This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
April 20, 2010
Summary: As comprehensive federal-level climate legislation stalls in the U.S. Congress, cities and regions across the United States are responding to the challenge of climate change through local action and policies. As CDP fellow Anne Mariani posits in this policy brief, Climate Action Plans are a key element of these efforts, as they provide both the goals and methods for achieving carbon emission reductions at the local level. By closely examining the plans of Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle, the author outlines a number of lessons for other cities and regions, especially those in Europe, attempting to complement national policy with local action.
Energy and Climate Change: A New Driver for Local Policy and Action?
An overview of three American initiatives
by Anne Mariani1
Introduction In recent years, local climate leaders have emerged throughout the United States taking bold initiatives on climate protection to demonstrate the capacity of cities in effectively reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection agreement, perhaps the bestknown of these initiatives, has more than one thousand members after five years, and recently inspired the European Commission to launch a similar initiative for European cities. The early commitment of these local leaders has helped advance the idea that metropolitan areas play a key role in addressing energy and climate issues. In France, at a time when local climate action plans are about to become the rule as a result of the “Grenelle de l’Environnement” bill, what can we learn from the U.S. experience? In light of their successes and challenges, what do we know about local climate action that can be replicated in the French context? These are the questions I looked to answer as a fellow with the German Marshall Fund’s Comparative Domestic Policy (CDP) Program. Between October
and December 2009, I conducted field research on U.S. climate action plans at the city and regional level. This policy brief summarizes my findings and the lessons learned from the cities of Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle. This sample is certainly not exhaustive, but it did offer me the opportunity to discover a variety of approaches, perspectives, and commitments to climate protection in U.S. cities. Pittsburgh: A poly-nuclear climate initiative, a process in early stages Among all post-industrial cities in the American Rust Belt, Pittsburgh is wellknown for its capacity for regeneration, thanks to a strong local coalition of public and private stakeholders. The recent adoption of the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative makes Pittsburgh an interesting city to investigate how climate protection may be a part of a broader project to ensure a city’s future development. The development of a climate action plan for the city of Pittsburgh was initiated in 2006 by the previous mayor, Bob O’Connor, and by City Councilman William Peduto. A Green Government Task Force (GGTF) was formed to
1744 R Street NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 F 1 202 265 1662 E email@example.com
Anne Mariani is in charge of air quality, climate and energy programs and policies at the Regional Council of Brittany, France. Currently on leave from that position, Ms. Mariani is working as an environmental planner at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. In the fall of 2009, Ms. Mariani was a fellow of the German Marshall Fund’s (GMF) Comparative Domestic Policy program. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of GMF.
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
develop the plan. At first, its mission was mainly focused on reducing emissions from government operations. But it soon became clear to GGTF members that the process needed to be open to other stakeholders, in order to tackle community-wide emissions. The task force developed recommendations that were formally adopted by the City Council in June 2008 with a goal to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2023, compared to 2003. Several committees gathered under a single brand name, the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative (PCI), to oversee the plan in its implementation phase. Surprisingly—at least from a French perspective—the Initiative’s overall management and evaluation was led not by the city itself, but by the Green Building Alliance, a local non-governmental organization (NGO). Indeed, nonprofit organizations and foundations play a central role in the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative, at a scale that would be unusual in France. Pittsburgh was thus an interesting place to observe how non-governmental stakeholders representing civil society can be involved in local climate protection in the United States by providing critical influence and funding as well as education, coordination, and support for implementation. Another important group of key stakeholders in Pittsburgh are the academic institutions. Prestigious universities and research centers, such as Carnegie Mellon, Duquesne University, and the University of Pittsburgh, are strongly involved in PCI through technical assistance and the Higher Education Climate Consortium (HECC), through which the ten main universities in the region implement the higher education portion of PCI. At this stage, while clearly demonstrating the capacity of local stakeholders to mobilize themselves on climate protection, the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative still has challenges to address in order to be able to affirm itself as a major political effort that shapes the city’s future. One of the key challenges is that, at the moment, the city and county governments are not leading the initiative. There appears to be a lack of confidence in their ability to do so and a fear, if local governments did take it on, that the initiative would suffer from being politically “appropriated.” The Pittsburgh Climate Initiative relies heavily on a strongly engaged but limited number of key partners. Going forward, it may be beneficial to engage new stakeholders in the process. More direct involvement from organizations in charge of local economic strategy could, for example, be beneficial. Moreover, some actions are still quite vague and “lack teeth,” especially those related to urban planning, urban design, and transportation policies. In the future, these issues will need to be connected to climate protection, both at the local and metropolitan levels. PCI partners are aware of these limits. In that context, there is no doubt that PCI will build on the partnerships that now exist and quickly evolve. From a political perspective, the recent re-election of Mayor Ravenstahl will also be an opportunity to push the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative to grow in stature. Denver: A climate plan embedded in a broader initiative for urban sustainability Coordinated by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, Greenprint Denver and Denver Climate Action Plan are two initiatives created by the mayor of Denver, John Hickenlooper. Greenprint Denver is a broad sustainability initiative not limited to climate protection for the next five years. It is also a “brand name” under which any city/county initiative related to sustainability is publicized. On the other hand, the Denver Climate Action Plan focuses only on climate protection and is more a communitywide plan, involving decisions and actions not only from the city government but also from other stakeholders such as the state and utility companies. It was developed by the same committee in 2006-2007, after the Mayor of Denver signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. It sets the goal of reducing emissions 10 percent per capita by 2012 compared to 2005, and to return to 1990 emission levels by 2020 and identifies ten strategies to reach these goals. One striking characteristic of the Denver Climate Action Plan is its reliance on a long-term partnership with local academics, which has proven to be very successful. A group of researchers at the University of Colorado formed a cross-disciplinary program called Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT), whose expertise has been instrumental in supporting climate strategy design. This kind of collaboration between local government and university researchers is a win-win learning process for both parties. The growth of the IGERT program demonstrates its success; it now provides support to more than ten cities in Colorado and beyond.
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Denver has also created an efficient way to reach out to the community and to convince residents to take action on energy, climate, and sustainability through a city-NGO partnership called the Neighborhood Energy Action Partnership (NEAP). While many nonprofit and community organizations in Denver were already very active on environmental issues, a lack of coordination and organization limited their efficiency and efficacy. NEAP was, therefore, created to provide a “chain of services” within the nonprofit community to make it as easy as possible for residents to take action. The NGO community receives funding from the city to support these activities and they in turn serve as a “grassroots army” for Greenprint Denver. In addition to working with the academic and nonprofit communities, Denver has also reached out to the business sector, especially those companies working in the energy industry. The energy sector, traditionally a significant part of the Denver economy, has mainly been based on fossil energies thanks to the reserves of coal, natural gas, and petroleum in the Rocky Mountains. But in recent years, diversification of the energy sector has become a priority for economic development organizations, with support from state and local governments. Attracting new businesses, especially in the renewable energy sector, is now a major component of the regional economic development strategy. The Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce is in charge of implementing this strategy, with support from the city of Denver’s Office of Economic Development. As shown by the examples above, Denver’s Climate Action is based on a number of partnerships with a wide range of stakeholders. The plan does not include many mandates or requirements (although cities in Colorado have quite extensive power and freedom in that matter). An explanation may be that Greenprint Denver is primarily a mayoral initiative. The City Council is supportive of the initiative through its Greenprint Committee but has been relatively inactive, as legislation and mandates are considered a last resort for Greenprint Denver to reach its objectives. Being a consensus-based initiative is a strength of Greenprint Denver. But at some point, and considering the ambitious targets set up in the Denver Climate Action Plan, one wonders if this approach will be sufficient to achieve large-scale results. As the climate action plan is revised and recommendations are added to reach the city’s 2020 goals, Denver will have to move progressively to achieve a new balance between voluntary and mandatory approaches. Seattle: Long-term leadership and high degree of climate integration Environmental protection is well established in Seattle’s municipal government. Energy conservation and water conservation, for instance, have been major components of the municipal electricity and water utilities’ strategies for many years. This environmental leadership in the city government reflects a traditionally strong responsiveness in the community to environmental issues. Given its dependence on natural resources (electricity generation relies on hydro sources and water supply depends heavily on the snow pack from surrounding mountains) and its potential vulnerability to future climate changes, climate protection became a crucial issue for the city, and a priority for its mayor, Gregg Nickels. This local challenge became a national movement in 2005, when, frustrated by the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol in the U.S. Congress, Mayor Nickels initiated the famous U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Mayor Nickels’ call for climate action on a national scale raised the bar for GHG emission reduction in Seattle, so a real strategy needed to be designed to meet the ambitious targets. To that purpose, Mayor Nickels appointed the “Green Ribbon Commission,” composed of civic and business leaders, to develop a climate strategy that led to the adoption of Seattle Climate Protection Initiative in September 2006. Five years later, Seattle seems well on its path to meeting its 2012 goal: the last update of the GHG inventory shows that 2008 emissions are 7 percent below 1990, despite a 16 percent growth in population. Only transportation emissions grew by 7 percent. Less quantifiable, but no less an achievement, is the fact that climate protection has been effectively institutionalized within the city government. The Seattle Climate Protection Initiative is based on an aggressive communication strategy to convince residents and key stakeholders to take action along with the city. It is promoted through a campaign called “Seattle Climate Action Now,” or Seattle CAN, which was launched three years ago. Its message is basically “working together, we can make a difference: be a part of a community-wide challenge to address climate change.”
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
Because of its specific geographical context and its reliance on vulnerable natural resources, the Seattle region is at the forefront of a movement to include adaptation strategies in local climate plans. Adaptation to climate change is progressively considered along with mitigation efforts in the whole Pacific Northwest region at the city, county, and state levels. The Climate Impacts Group (CIG), a cross-disciplinary research group based at the University of Washington and supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), plays a keyrole in making this possible, by providing scientific resources to local policymakers. Its work with local institutions on vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategy design has been instrumental in the region’s adaptation initiatives. As in Denver and Pittsburgh, climate protection in Seattle is well integrated with economic development, innovation, and workforce development. At the state level, the “Climate Action and Green Jobs” bill (HB 2815) adopted in March 2008 sets a cap on greenhouse gas emissions for the state of Washington. This bill clearly links climate action and the economy, and establishes a statewide effort on workforce training to achieve these goals. The Seattle Climate Protection Initiative is not an isolated process in the Seattle area. Climate is also a priority for King County and for the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which encompasses the four counties around Seattle. At the regional level especially, PSRC does an impressive job to connect transportation, land use, and climate policies in its comprehensive Regional Growth Strategy “Vision 2040” and in its transportation plans, as a response to a state law establishing benchmarks for reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT) statewide. PSRC seized this opportunity to put climate change on the agenda with the objective of determining the potential contribution of the Puget Sound region to statewide goals, and developing a regional strategy to reduce GHG from transportation in line with the 2040 vision. Using advanced modeling tools, PSRC was able to model and quantify the impacts of different scenarios of policy options. Based on this extensive work, a consensus has emerged at the regional level that GHG emission reduction implies a balanced mix of land use policies, road pricing policies, expanded transportation choices, and technology (electric vehicles, increased fuel efficiency, low-carbon fuels). This process is interesting because it demonstrates how well-used expertise contributes to educating policymakers and making it possible to advance regional climate goals that are both progressive and consensus-based. Key themes and policy recommendations Climate initiatives in Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle are built on diverse local contexts and experience, and are therefore following different paths. Clearly there is no single model for tackling climate change at the local level. Climate initiatives are the product of political will, popular acceptance, local energy stakes, and opportunities. However, a few key themes can be identified from the three case studies and research on other local climate initiatives in the United States. The following section highlights key lessons from these examples on how local governments can plan, act, and partner for climate protection in cities and regions. ■ Establish a results-oriented climate strategy through people and tools Political leadership is the very basis of a successful climate effort. In the United States, this political commitment is definitely the mayors’ turf. Mayor Hickenlooper in Denver, Mayor Nickels in Seattle, and many others personify their city’s climate action. Charismatic figures whose political boldness was decisive in initiating climate action locally, they speak not only for their cities, but have used their local actions to let the voice of U.S. mayors be heard on the national stage. Political commitment is the starting point. Soon after cities need to involve external stakeholders beyond the city government. To develop their climate action plans, the three cities I studied relied on a comprehensive dedicated task force, with members of the civic, business, and academic communities appointed directly by the mayor. Generally speaking, U.S. climate initiatives appear to be quite “results-oriented,” both in terms of environmental and economic benefits, and financial cost. During the planning process, they often use cost-efficiency and cost-benefits analysis to set priorities within their climate action plans, although the practice varies widely among cities—usually when local expertise is available (for example, Denver’s reliance on the University of Colorado and Pittsburgh’s on Carnegie Mellon University). When it comes to implementation of the proposed recommendations, it appears successful to have a small dedicated team in the mayor’s office that focuses on coordination, outreach, and
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
evaluation of the climate plan. The proximity to the mayor gives this team good political leverage for the overall process. Implementation of specific projects remains the responsibility of each related department though. Particularly in Seattle and Denver, city departments appeared to have developed a “climate and sustainability culture,” perhaps because they had been effectively empowered and made accountable for implementation and outcomes. American cities have institutionalized the evaluation of climate action through two primary means: at the macro level, they regularly produce an updated GHG inventory; and at the micro/ internal level, reporting procedures are well-established and, on average, seem to run quite smoothly. Annual reports include a flood of figures, metrics, etc., which make a point of mentioning progress in the city’s strategy. Beyond the short-term objectives codified in the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement (to which all three cities have signed on) and supported by results-oriented plans, climate action plans must also support a long-term vision and projects to build better communities, improve quality of life through green strategies, and make people proud of their city. In that regard, the visioning processes led by the metropolitan planning organizations in Denver and Seattle are interesting efforts. In these instances, climate protection becomes an additional component of a comprehensive strategy for a sustainable development of the region. This ability to juggle between short and long term, to be both strategic and operational was striking in Denver and even more so in Seattle. However, in Pittsburgh, this strategic vision still needs to be developed. ■ Foster innovative policies and programs Communicate and reach out to the community on energy and climate Emissions from government operations typically represent less than 5 percent of total urban emissions. There are other sources of emissions that governments can influence, through their policies and programs. But to achieve significant GHG emissions reductions city-wide, the challenge is to engage the whole community in climate protection. For that, outreach and communication are the keys. This is an area where U.S. cities excel and where French cities can find inspiration for their own programs. With their climate initiatives, Seattle, Denver, and Pittsburgh have definitively swept aside the traditional institutional communications tools. Each of them has developed an elaborate outreach campaign. At the very minimum, these campaigns include a dedicated website, and often a presence on web-based social media. Often, in the U.S. context, the more effective communication strategy is to talk about the co-benefits of climate protection. Cities, therefore, develop a resolutely optimistic rationale to “sell” climate protection, highlighting the benefits on health, air quality, energy security, savings on energy costs, avoided infrastructure costs, green jobs, and improved quality of life. Others, like Denver, chose not to focus narrowly on climate, but more broadly on sustainability, which is a way to include all these aspects. Based on the examples of Greenprint Denver, Seattle CAN and the Pittsburgh Climate Initiative, a framework for energy and climate outreach strategies can be sketched, based on a brand name, challenge and competition programs, grassroots action in partnership with civic and community-based organizations, stakeholder engagement, and transparent city action that makes it visible for the public in order to convince them to take action too. Although this is not a turnkey strategy, this framework may be adapted to the French context, with the following caveats: the challenge/reward concept works very well in the United States, where competition is highly valued, but may not be as successful in France for cultural reasons. Also, and local civic/grassroots organizations in the United States are much more active and professionally organized than in France. Develop connections between smart growth and climate protection From advocacy to the real world, the principles of the Smart Growth movement, which grew to prominence in the United States over the past 30 years thanks to the efforts of leaders like Peter Calthorpe and Andrés Duany, are now taking shape in
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
the three cities included in this study, through the adoption of mobility plans and the revision of zoning ordinances to allow mixed-use, compact, and transit-oriented development. What is perhaps even more interesting is what is happening at the metropolitan regional level, where climate is becoming a full-fledged objective of regional visioning processes and comprehensive plans. This is supported by complex urban system modeling tools such as the ones used by the Puget Sound Regional Council or the Denver Regional Council of Governments. These integrated land-use and transportation models are used to evaluate different mixes of policy options with regard to their impact on GHG emissions. They help in conducting learning processes, and in designing long-term growth management strategies that integrate climate protection. These strategies can be inspiring for similar processes in France, especially to spur extended consideration of climate protection in French metropolitan plans, called “Schema de Coherence Territoriale.” Consider energy and climate as an opportunity for economic development Building on their local strengths, these three cities have each linked their climate initiatives with business opportunities: Pittsburgh on green building technology, Denver on renewable energy, and Seattle on electric vehicles and smart grids. Although it doesn’t appear in all cases as a deliberate strategy, but rather a question of opportunity, it is clear that the “green jobs/green economy” factor is much more developed in the United States as a supporting argument for local and regional climate initiatives. Because climate change on its own is not always viewed as a sufficient reason to take action, there is always a strong emphasis on the economic benefits of any climaterelated decision. Foster the adoption of local climate change adaptation policies Increase partnerships with non-governmental stakeholders Climate change adaptation strategies must be developed at the grassroots level since the impacts of climate change will be felt mainly locally and regionally. Local governments therefore have a crucial role to play because of their jurisdictional powers over transportation, water, infrastructure, natural resources, and of The ultimate goal of the climate action plan at the city level is to engage all stakeholders in a shared project for climate protection under the city’s leadership. To do so, local governments develop tight partnerships with a wide scope of organizations, generally course on planning. In the United States, local adaptation policies are still in the early stages of development. But local leaders—such as those in Seattle, Chicago, New York, or cities in South Florida are leading the way, mainly in the regions that are most at risk from the effects of climate change. Emphasizing the local impacts of climate change also reinforces the argument that local climate action is critical. To foster development of local adaptation policies and encourage local governments to take a proactive approach to climate risk preparedness, reliable local and regional scientific data are essential, as well as outreach and training for elected officials and government staff on climate change impacts and adaptation. This is a long and ongoing process, given that the science continues to evolve, and there are not many “best practices” on how to integrate climate risks into local policies. Pilot programs and early leadership should therefore be encouraged. At the nexus of research and practical application, they can lead the way toward comprehensive local adaptation policies. ■ Develop partnerships Establish vertical and horizontal partnerships with surrounding governments From Pittsburgh to Denver, and even more so in Seattle, there is an obvious progression on how well different levels of government within a region cooperate on climate protection. This alignment of city, region, and state climate initiatives is a key factor of success. Energy and climate initiatives are very transverse, technically, but also functionally. They are a subtle mix between regulation, strategic planning, policymaking, leadership, and improvement of governmental operations. Because these functions are more or less fragmented in several institutions, cross-jurisdictional collaboration is an imperative to create a regional “climate governance.” This will be reinforced in the French context, where governments are very fragmented.
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
representing four main sectors: businesses, utilities, nonprofits, and universities. Each of the three cities surveyed demonstrated innovative ways to engage these organizations, whether it was providing technical assistance and public recognition to businesses that commit to “green” their operations or promoting renewable energy usage with the local utility through a partnership like the city of Denver and Xcel Energy’s “Denver Energy Challenge.” But among these collaborations set up by local governments, one is especially striking and interesting from an European perspective: collaboration with local universities. Seattle (University of Washington), Denver (University of Colorado), and Pittsburgh (Carnegie Mellon University) have all built partnerships with local academic institutions to support the design and implementation of their climate action plans. These partnerships allow local governments to access expertise and tools they wouldn’t have otherwise. Because they are built on confidence and long-term planning, the transfer of knowledge and expertise from researchers to government staff becomes feasible and effective. Inversely, universities benefit from rich topics for research and educational purposes. In Denver, the IGERT program on urban sustainability is especially notable for its cross-disciplinary approach, an approach that is particularly well-suited to energy and climate considerations. This partnership model between local governments and local universities is significantly different from the French experience, where research and local policies are still too often separate worlds, and where there is often not much incentive, especially for academics, in developing cross-sector connections. Get involved in energy and climate networks and coalitions Denver, Seattle, and Pittsburgh are all engaged in several different collaborative efforts on energy and climate policy in which they exchange information and best practices and advocate for better consideration of the role of local governments in energy and climate. The most significant of these networks is ICLEI USA, which offers a wide range of assistance to its members in terms of tools, technical assistance, training, and exchange of best practices. Apart from national networks, there is also a growing trend of organizing collaboration at a smaller scale, inside regions or mega-regions. These efforts can be initiated by a regional office of ICLEI, by EPA regional office in some cases, or at a metropolitan scale by a Council of Governments. ■ Communication and transparency to make the city’s actions on the issues visible and to engage the community in an effort that goes way beyond the city’s own capacity to act; and ■ Partnerships, especially with community groups to educate and engage the public, and the business sector to help climate be considered an opportunity not only for environmental protection but also for economic development. Although the U.S. context, in terms of policy content, available resources, and public opinion, is far from replicable in France, the processes used by American cities to develop and lead climate initiatives are inspiring. But—and it now tends to be an increasing trend at EU level too—U.S. local governments are also well structured for advocacy. This is related to the “bottom-up” history of climate protection in the United States and it is worth noting that local climate action plans often include dedicated recommendations or stated political positions on that matter. Charismatic elected officials who are not afraid of speaking for their peers and let their voices be heard definitely play a big role in advancing energy and climate protection policies, although this requires a subtle equilibrium between local action and national commitment in order to avoid creating a disconnect with the local constituency and partners. Conclusion U.S. cities have developed a proactive attitude toward climate change policies, leading to a “bottom-up” approach, which is substantially different from the situation in France. This approach demonstrates that local governments, if given the technical, legal, and financial possibility to experiment and launch innovative strategies, can serve effectively as laboratories for climate action. At a moment when local climate action plans are on the rise in France, the research conducted in Pittsburgh, Denver, and Seattle also highlights a number of characteristics of American urban climate protection initiatives that raised high interest when I presented this work to selected cities and regions in France: ■ Climate initiatives as results-oriented, “quantified” processes;
Comparative Domestic Policy Program
This is not to downplay the challenges that local governments in the United States will continue to face. While local leaders have emerged in recent years to champion action on climate change, and their achievements as “climate pioneers” are remarkable, to achieve results that live up to the global climate challenge, it is imperative to scale up these efforts. For that, a federal regulatory framework on which to build local climate action as well as a source for sustainable financial resources for local governments are absolutely needed and, unfortunately for the moment, still in limbo.
At the turn of the 21st century, metropolitan regions are home to nearly three quarters of the population of the United States and Europe and are projected to continue growing. The major economic, environmental and social transformations shaping these nations over the next century, as well as the severe economic crisis facing them today, will necessarily play out in urban contexts. Thus, the metropolitan built environment, its impact on the natural environment, and the resources available to citizens will be crucial for successfully meeting the complex challenges facing the transatlantic community. While cities in the United States and Europe face similar policy challenges in related post-industrial contexts, individual communities that attempt to implement creative strategies have limited opportunities to learn from one another’s experiences. Recognizing the necessity for communities to collaborate in crafting approaches to local problems that have global implications, GMF’s Comparative Domestic Policy (CDP) Program provides a framework for dialogue between individuals who make, influence, and implement urban and regional policy on both sides of the Atlantic. At the core of the CDP program is the Transatlantic Cities Network, a durable structure for ongoing exchange among a select group of civic leaders representing 25 cities in the United States and Europe. The CDP program is made possible by the support of the Compagnia di San Paolo and Bank of America.
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a nonpartisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between North America and Europe. GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can address a variety of global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany on the 25th anniversary of the Marshall Plan as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has seven offices in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.