following article is reprinted with the permission of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) and was originally published in the Spring, 2000 issue of the AGB publication, “Priorities,” under the title of “A Gazetteer of Campus Sustainability Efforts.” ) “Visions of the ‘sustainable university’ found on American campuses vary as widely as the range of institutions themselves. What the visions share, for the most part, are efforts to

(1) serve as a model campus for students and community,

(2) create curricula that emphasize ecological literacy in courses beyond environmental sciences, and

(3) generate opportunities for research and service toward sustainability-related ends. 

Here are some examples: 

At the University of Maryland, the Center for Environmental Science is the hub of regional efforts to curb contamination of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, helping state and local governments pursue strategies such as new water-pollution treatment methods, and land-use planning aimed at minimizing automobile-dependent suburban sprawl. 

At Michigan Technological University, the importance of the auto industry to the state’s economy has prompted faculty to focus on environmentally conscious manufacturing, such as designs that build in antipollution measures at the front end of the pipeline. Named one of the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Centers of Excellence, Michigan Tech also has entered into numerous institutional and corporate partnerships to pursue research into clean industrial-treatment technologies and environmental management of lake-water currents. 

Oberlin College recently dedicated its one-of-a-kind “dream house for environmental studies,” an award-winning $7.2 million building that converts sunlight to electricity and purifies and recycles water. The building also features heat-retaining windows with offices, classrooms, an atrium, and a 100-seat auditorium. Called the Adam Joseph Lewis Center, it will use about a fifth of the energy consumed by comparable structures, and it will be used for air-quality tests by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The surrounding landscape will feature an orchard, greenhouse, garden, a wetland, and a ‘solar plaza’ marking the sun’s equinoxes, making it not just a building but also a teaching tool.

Clemson University has teamed with the University of South Carolina and the Medical College of South Carolina to collaborate in seeking alternatives to traditional environmental, economic, and social activities in higher education. The schools have incorporated principles of sustainability into their curricula and are seeking to reduce the environmental ‘footprint’ associated with university operations. In addition, Clemson’s Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs has a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts to pursue interdisciplinary approaches to problem-based learning in sustainability. 

In another regional collaboration, seven colleges and universities in New Jersey have joined to form the New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability. Across the river, Lehman College of the City University of New York has set up environmental partnerships with community groups in the Bronx to protect open space and revitalize dilapidated areas. The college has also created an interdisciplinary studies program in environmental policies that stretches across 13 academic disciplines, among them the physical sciences, sociology, philosophy, and literature.

The State University of New York at Buffalo has implemented a wide-ranging sustainable facilities- management program that includes recycling up to half of the university’s solid-waste stream, retrofitting buildings for heat recovery and lighting-system upgrades (in partnerships with regional private power companies) and restricted distribution of Third Class (‘junk’) mail.

Tufts University has an EPA grant to find ways to reduce the campus’s role in harming the local community’s air, health, and safety by reviewing practices surrounding food waste, transportation, energy efficiency, procurement, disposal of hazardous materials, composting, and recycling. 

The University of Virginia’s Institute for Environmental Negotiation, which mediates conflicts concerning environmental, economic, and ethical interests, has been hired by the Virginia Department of Health to examine ways to manage biosolids (untreated sewage sludge) in ways that protect local citizens and do not threaten the region’s economy.

At the University of Texas at Houston, proceeds from the recycling program are used to fund academic scholarships.

Pacific University runs a campus beautification program in which faculty and students plant and tend gardens, which is seen as a way of curbing campus vandalism. Pacific also has brought in an environmental psychologist to help students manage their use of dormitory space.

Other projects are described in the annual Campus Environmental Yearbook published by the National Wildlife Federation (www.nwf.org)

Contact: Copies of “Priorities” are available exclusively to individuals at AGB institutions for $10 per copy. Call 1-800-356-6317; or 202-296-8400; web address: www.agb.org

Georgia Tech Offers Sustainable Facilities and Infrastructure Program

The Sustainable Facilities and Infrastructure Program (SFI) was initiated in 1997 with a Faculty Research Leader Grant from the Georgia Tech Foundation. Based at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, SFI works closely with researchers in Georgia Tech’s Colleges of Engineering and Architecture, as well as with a variety of external partners. Since its inception, SFI has provided products and services to the military, the public and private sectors, and nonprofit organizations. 

SFI undertakes basic and applied research in a variety of facility-related issue areas and provides technical institutions seeking to implement sustainability in their capital facility practices. In addition, the SFI program holds public course offerings and provides company customized training that introduces the principles of sustainability and how it relates to the built environment. The SFI Program is designed to offer: 

• An objective, informed third party perspective on facility problems and sustainable solutions
• Expertise on how to structure problems in order to move toward sustainable solutions;
• Methods to guide decision-making through the life cycle of a facility that optimize return on sustainability investment
• A customized synthesis of built environment sustainability knowledge applied to the needs of SFI’s clients;
• A network of strategic partners and resources to better meet the needs of SFI’s clients for the whole project life cycle; and
• Support tools and processes for the implementation of built environment sustainability, including facilitation of organizational change, project documentation, planning, and decision support.

The goal of the SFI program is to create and provide sustainability knowledge and to raise awareness of the importance of sustainability in the built environment through research, technical assistance and education:

Basic and Applied Research

• Metrics and evaluation of sustainability
• Sustainability decision support and prioritization tools
• Economic and cost models of built facilities
• Models of decision making, sustainability implementation, and organizational change
• Sustainability of knowledge base
• Sustainable facility technologies for disaster response, affordable housing, and military installation            

Technical Assistance/Outreach

• Evaluation of facility sustainability
• Development of sustainability improvement recommendations
• Documentation of processes and project outcomes
• Facilitation of sustainable team building and project alignment

Training/Education

• Customized interactive contract courses
• Sustainability-related university and continuing education courses
• Tailored presentations to industry  

Contact: Sustainable Facilities and Infrastructure Program, Georgia Tech Research Institute, SHETD/EOEML, Atlanta, GA 30332-0837; phone: 404-894-7429; fax: 404-894-2184; website: http://maven.gtri.gatech.edu/sfi

Maryland DNR Practices Sustainability

As the agency primarily charged with protecting the State’s natural resources, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has numerous programs and activities which directly and indirectly support Smart Growth and sustainable development. These programs and activities are organized around three themes:

Protecting Resource Lands - DNR protects lands of unique importance with programs such as Critical Areas, the purchase of easements, or fee simple acquisition of key properties.
Guiding Development - DNR provides information and/or technical assistance, especially GIS mapping, to local governments to help steer development away from sensitive areas.

Environmentally Responsible Use - the Department uses multiple education and outreach techniques to help citizens and local governments understand their role in the natural world and how people can live and develop the land in environmentally responsible ways.

Crosscutting these themes, the Department has four programs that are the focus of its direct contribution to supporting Maryland Governor Glendening’s Smart Growth Initiative:

Rural Legacy: Created as part of the 1997 legislative package, the Rural Legacy Program is one of the two major corner stones of Maryland’s Smart Growth initiative. While Priority Funding Areas directs where the State spends money on growth-related projects, Rural Legacy provides funds to local applicants to protect the best of the remaining large contiguous blocks of natural resource, agricultural and other valued lands from sprawl development. Funds are provided annually on a competitive basis which are used by local sponsors to purchase conservation easements or fee estates from willing landowners. The goal of this program is to protect 200,000 acres by the year 2011. Over the past three funding cycles, the program has committed $82 million to protect 38,481 acres.

Green Infrastructure: The concept of creating a Green Infrastructure is to identify a network of lands based upon the following criteria in order to protect and link Maryland’s remaining ecologically valued lands. These Green Infrastructure lands would include: large contiguous tracts of forest lands, important wildlife habitats, wetlands and riparian corridors, and other areas that reflect key elements of Maryland’s biological diversity. Lands are identified by an assessment utilizing computer methodology that identifies the most valuable lands in the State as well as potential connecting corridors between these lands. In this fashion, a series of connected hubs and corridors is created throughout the state. By looking at existing local, state and federal protected lands, this program can help the state target efforts to critical links to complete the network.

Urban Council: Through many of its programs, DNR has numerous projects to preserve and restore urban natural resources and improve the urban living environment. The Urban Council represents a comprehensive approach to address natural resource preservation, conservation and restoration in the urban context. 

Green Building: Of all the Department’s Smart Growth related programs, this one has the most direct and comprehensive relationship to sustainable development. The goal of the Smart Growth and Neighborhood Initiative is to direct growth to areas where it can best be accommodated, while protecting natural resources. Maryland’s Green Building Program complements this goal by addressing the question of how we build and how development impacts Maryland’s lands and communities.

This Program also recognizes that green building is not a particular style, technique or practice; rather, it is a philosophy of land development that fosters such concepts of sustainability as environmental responsiveness, resource efficiency, and community and cultural sensitivity. Through education, outreach and partnerships, the program strives to facilitate change in the way development occurs throughout the State by taking a holistic approach toward the government planning process and the impact of buildings on the landscape in the following areas:

Sustainable Buildings: Involves making buildings more energy efficient and resource conserving, minimizes waste and maximizes the use of natural products, advocates deconstruction instead of demolition and promotes the use of products and designs that minimize adverse effects on indoor air quality.

Environmentally Sensitive Design: Promotes the design and development of land in a manner that minimizes the loss of native vegetation, designs landscapes consistent with natural contours, and preserves the land’s natural hydrologic regime. Additionally, these designs should reduce the annual number of personal vehicle miles traveled and foster a sense of community.

Government Planning: Promotes the review of local codes and ordinances and recommend changes to make it easier to make better subdivision site designs. The 1999 General Assembly passed legislation requiring the State to (1) develop a comprehensive code for rehabilitation and work on existing structures and (2) create models and guidelines for Infill and Compact Mixed Use Development to provide local governments with increased flexibility to develop new smart neighborhoods.

Contact: For further information, contact Mark M. Bundy, Ph.D. Director of the Education, Bay Policy and Growth Management Services at the Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD (tel: 410-260-8720; fax: 410-260-8709, or e-mail: mbundy@dnr.state.md.us)

RNRF Congress Held on Promoting Sustainability

A diverse group of approximately 115 delegates representing the disciplines of the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation’s (RNRF) 14 member organizations and others attended RNRF’s fourth national congress. Entitled “Promoting Sustainability in the 21st Century,” the congress was conducted September 6-9, 2000 in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of the Congress was (1) to explore tools and strategies for sustainable planning, and (2) to examine the evolving role of resource professionals. RNRF’s members are professional, scientific, and educational organizations interested in sustaining the world’s renewable natural resources. 

Using a case study approach, congress delegates examined three critical regions of the United States - the Pacific Northwest, South Florida and Southern California. Local case studies included Portland, Oregon and Santa Monica, California. Delegates obtained unique insight into initiatives directed at sustaining natural resources and managing growth. Speakers presented information on how communities are integrating principles of sustainable development, supporting legislation to preserve open space, redeveloping brownfields, recycling and reusing materials, and reducing sprawl. 

]Ron Sims, County Executive of King County, Washington discussed the trials and tribulations of regional planning in the Pacific Northwest. In order to replicate sustainable initiatives across the country, communities need to illustrate the costs of sprawl and give people economically viable options. Sims also discussed the role of crisis in promoting sustainability. He said that crisis can precipitate laws that empower the government to make significant changes.

Mike Burton, the elected executive director of the regional government (Metro) that includes Portland, Oregon and its surrounding counties, spoke about local planning for sustainability. Burton discussed the urban growth boundary and other planning tools used by Portland. Burton observed that luck, a receptive political climate, and an economic downturn assisted Oregon in enacting comprehensive land-planning regimes. 

A survey, mailed in advance of the congress to 650 key personnel with federal agencies, state agencies, universities, associations and corporations, identified several important trends and issues, including:

• 1) Demographic shifts (population increase, aging population, increasing minority population, an urbanization of society)
• 2) Land use changes (increased development, rural to urban land conversion, and urban sprawl)
• 3) Natural resource allocation conflicts (values shift from commodity-based to amenity-based and a shift from consumptive to non-consumptive
• 4) Global trends (invasive species, climate change, global economy, increased global scrutiny)
• 5) Consumption and unprecedented wealth
• 6) Litigious society and contentiousness on rise (singe-issue politics, single-issue organizations, and sound-bite mentality)
  
• 7) Information age (public knows more and professions need to keep current)

Delegates felt that resource professionals need to improve resource management skills such as communication skills, mediation, conflict resolution, public involvement, and partnership building. Other necessary education includes discipline integration, critical thinking, and decision-making skills. Technological skills such as computer skills, mapping technology (GIS), systems management, and information management also were identified as necessary training. Delegates also noted that natural resource professionals need strong leadership and advocacy skills and ethics training. 

RNRF’s member organizations include: American Fisheries Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Landscape Architects, American Water Resources Association, Association of American Geographers, The Humane Society of the United States, Society for Range Management, Society of Wood Science and Technology, Soil and Water Conservation Society, and The Wildlife Society.(Contact: RNRF Director of Programs Kristen Krapf (tel: 301-493-9101; e-mail: klkrapf@aol.com; website: www.RNRF.org)

Congressional Briefing Held on Smart Growth Policy Agenda

On October 17,000, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, and the House Livable Communities Task Force held a Congressional briefing on growing public demand for solutions to sprawl. The briefing featured five speakers representing Smart Growth America, a new national coalition of more than 60 public interest groups concerned about sprawl. 

The pace of land development in the United States has roughly doubled over the past decade: traffic congestion is hitting unprecedented levels, and metropolitan areas are witnessing new housing shortages and escalating prices because of the New Economy. The speakers reported new evidence showing that Americans consider sprawl-type development out of control and support “smart growth” policies to reduce traffic congestion, preserve existing communities, ensure greater housing affordability and protect the environment and open space.  They cited public polls, results from recent ballot measures, real estate trends and a recent upsurge in public transit usage.

The speakers, from environmental, community reinvestment, farmland, transportation, and other stakeholder groups, discussed how their own organizations’ work contributes to the goals of smart growth. They described how Smart Growth America, whose membership includes a wide spectrum of public interest groups, will contribute to a national debate on how sprawl development is endangering our nation’s communities. The speakers were: Don Chen, Director, Smart Growth America; Ralph Grossi, President, American Farmland Trust; Meg Maguire, President, Scenic America; Jacky Grimshaw, Transportation & Air Quality Coordinator, Center for Neighborhood Technology (Chicago, IL), and Kristin Siglin, The Enterprise Foundation.

Smart Growth America made the following recommendations: 
Local Governance: Rewrite local growth plans, pursue transportation alternatives, avoid school sprawl, provide more high quality affordable housing, and adopt “smart” building codes.
State Government: Focus state spending on existing communities, enact a state growth management plan, fund alternatives to driving, preserve open space, and protect historic districts.
The Federal Government: Spur brownfield development, protect open space and scenic landscapes, refocus transportation policy, support housing programs and adopt smart growth tax incentives.

Contact: Amy Brooks, EESI, tel: 202-662-1897; e-mail: abrooks@eesi.org

NAE Hosts Symposium on Earth Systems Engineering

On October 24, 2000, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) held a public symposium, “Earth Systems Engineering.” A series of panel discussions explored the social and engineering challenges posed by issues with implications on regional to global scales. 

Earth Systems Engineering (ESE) is an emerging area of multi-disciplinary study that takes a holistic view of natural and human system interactions. Its goal is to better understand complex systems of global importance and develop the tools to enable technically sound and ethically wise decisions. ESE will require expertise from engineering, social, and natural sciences to be successful.

The NAE hosted this event to initiate an extended dialog on Earth Systems Engineering to explore the boundaries of this emerging area. ESE takes a holistic view of natural and human system interactions, and aims to facilitate technically sound and ethically wise decisions about global issues through better understanding of the complexities of those interactions. The Symposium was chaired by John H. Gibbons, former Science Advisor to the President, and included panels on the following topics:

Climate Change: Engineering to Understand, Adapt and Mitigate (Panelists: Robert W. White, Robert W. Corell and Jerry M. Melillo)

Utilizing Biological Activity for Humanity’s Benefit (Panelists: Maxine F. Singer, Braden R. Allenby and Edward A Hiller)

Engineering & Policy: Partners in Developing & Implementing Solutions (Panelists: Anita K. Jones, Kathleen C. Taylor and Daniel R. Sarewitz)

Rethinking Today’s Cities - Designing Tomorrow’s Urban Center (Panelists: George Bugliarello, Lawrence T. Papay and Geeta Pradhan). 

Contact: Katie Gramling, NAE, phone: 202-334-2462; e-mail: kgramlin@nae.edu

Critical Ecosystem Partnership Launched

A new $150 million fund designed to better safeguard the world’s threatened biological hotspots in developing countries was launched in August, 2000 as a joint initiative of Conservation International (CI), the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The Critical Ecosystem Fund (CEPF) focuses primarily on biodiversity hotspots in highly threatened regions where some 60 percent of all terrestrial species diversity are found in only 1.4 percent of the planet’s total surface area. 

The threat to species diversity is reflected in the mounting loss of forests and other plant and animal habitat worldwide. Eighty-eight percent of the original hotspots are already destroyed. Some 12 percent of all mammal species and 11 percent of all bird and plant species are threatened with extinction. 

The Fund’s administrative flexibility will ensure that conservation investments achieve maximum impact. And its streamlined process of decision-making will allow quick responses to new threats and for smaller-scale projects that are often extremely time-sensitive. The Fund provides quick and easy access to grant guidelines and application forms through the Internet, and applications can be submitted online, via www.cepf.net. CI will oversee day to day management of the Fund with the World Bank and the GEF playing an oversight role alongside other sponsors. The Fund will advance the global conservation agenda on several fronts, resulting in improved management of protected areas and coordination in biodiversity corridors. Investments will support projects such as training, transnational planning, local dialog with extractive industries, conflict resolution, priority setting and consensus building, strengthening indigenous organizations, and facilitation of partnerships between the private sector and protected areas. 

CI, the World Bank and the GEF each plan to commit $25 million to the fund during the next five years. The remaining $75 million will be sought from other donor agencies. The Fund’s areas of focus during its first year of operations will be the hotspot regions of Madagascar, West Africa, and the Tropical Andes. Each subsequent year, the Fund will invest in a minimum of five additional critical ecosystems. A global nonprofit organization, Conservation International applies innovations in science, economics, policy and community participation to protect the Earth’s richest regions of plant and animal diversity in the biodiversity hotspots, the major tropical wilderness areas and the key marine ecosystems. CI works in 32 countries on four continents. The World Bank’s mission is to help developing countries fight poverty and raise living standards in a sustainable way. In carrying out this mission, the Bank has become a major financier of biodiversity conservation. Over the last decade, it has developed a portfolio of conservation projects and programs worth some $2 billion. The Global Environment Facility provides grants and concessional funding to developing countries and economies in transition for projects to protect the global environment. As the financial mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity, it is the principal international funder of biodiversity conservation. 

Contacts:
For more information about Conservation International’s (CI) programs, visit www.conservation.org
For more information abut the World Bank’s biodiversity programs, visit www.worldbank.org/biodiversity.
For more information about GEF’s programs, visit www.gefweb.org

ASCE Planning World Congress on Disaster Reduction

The Technical Activities Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) established a Center on Sustainable Built Environment on October 1,2000. The Center will interact with other ASCE Divisions and Councils, such as Transportation, Energy, and Cold Regions. The initial focus of the Center is on sustainability of the built environment to natural and environmental hazards. In this context, the Center, in cooperation with the Alliance of 1,000, is providing leadership and long-term support for the World Congress on Disaster Reduction, a mechanism established in October, 1999 to carry out the following five ongoing activities:

The Alliance of 1,000 is a diverse group of professionals representing public and private sector organizations throughout the world. They are working together to improve the capacity for sustainability and disaster technical assistance. Members of the Alliance of 1,000 have the political capital to take advantage of new opportunities and to build on past accomplishments. They have the knowledge and personal influence to contribute to ongoing activities that ultimately will make communities and people throughout the world more resilient to natural and environmental disasters.

The Pre-Congress Summit Meeting is planned for 2001. It is a one-time event involving 150 of the world’s experts in disaster reduction. The Summit Meeting will be held at ASCE’s World Headquarters on August 18-22,2001. The goal is to generate ideas for a series of regional forums and projects to resolve issues identified in each of the Global Blueprints for Change.

The World Congress is a recurring event every 5 years, beginning in 2002, which focuses on disaster reduction. It will involve at least 1,000 of the world’s experts (i.e. the Alliance of 1,000 for the World Congress and many more via the Internet. Scheduled for August 2002 in Washington, D.C., the objective is to strengthen personal, professional, and organizational networking through face-to-face interactions and to share new information and knowledge in the framework of the Global Blueprints for Change. It will also be a forum for dialogue on the lessons from recent natural and environmental disasters.

The Global Blueprints for Change are a coordinated set of 30 monographs encompassing three themes and thirty topics on disaster reduction and sustainability of the built environment to natural and environmental hazards. Each one is tailored for specific regions of the world’s seven geographic regions. They are a “seedbed” for developing human, technical, and political capacity on regional and global scales needed for managing risk and reducing the unacceptable social and economic effects of natural and environmental hazards. The first of the two editions of the Global Blueprints for Change will be published in August, 2001; the second edition in 2002. They will be updated at five-year intervals thereafter, or in accordance with need.

Contact: For further information, contact Walter Hays at ASCE (tel: 703-295-6054; fax: 703-295-6141; e-mail: whays@asce.org

Virtual Library Planned for Sustainable Development

The World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO) is working toward launching the Virtual Engineering Library for Sustainable Development (VELSD). The Library will focus on papers describing the most appropriate technologies to utilize in pursuit of sustainability. It will enlist the services and support of engineering schools throughout the world in providing papers relevant to identification and description of the most appropriate technologies in various fields of engineering. To this end, it will enlist the support of engineering institutions, engineering firms, and individual engineers.

The initial focus will be on fields of engineering that have particular links to sustainable development. These are expected to include water management, energy production, agricultural engineering, waste disposal and transport engineering. Library papers will be predominantly in English, French and Spanish, but translation into other languages will be supported.

Contact: Efforts are being led by the University of Queensland, Australia. The contact is Bill Rourke (e-mail: brourke@pcug.org.au) In the U.S. the contact is Dr. Russ Jones (e-mail: RCJonesPE@aol.com).