亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳作品41页PPT

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERALTAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNIONCustoms PolicyOrigin, Customs Valuation and Trade FacilitationBrussels, 25 October 2007TAXUD/C5/RL D(2007)TAXUD/GSP-RO/IA/1/07 – EN Document interneInternal documentImpact assessment onRules of origin forthe Generalised System of Preferences(GSP)WaiverThis report commits only the Commission services involved in its preparation. The text is prepared as a basis for comment and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.Commission européenne, B-1049 Bruxelles / Europese Commissie, B-1049 Brussel - Belgium. Telephone: (32-2) 299 11 11. Office: MO51 0/10. Telephone: direct line (32-2) 2950789. Fax: (32-2) 2969850.TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY (5)1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTEDPARTIES (7)2. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? (8)2.1 GSP and the purpose of rules of origin (8)2.2 The nature of the problem (11)2.3 What are the underlying drivers of the problem? (16)2.4 Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent? (17)2.5 EU right to act (18)3. WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES? (18)4. POLICY OPTIONS (19)4.1 Revision of rules for the determination of origin – sufficient processingof goods which are not wholly obtained (19)4.1.1 Option 1 - The status quo (20)4.1.2 Option 2 - A single, across-the-board criterion, based on value added (20)4.1.3 Option 3 - A single, across-the-board criterion, based on a change ofHS tariff heading or change of tariff sub-heading (21)4.1.4 Option 4 - Adapt the current rules on a product-by-product basis (21)4.2 Revision of rules for the determination of origin – conditions for whollyobtained fisheries products (22)4.2.1 Option 1 - Status quo (22)4.2.2 Option 2 - Simplify the present conditions (22)4.2.3 Option 3 - Allow cumulation of the conditions (22)4.3 Option 4 - Conditions for cumulation of origin (22)4.3.1 Option 1 - Status quo (23)4.3.2 Option 2 - Allocate origin on the basis of value added (23)4.3.3 Option 3 - Simplify the present conditions (23)4.3.4 Option 4 - Extend the scope of cumulation (23)4.4 Procedures for management and control of rules of origin (24)4.4.1 Option 1 - The status quo (24)4.4.2 Option 2 - Evidence of origin provided directly by registered exporters (24)4.4.3 Option 3 - Evidence of origin provided directly by approved exporters (24)4.4.4 Option 4 - Introduce certification by the exporter only (no priorregistration or approval) (25)4.5 Instruments to ensure compliance by the authorities of beneficiarycountries with their obligations (25)4.5.1 Option 1 - Status quo (25)4.5.2 Option 2 - Establish a programme to monitor the arrangements andprovide assistance and/or impose sanctions or safeguards whererequired (25)5. ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS (25)5.1 General considerations (25)5.2 The social impact of rules of origin (28)5.3 The administrative costs of rules of origin (29)5.4 The budgetary effect (31)5.5 The environmental impact of rules of origin (32)5.6 Revision of rules for the determination of origin – sufficient processingof goods which are not wholly obtained (33)5.6.1 Option 1 - The status quo (33)5.6.2 Option 2 - A single, across-the-board criterion, based on value added (34)5.6.3 Option 3 - A single, across-the-board criterion, based on a change ofHS tariff heading or sub-heading (46)5.6.4 Option 4 - Adapt the current rules on a product-by-product basis (48)5.7 Revision of rules for the determination of origin – conditions for whollyobtained fisheries products (49)5.7.1 Option 1 - Status quo (49)5.7.2 Option 2 - Simplify the present conditions (49)5.7.3 Option 3 - Allow cumulation of the conditions (49)5.8 Conditions for cumulation of origin (49)5.8.1 Option 1 - Status quo (49)5.8.2 Option 2 - Allocate origin on the basis of value added (49)5.8.3 Option 3 - Simplify the present conditions (50)5.8.4 Option 4 - Extend the scope of cumulation (51)5.9 Procedures for management and control of rules of origin (52)5.9.1 Option 1 - The status quo (52)5.9.2 Option 2 - Evidence of origin provided directly by registered exporters (52)5.9.3 Option 3 - Introduce certification by approved exporters only (54)5.9.4 Option 4 - Introduce certification by the exporter only (no registrationor approval) (54)5.10 Instruments to ensure compliance by the authorities of beneficiarycountries with their obligations (55)5.10.1 Option 1 - Status quo (55)5.10.2 Option 2 - Establish a programme to monitor the arrangements andprovide assistance and/or impose sanctions or safeguards whererequired (55)6. COMPARING THE OPTIONS (56)6.1 Revision of rules for the determination of origin - sufficient processingof goods which are not wholly obtained (56)6.2 Revision of rules for the determination of origin – conditions for whollyobtained fisheries products (61)6.3 Conditions for cumulation of origin (62)6.4 Procedures for management and control of rules of origin (64)6.5 Instruments to ensure compliance by the authorities of beneficiarycountries with their obligations (69)6.6 Overall conclusion (69)7. MONITORING THE OPTIONS (70)7.1 Revision of rules for the determination of origin (70)7.2 Conditions for cumulation of origin (70)7.3 Procedures for management and control of rules of origin (70)7.4 Instruments to ensure compliance by the authorities of beneficiarycountries with their obligations (71)A NNEXES:S EE SEPARATE DOCUMENTG LOSSARY Preferential tariff treatment (or preference) Reduced or zero import duty which is granted provided that goods originate in a beneficiary countryGSPGeneralised System of Preferences EBA Everything But Arms – a special arrangement under GSPfor LDCs, granting them duty- and quota-free access formost productsLDC Least Developed CountriesBeneficiary countries Countries eligible for preferential tariff treatment underthe GSP scheme (as listed in the GSP Regulation –Regulation 980/2005)Competent authorities:The authorities competent for the issue and verification ofproof of origin (Certificate of origin) Form A:Form used to claim the benefit of GSP preference HS or Harmonised SystemHarmonised Commodity Description and Coding System Wholly obtained Natural products from a beneficiary country and goodsmade entirely from them (not containing imported non-originating elements)Sufficient working or processing The conditions which products made using imported, non-originating materials or components must fulfil in abeneficiary country in order to be considered asoriginating thereCumulation of origin A facilitation which allows the countries in the cumulationzone to cooperate in order to comply with the rules.Originating products of country A may be furtherprocessed in country B and counted as originating.Regional cumulation of origin A specific type of cumulation in GSP, applicable to three separate regional groupsMinimal operations Working or processing operations regarded as insufficientto confer origin or the minimal level of processing that hasto be carried out in cumulation.Value added The value which must be added to non-originatingmaterials in order to obtain originEx-works price The price paid for the product ex-works to themanufacturer in whose undertaking the last working orprocessing is carried out, provided that the price includesthe value of all the materials used, minus any internaltaxes which are, or may be, repaid when the productobtained is exportedUtilisation rateThe proportion of imported products for which preferenceis claimed, compared to all those which are eligible for it.1.P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OFINTERESTED PARTIES1.On 16 March 2005, the Commission adopted a communication entitled "The rulesof origin in preferential trade arrangements: Orientations for the future" (hereafter "the communication")1. This contained three elements: appropriate rules determining the acquisition of origin; efficient management and control procedures;and a secured environment for legitimate trade. With regard to the first element, the communication acknowledged that further analysis of the suitability of a value added method for determining origin was required. The communication was a general document concerning all preferential trade arrangements, but it envisaged that the first applications should be to priority, development-oriented arrangements such as the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). The purpose of this impact assessment is to support a draft regulation for the reform of GSP rules of origin.2.An inter-service group was set up in September 2005, in which the following DGswere represented: Trade; Enterprise and Industry; Fisheries and Maritime Affairs;Agriculture and Rural Development; Development; Enlargement; EuropAid Cooperation Office; European Anti-fraud Office; Health and Consumer Protection;External Relations; Budget; Legal Service; Secretariat-General. The group decided that a full impact assessment was required, covering not just the value-added method, but also the procedural elements in the communication. The group met six times.3.The reform of GSP rules of origin is included as a simplification initiative on theCommission's work programme for 20072.4.Three studies on the use of a value-added method by outside consultants werecommissioned: a general study by Olivier Cadot, Jaime de Melo and Emmanuel Pondard of ADE s.a.3 (hereafter "ADE"); one focusing specifically on textiles, by Prof. Dr. Michiel Scheffer of Saxion Hogescholen4 (hereafter "Scheffer") and one concerning the fisheries sector by a consortium comprising Oceanic Développement (France) and MegaPesca Lda (Portugal)5 (hereafter "Oceanic/MegaPesca"). All consultants were required to consult stakeholders (beneficiary countries and industry representatives).5.The Commission services carried out a specific consultation to test ideas for certainoptions concerning sensitive agricultural products with 27 organisations representing the sectors concerned in the Community. These organisations were1COM(2005) 100.2 COM(2006) 629, 24.10.2006.3 "Evaluating the Consequences of Shift to a Value-added method for Determining Origin in EU PTAs", July 2006 (Letter of Contract No. 2005/103984, Framework Contract AMS/451 - LOT No. 11).4 "Study on the application of value criteria for textile products in preferential rules of origin", October 2006 (Tender 06-H13).5 Contrat Cadre FISH/2006/20, Specific Convention N° 3 "Rules of Origin in Preferential Trade Arrangements: New rules for the fishery sector".contacted by letter in March 2007 and given one month in which to respond (see Annex [1]. 16 did so.6.The Commission services also consulted European federations on the thresholds tobe applied to industrial products. A letter was addressed to them on 11 June 2007 (see Annex [2]).7.The Communication was the Commission's response to a major consultationexercise (Green Paper) on rules of origin launched at the end of 20036. It was published on the Commission's web-site and there was a 3-month consultation period. Responses were received from private companies, European trade and business organisations, national and local trade and business organisations, consultancy groups, authorities of Member States and of third countries, international and regional organisations, a research centre and a non-governmental organisation. A summary of the results was also published on the internet7.8.Both before and after the adoption of the communication, the Commission serviceshave had many meetings with representatives of thirds countries and of trade associations. In addition, in May 2005 and November 2006 two conferences were held with representatives of GSP beneficiary countries in Brussels to inform them about the communication and the options, and to hear their views.9.The respondents to the Green Paper almost unanimously agreed that rules of originwere too complex and needed to be changed. However, there was no agreement among respondents about how best to do this. At the conferences with beneficiary countries it likewise appeared that the current rules were considered unsatisfactory.10.The Impact Assessment Board considered this impact assessment at its meeting on29 August 2007. In response to its opinion, delivered on 31 August 2007, a glossaryhas been added, a point on the budgetary impact for the EU has been added and some other textual amendments have been made. In addition, a more comprehensive executive summary has been provided.However, the time available did not permit all issues (such as that the reasoning underlying the assumptions made concerning utilisation rate, the benefits and drawbacks of changes to cumulation, and the assessment of employment, social and environmental impacts resulting from the expected trade deflection) raised by the impact assessment board to be fully addressed. The Commission services do not underestimate the importance of these elements but consider that the information and analysis already included are already substantial.2.W HAT IS THE PROBLEM?2.1 GSP and the purpose of rules of origin1.GSP8 is a preferential trade arrangement which grants reduced or zero import dutyto products originating in 179 beneficiary countries. It is an arrangement with a6COM(2003) 787, 18.12.20037 http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/origin_consultation_final.pdf8 Currently implemented by Council Regulation (EC) No. 980/2005 (OL L 169, 30.6.2005, p. 1).development focus, aiming to facilitate the full insertion of developing countries into the world economy, supporting their economic and social development through better access to the Community market and strengthening regional economic integration. It contains three arrangements:– The general arrangement, which grants a range of reductions and suspensions for the products listed in the annex to the regulation;– a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance ("GSP Plus"), which provides additional benefits for 15 vulnerable countries implementing certain international standards in human and labour rights, environmental protection, the fight against drugs, and good governance;– a special arrangement for least developed countries (EBA), which grants duty- and quota-free access for all products except arms originating in the 49 Least Developed Countries (LDCs).2. Table 19 shows the average GSP preferences and global trade value of GSPpreferential imports into the EU.3. GSP is granted unilaterally by the Community and beneficiary countries range fromthe very large and relatively advanced (such as China) to tiny islands and the world's poorest countries. However, a "graduation" mechanism provides for the removal of preferences for countries (except those benefiting from EBA) whose exports reach a determined level in any sector. For this reason China, although still a GSP beneficiary, is excluded from preference for many sectors.4. The countries which make greatest use of GSP are not unexpectedly the largest andmost economically developed countries (see volumes of exports in column 5 of9 Source: ADE study.Notes: Computed from EUROSTAT. TRAINS data was used for tariffs equivalents of specific tariffs and tariff-rate-quotas for agricultural products. a : Thousand euros b : Value of imports eligible for preferences c : Total number of tariff lines (over all countries) to the EU at HS-8 level. See annex 2 of the ADE study for the exclusion of tariff lines due to missing data. d : Import value of preferences according to filing status requested at EU customs (i.e. on the assumption that the requested status was granted)e : Value of actual preferences ()MFN PREF ij i i ij t t M −∑. Does not include special regimes for ACP(37)and ACP(41).f: Import-weighted figures in parenthesis (weighted by imports at HS-8 level) g : See volume II, chapter 1 of the ADE study for definition of the construction of the index h : Maximum value-content of imports when applicable (see text for interpretation). k : Value of imports under the special Cotonou regime (bananas, rice, sugar). l : Value of misclaiming computed as ()CLAIM ELIG iji i ij t t M−∑where CLAIM i t is the tariff applicable to the status claimed and ELIG i t is the eligible status for the claiming country. A ‘+’ is entered for overclaiming (CLAIM ELIG ii t t >) and a ‘-’ for underclaiming (CLAIM ELIG i i t t <) m : Value of imports for GSP (92) countries under tariff lines that claimed either GSP or ACP status when these lines were not eligible for GSP status (corresponding value preference in parenthesis)Annex 310). LDCs tend to export mainly textiles and clothing and footwear, and (where they have the natural resources) processed agricultural and fisheries products.Country range Description of the valueGSP but neitherACP nor EBA (92)ACP but not EBA(37)EBA and also ACP(41)EBA but not ACP(9)EU imports a 152.191.986 11.718.363 4.847.399 1.566.684GSP eligible b 100.584.679 All lines All lines All linestariff lines c 99.26210.9347.3763.494Imports under preference: of which dGSP(ACP) 14.021.313(6.446.738)133.884(1.747.487)14.174(677.104)760.523(1.837)Value of preference e GSP(ACP)487.037(439.086)6.332(168.953)2.844(64.428)90.280(290)Value of Mis-claiming l Overclaim(underclaim)1.398(-261.978)8.361(0)(0)(0)Value of imports (overclaiming) for ineligible GSP lines m 1.269.032 ( 41.533 )Import Value under Special ACPregime k6.118 381.932 54.083 0Average MFN tariff f 5,08% (2,27%) 4,75% (1,71%) 4,18% (1,50%) 7,91% (11,90%) Average Preferential tariff f 2,66% (1,15%) 0,17% (0,01%)Table 1: Preferences and their value in the EU market, 2004EUR (000)5.The rules of origin are a tool serving on the one hand to ensure that the activitywhich takes place in the beneficiary country represents a real economic input andthat the benefit of the tariff preferences goes to the intended beneficiaries, and onthe other hand to prevent abuse. As such, they are an essential component ofCommunity trade policy.10 Source: UNCTAD. The data in Annex I present the utilisation rates with regard to the most exported products from both GSP and EBA countries. Exports of products subject to MFN duty equals zero and which are not covered by the GSP preferences are not taken into account. The figures do not refer to smaller quantities of exports even if low export value could also imply problems in the fulfilment of the origin rules. However, a full analysis of all the headings lines for a large number of countries goes beyondthe scope of this impact assessment. Generally the attention is focused on the most exported goods as the economies represent already a certain level of specialisation and intend to maximise the benefits of the existing natural resources, for the purpose of this document called wholly obtained products. It is impossible to set up a system of rules of origin where every country will produce everything. The objectiveis, on the other hand, to tie permanently the economies of the developing countries with the global economy in order to maximise their internal economic potentials.6.Rules of origin consist of two parts: substance and procedures:–Substance means the conditions for goods to be considered as originating in the beneficiary country. To qualify for preference, products must be "wholly obtained" in it (essentially, natural products or products obtained therefrom) or have undergone "sufficient working or processing" there. For this purpose, the present rules lay down a product-by-product list of requirements as well as detailed conditions for cases in which origin may be "cumulated" with other countries. Fuller details are given in Annex [4].–Procedures means the system of administrative cooperation for the management and control of origin. Proof of origin must be given, usually by means of a certificate of origin Form A stamped for each individual export by the competent authorities of the beneficiary country. These authorities are also responsible for carrying out subsequent verifications. Fuller details are given in Annex [5].2.2 The nature of the problem1.The preferences for some products are under-used in some cases. Statisticsshow relatively low use rates by many of the least developed countries (LDCs) and other vulnerable countries (Annex 3) – utilisation rates for the top fifteen exported products). Although many factors affect investment decisions and the ability to export under preference (including geography and infrastructure, the available workforce and political stability), it appears that one reason is that rules of origin may act as a barrier to trade for such countries, because exporters there are unable to comply with them because they are complex and/or too stringent.2.The under-utilisation cannot be ascribed to the preferences duty rates not being lowenough for LDCs, since they already enjoy zero duty for virtually all their exports. 3.Rules of origin do not affect all sectors equally; the utilisation rates varysubstantially from sector to sector. For agricultural and fishery goods they are high (80-100%). This is because these goods are generally "wholly obtained", i.e.extracted mineral products, harvested vegetables, live animals etc. The lack of these products among the most exported goods seems not to be caused by the stringency of origin rules, as their main objective is to support the use of local raw materials produced in a given country.4.From the figures in Annex 3 it appears that there are problems in complying withthe origin conditions in the industrial sectors. The sector with the lowest utilisation rates is the clothing industry, namely Chapters 61 and 62 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (the rate varies from 0 to 50%, even though there are differences at the heading level and a strong differentiation between countries). At a first glance it appears that there are also anomalies with regard to other industrial products exported in large quantities from developing countries (chemicals, machinery and transport equipment). The under-utilisation in these sectors affects more developed GSP countries (Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand, for example). There are only traces of exports of those products from the LDCs (and the utilisation rates are zero, i.e. they seem not to be able to use the preferences at all).5.Rules of origin do not affect all beneficiaries equally, but tend to penalise thesmaller and least developed countries, which have less integrated economies.However, other, larger countries are able to export extremely large volumes to the Community despite the current rules of origin. See table 2, and in particular columns 5 and 7.Table 2: Volumes of import in the EU market from India and Sri Lanka and therespective utilisation rates and their value1.Graphic 1 below and point 1 of Annex [4] show how for exporters of productswhich are not wholly obtained the complexity is particularly acute, since it is a multi-step process: they must contend not only with a product-by-product list of rules (and in some cases, alternative rules) defining the level of processing requiredto confer origin, but also a number of exceptions and conditions (minimal operations which can never confer origin, tolerances, etc.), all giving rise to repeated problems of interpretation, without mentioning the possible use of cumulation.Graphic 1: Deciding whether products originate or not2. There are in fact currently 545 different list rules used for the various preferential arrangements in which the EU is involved, corresponding to 509 different categories of products 11, plus 107 alternative rules. There is no common indicator or tool to measure what is 'sufficient processing', which means that the origin requirement can discriminate between products or manufacturing processes which are similar. Nor are the rules easily adapted to the appearance of new products, new processes or changing trade patterns. Annex [6] indicates some of the problems of interpretation encountered, while the following table 3 shows the breakdown of use of various criteria amongst the total number of list rules (alternative rules are not included):WO CTH SP VP WO+CTHWO+VP 29 98 150 128 44 5,3% 18% 27,5%23,5% 0,7%0,7% CTH+VP SP+VP WO+CTH+VP Sets+VPNRTOTAL 94 28 22 654517,2% 5,1% 0,4%0,4%1,1%100% Table 3: Current rules for sufficient working or processing, by type.WO= manufacture from wholly obtained or already originating productsCTH= change of tariff heading or subheading (positive or negative test)VP= value percentageSP= specific process11 For some categories of products, two or even three rules are offered at the choice of the exporter (not to mention possible 'alternative rules').NR= 'no rule' ('manufacture from any heading')3.The ADE study demonstrates the correlation between the strictness of rules oforigin and low use rate. This trend is also amply confirmed by anecdotal evidence.On the other hand, in cases where rules of origin have been relaxed, experience shows that the use rate can go up: for example, when the EU reduced the processing requirement for textile products from three stages to two, and following specific initiatives by other donor countries such as the USA and Canada).4.The rules for "wholly obtained" products are relatively clear, but not free of alldifficulty: for example, the case, illustrated in point 4 of Annex [4], of the conditions for fishing vessels catching fish outside the territorial waters of the beneficiary country. These rules are not always easy to interpret or apply to concrete cases and it is particularly difficult to establish the ownership of companies, where several holding companies may be concerned.5.Cumulation is a facilitation of the normal rules, which allows the processingrequired to be carried out in a group of countries instead of the beneficiary country alone. GSP regional cumulation aims at encouraging economic cooperation and thus promoting regional integration, but sustained anecdotal evidence shows that it too is under-used12. Because of its strict and complex conditions, described in point2 of Annex [3], it has proved hard to apply in practice. The allocation of origin inthis context is particularly important, since different countries are subject to different levels of preference.6.Cost. Participation in preferential trade causes costs for enterprises as well as forpublic administrations. The current system of rules of origin is seen as burdensome and excessively complicated. The complexity of multiple rules adds to costs for all parties.7.The administrative costs of rules of origin are those which are incurred byenterprises for the determination of the preferential status of exported products, its permanent control and the issuing of proofs of origin. The administrative costs of any substantial reform affect different stakeholders. As the GSP rules of origin concern an autonomous system of unilateral preferences, the possible costs can be evaluated from the perspective of:- economic operators;- public authorities.8.The ADE study concludes that there is an average total compliance cost of 3.2%13.It further observes that using its "restrictiveness index" compliance costs can be broken down into two components: "an industry-specific distortionary cost due to the RoO’s effect on input sourcing −forcing a minimum of sourcing from the preferential trading zone as opposed to potentially cheaper sources outside− and an administrative (paperwork) component which we assume, for simplicity, to be the same across industries." By this means it arrives at "an average administrative 12 There is no requirement to indicate the use of cumulation on Form A (even if some countries do). Consequently, the Community does not hold statistics on the use of regional cumulation.13 Point 2.3 in part I。

2016年普利普利兹克奖得主Alejandro Aravena亚力简德罗·阿拉维纳｜智利2016年获奖者公布视频2016 Announcement Video on Vimeo.html阿拉维纳作品概览（后面附有原图，另存后可以查看）这些图片的说明在2016年作品集里，点击这里获取亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马智利天主教大学数学学院，1999年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：Tadeuz Jalocha智利天主教大学数学学院，1999年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：Tadeuz Jalocha智利天主教大学医学院，2004年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：罗兰·哈尔伯智利天主教大学医学院，2004年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：罗兰·哈尔伯智利天主教大学建筑学院，2004年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：马丁·布拉沃智利天主教大学连体塔楼，2005年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥, 大学教室和办公室摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马智利天主教大学连体塔楼，2005年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥, 大学教室和办公室摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马智利天主教大学连体塔楼，2005年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥, 大学教室和办公室素描由亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳提供智利天主教大学UC创新中心- 阿纳克莱托·安吉里尼，2014年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥摄影：妮娜·维迪奇智利天主教大学UC创新中心- 阿纳克莱托·安吉里尼，2014年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥摄影：妮娜·维迪奇智利天主教大学UC创新中心- 阿纳克莱托·安吉里尼，2014年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥摄影：菲利普·迪亚兹智利天主教大学UC创新中心- 阿纳克莱托·安吉里尼，2014年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马智利天主教大学UC创新中心- 阿纳克莱托·安吉里尼，2014年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥摄影：詹姆斯·弗洛里奥智利天主教大学UC创新中心- 阿纳克莱托·安吉里尼，2014年，圣华金校区, 智利圣地亚哥ELEMENTAL提供的设计草图（亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳）金塔蒙罗伊住宅，2004年，智利伊基克摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马——上图：居民自己动手实现的中产阶层生活标准, 下图：得到财政资金支持的―半成品房子‖金塔蒙罗伊住宅，2004年，智利伊基克摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马——左：得到财政资金支持的―半成品房子‖, 右：居民自己动手实现的中产阶层生活标准金塔蒙罗伊住宅，2004年，智利伊基克上图：摄影：路德维科·杜素辛, 得到财政资金支持的―半成品房子‖, 下图：摄影：Tadeuz Jalocha, 居民自己动手实现的中产阶层生活标准蒙特雷住宅，2010年，墨西哥蒙特雷摄影：拉米罗·拉米雷斯, 得到财政资金支持的―半成品房子‖蒙特雷住宅，2010年，墨西哥蒙特雷摄影：拉米罗·拉米雷斯, 居民自己动手实现的中产阶层生活标准的案例之一大都会步道，1997年- 在建，智利圣地亚哥摄影：Guy Wenborne大都会步道，1997年- 在建，智利圣地亚哥ELEMENTAL的规划大都会步道，1997年- 在建，智利圣地亚哥供图：ELEMENTAL二百周年纪念儿童公园，2012年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马二百周年纪念儿童公园，2012年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马二百周年纪念儿童公园，2012年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马二百周年纪念儿童公园，2012年，智利圣地亚哥摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马圣爱德华大学宿舍，2008年，美国德克萨斯州奥斯汀摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马圣爱德华大学宿舍，2008年，美国德克萨斯州奥斯汀摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马圣爱德华大学宿舍，2008年，美国德克萨斯州奥斯汀摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马圣爱德华大学宿舍，2008年，美国德克萨斯州奥斯汀摄影：克里斯托瓦尔·帕尔马拉斯克鲁塞斯朝圣观景台，2010年，墨西哥哈利斯科摄影：伊万·班无椅解决方案，2010年, 为Vitra公司设计摄影：妮可·巴赫曼无椅解决方案，2010年, 为Vitra公司设计摄影：妮可·巴赫曼孔斯蒂图西翁海啸后可持续重建计划，2010年- 在建，智利孔斯蒂图西翁供图：ELEMENTAL孔斯蒂图西翁海啸后可持续重建计划，2010年- 在建，智利孔斯蒂图西翁供图：ELEMENTAL孔斯蒂图西翁海啸后可持续重建计划，2010年- 在建，智利孔斯蒂图西翁供图：ELEMENTAL孔斯蒂图西翁海啸后可持续重建计划，2010年- 在建，智利孔斯蒂图西翁摄影：菲利普·迪亚兹孔斯蒂图西翁海啸后可持续重建计划，2010年- 在建，智利孔斯蒂图西翁供图：ELEMENTAL绿屋，2013年，智利孔斯蒂图西翁供图：ELEMENTAL ——上图：得到财政资金支持的―半成品房子‖建设, 下图：居民自己动手实现的中产阶层生活标准绿屋，2013年，智利孔斯蒂图西翁供图：ELEMENTAL ——上图：得到财政资金支持的―半成品房子‖建设, 下图：居民自己动手实现的中产阶层生活标准孔斯蒂图西翁文化中心，2014年，智利孔斯蒂图西翁摄影：菲利普·迪亚兹孔斯蒂图西翁文化中心，2014年，智利孔斯蒂图西翁摄影：菲利普·迪亚兹孔斯蒂图西翁海滨长廊，2014年，智利孔斯蒂图西翁摄影：菲利普·迪亚兹孔斯蒂图西翁海滨长廊，2014年，智利孔斯蒂图西翁摄影：菲利普·迪亚兹卡拉马PLUS，2012 年–在建，智利卡拉马ELEMENTAL制图作家小屋，2015年，瑞士蒙特里谢尔供图：+2 Architectes作家小屋，2015年，瑞士蒙特里谢尔供图：+2 ArchitectesAyelén学校，2015年，智利兰卡瓜供图：ELEMENTALAyelén学校，2015年，智利兰卡瓜供图：ELEMENTALOcho Quebradas住所，2013年–在建，智利洛斯维洛斯ELEMENTAL制图Ocho Quebradas住所，2013年–在建，智利洛斯维洛斯ELEMENTAL制图Ocho Quebradas住所，2013年–在建，智利洛斯维洛斯ELEMENTAL制图―Humano‖公园博物馆，2014年–在建，智利圣地亚哥ELEMENTAL制图Arauco Vivero，2015年, 智利新奥尔科内斯, Arauco林业公司食堂和办公楼供图：ELEMENTAL诺华上海园区办公楼，2015年（在建），中国上海供图：ELEMENTAL诺华上海园区办公楼，2015年（在建），中国上海摄影：塞缪尔·博恩——天井ELEMENTAL，2013年, 智利圣地亚哥供图：ELEMENTALELEMENTAL，2013年, 智利圣地亚哥供图：ELEMENTALELEMENTAL，2015年, 智利圣地亚哥供图：ELEMENTAL原始尺寸照片｜图纸（可另存为后查看）。

The Power of Synthesis-------Alejandro Aravena If there’s any power in design, that’s power of synthesis. The more complex the problem, the more the need for simplicity. So allow me to share three cases where we tried to apply design’s power of synthesis.Let’s start with the global challenge of urbanization. It’s a fact that people are moving towards cities, and even if counterintuitive, it’s good news. Evidence shows that people are better off in cities. But there’s a problem that I would call the “3S” menace: The scale, speed, scarcity of means with which we will have to respond to this phenomenon has no precedence in history. For you to have an idea, out of the three billion people living in cities today, one billion are under the line of poverty. By 2030, out of five billion people that will be living in cities, two billion are going to be under the line of poverty. That means that we will have to build a one million-people city per week, with 10,000 dollars per family during the next 15 years. A one million-people city per week, with 10,000 dollars per family, If we don’t solve this equation, it is not that people will stop coming to cities. They will come anyhow, but they will live in slums, favelas and informal settlements. So what to do? Well, an answer may come from favelas and slums themselves. A clue could be in this question we were asked 10 years ago. We were asked to accommodate 100 families that had been occupying illegally half a hectare in the center of the city of Iquique in the north of Chile using a $10,000 subsidy with which we had to buy the land, provide the infrastructure, and build the houses that, in the best of the cases, would be of around 40 square meters. And by the way, they said, the cost of the land, because it’s in the center of the city, is three times more than what social housing can normally afford. Due to the difficulty of the question, we decide to include the families in the process of understanding the constraints, and we started a participatory design process, and testing what was available there in the market. Detached houses, 30 families could be accommodated.Row houses ,60 families. The only way toaccommodated all of them was by building in height,and they threatened us to go on a hunger strike if we even dared to offer this as a solution,because they could not make the tiny apartments expand.So the conclusion with the families and this is important,not our conclusion with the families,was that we had a problem.We had to innovate.So what did we do? Well,a middle-class family lives reasonably well in around 80 square meters,but when there’s no money,what the market does is to reduce the size of the house to 40 square meters.What we said was,what if ,instead of thinking of 40 square meters as a small house,why don’t we consider it half of a good one? When you rephrase the problem as half of a good house instead of a small one,the key question is,which half do we do?And we thought we had to do with public money the half that families won’t be able to do individually.We identified five design condition that belonged to the hard half of a house,and we went back the families to do two things join forces and split tasks.Our design was something in between a building and a house.As a building,it could pay for expensive ,well-located land,and as a house, it could expand.If, in the process of not being expelled to the periphery while getting a house,families kept their network and their jobs,we knew that the expansion would begin right away.So we went from this initial social housing to a middle-class unit achieved by families themselves within a couple of weeks.This was our first project in Iquique 10 years ago.This is our last project in Chile.Different designs,same principle:You provide the frame,and from then on,families take over.So the purpose of design,trying to understanding and trying to give an answer to the “3S” menace,scale,speed and scarcity is to channel people’s own building capacity.We won’t solve the one million people per week equation unless we use people’s own power for building.So with the right design,slums and favelas may not be the problem but actually the only possible solution.The second case is how design can contribute to sustainability.In 2012,we entered the competition for the Angelini Innovation Center,andthe aim was to build the right environment for knowledge creation.It is accepted that for such an aim,knowledge creation,interaction among people ,face-to-face contact,it’s important,and we agreed on that.But for us, the question of the right environment was a very literal question.We wanted to have a working space with the right light ,with the right temperature,with the right air.So we asked ourselves:Does the typical office building help us in that sense?Well,how dose that building look,typically?It’s a collection of floors,one on top of each other,with a core in the center with elevators,stairs,pipes,wires,everything,and then a glass skin on the outside,that, due to direct sun radiation,creates a huge greenhouse effect inside.In addition to that,Let’s say a guy working on the seventh floor goes every single day through the third floor,but has no idea what the guy on that floor is working on.So we thought,well,maybe we have to turn this scheme inside out.And what we did was,let’s have an open atrium,a hollowed core,the same collection of floors,but have the walls and the mass in the perimeter, so that when the sun hits,it’s not impacting directly glass, but a wall.When you have an open atrium inside, you are able to see what others are doing from within the building, and you have a better way to control light,and when you place the mass and the walls in the perimeters,then you are preventing direct sun radiation.You may also open those windows and get cross-ventilation.We just made those openings of such a scale that they could work as elevated squares,outdoor spaces throughout the entire height the building. None of this is rocket science.You don’t require sophisticated programming.It’s not about technology.This is just archaic,primitive common sense,and by using common sense,we went from 120 kilowatts per square meter per year,which is the typical energy consumption for cooling a glass power,to 40 kilowatts per square meter per year.So with the right design,sustainability is noting but the rigorous use of common sense.Last case I would like to share is how design can provide more comprehensive answers against natural disasters.You may know thatChile,in 2010,was hit by an 8.8 Richter scale earthquake and tsunami,and we were called to work in the reconstruction of the Constitucion in the southern part of the country.We were given 100 days,three months,to design almost everything, from public buildings to public space,street grid,transportation,housing,and mainly how to protect the city against future tsunamis.This was new in Chilean urban design,and there were in the air a couple of alternatives.First one:Forbid installation on ground zero.Thirty million dollars spent mainly in land expropriation.This is exactly what’s being discussed in Japan nowadays,and if you have a disciplined population like the Japanese,this may work,but we know that in Chile,this land is going to be occupied illegally anyhow,so this alternative was unrealistic and undesirable.Second alternative；build a big wall,heavy infrastructure to resist the energy of the waves.This alternative was conveniently lobbied by big building companies,because it meant 42 million dollars in contracts,and was also politically preferred,because it required no land expropriation.But Japan proved that trying to resist the force of nature is useless.So this alternative was irresponsible.As in the housing process,we had to include the community in the way of finding a solution for this,and we started a participatory design process.【采访】I don’t know if you were able to read the subtitles,but you can tell from the body language that participatory design is not a hippie,romantic,let’s-all-dream-together-about-the-future-of-the-city, kind of thing.It is actually not even with the families trying to find the right answer.It is mainly trying to identify with the precision what is the right question.There is nothing worse than answering well the wrong question.So it was pretty obvious after this process,that,well,we chicken out here and go away because it’s too tense,or we go even further in asking,what else is bothering you?What other problems do you have and you want us to take care of now that the city will have to be rethought from scratch?And what they said was,look,fine to protect the city against future tsunamis,we really appreciate,but the next one is going to comein,what, 20 years?But every single year,we have problems of flooding due to rain.In addition,we are in the middle of the forest region of the country,and our public space sucks.It’s poor and it’s scarce.And the origin of the city,our identity,is not really connected to the building that fell,it is connected to the river,but the river cannot be accessed publicly,because its shores are privately owned.So we thought that we had to produce a third alternative,and our approach was against geographical threats,have geographical answers.What if,in between the city and the sea,we have a forest,a forest that doesn’t try to resist the energy of nature,but dissipates it by introducing friction?A forest that may be able to laminate the water and prevent the flooding?That may pay the historical debt of public space,and that may provide ,finally,democratic access to the river. So as a conclusion of the participatory design,the alternative was validated politically and socially,but there was still the problem of the cost:48 million dollars.So what we did was a survey in the public investment system,and found out that there were three ministries with three projects in the exact same place,not knowing of the existence of the other projects.The sum of them:52 million dollars.So design’s power of the synthesis is trying to make a more efficient use of the scarcest resource in cities,which is not money,but coordination.By doing so,we were able to save four million dollars,and that is why the forest is today under construction.So be it the force of self construction,the force of common sense,or the force of nature,all these forces need to be translated into form,and what that form is modeling and shaping is not cement,bricks,or wood.It is life itself. Design’s power of synthesis is just an attempt to put at the innermost core of architecture the force of life.Thank you so much.整合的力量-----亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳如果说设计有什么力量的话，那就是整合的力量。

亚力杭德罗·阿拉维纳将生命力量注入建筑灵魂他很少使用建筑学专业用语，常常用最为平实的语言解读他的设计理念。

在他看来，相比起外形和建筑所谓的“专业性”，一个设计师更重要的职责是帮助社会切实地解决问题。

距2016年威尼斯建筑双年展开幕还有一个多月的时间，亚力杭德罗?阿拉维纳作为即将开幕的第15届威尼斯建筑双年展主策展人，将围绕“ReportingFrom the Front”的主题，交出自己的答卷。

在上一届建筑双年展中，时任策展人雷姆?库哈斯以回溯“Fundamentals（本源）”的形式，对人类的建筑长河进行了一番梳理。

而今年的策展主题“ReportingFrom the Front”则站在了库哈斯的对立面。

阿拉维纳希望展览能够面对更广泛的受众，思考如何才能在恶劣的环境中争取资源，提高生活质量。

又或者说，如何站在“刀刃上”完成一次漂亮的挑战。

亚力杭德罗-阿拉维纳是当今新一代智利建筑师中的代表，2016年，有建筑界的诺贝尔奖之称的普利兹克奖并没有青睐高耸的摩天大楼和大型文化地标，而是将大奖颁给了为智利伊基克市政府修建经济适用房的“半成品”建筑师阿拉维纳，并称其真正利用设计改善了人们的生活，是当今设计师学习的典范。

“半个好房子”1967年出生的阿拉维纳自1994年执业至今已为其母校智利天主教大学设计了多座建筑，其中，2014年的UC创新中心一安纳克莱托安西里尼是他的代表作之一。

阿拉维纳所设计的公共建筑大多具有厚重的外围，内部则设有一个滤光玻璃构成中庭。

与传统建筑相比，这些建筑群能比普通的办公楼每年每平方米降低近80千瓦的耗能。

除此之外，作为智利的建筑师，阿拉维纳的建筑材料大多选择国内，大大节约了运输成本。

然而，真正让阿拉维纳名声大噪的并非这些世人皆知的公共设施。

2001年，阿拉维纳与几名伙伴正式成立Elemental 公司，哈佛的执教经历让他积累了大量高端资源，但他却固执地选择了为穷人发声。

设计力量的整合---亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳昨晚2016年普利兹克建筑奖公布，亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳获得大奖的消息刷爆了设计师的朋友圈！为什么这位智利建筑师可以在众多的国际大师中脱颖而出？他又有着怎样的设计哲学与思想？“ “无论在他的祖国还是在世界其它地区，亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳为私人、公众和教育部门设计的建筑作品都达到了杰出的程度……他承担过不同规模的项目——从单户住宅到大型机构建筑……他不仅谙熟材料和施工，而且深知诗意和建筑力量对于多层面交流的重要性。

”-------2016年普利兹克建筑奖评委会在评审辞1亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳----TED设计力量的整合亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳一直着眼于公共利益和社会影响，作品涉及住房、公共空间、基础设施和交通运输等领域。

“设计力量的整合意味着一个思维方式的转变。

Design's power of synthesis is just an attempt to put at the innermost core of architecture the force of life。

-------亚历杭德罗·阿拉维纳2项目作品巡礼----博物馆、学校建筑以及私人住宅从亚力杭德罗·阿拉维纳这些年的作品来看，博物馆、学校建筑以及私人住宅是他最主要的几个方向，他秉持的现代主义设计风格，试图将建筑物的功能性发挥到最大，并且达到自然的融合。

金塔蒙罗伊住宅金塔蒙罗伊住宅，2004年，智利伊基克（生活条件改善后的住户们纷纷扩建出更多的居住空间）金塔蒙罗伊住宅，2004年，智利伊基克（建筑之间形成半开合的社区）金塔蒙罗伊住宅，2004年，智利伊基克（居民自己动手实现的中产阶层生活标准和得到财政资金支持的“半成品房子'）2003 年，阿拉维纳因为智利伊基克市政府修建经济适用房而一举成名。

在这个 Quinta Monroy 项目中，每户家庭仅有 7500 美元的房屋补贴，还要支付地价、基础设施和建筑架构等费用。