Date post: | 29-Mar-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | un-habitat |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Habitat Debate
In this issue
Our common past.......6
The UMP has a future on its own.......10
Strengthening local governance ............... 11
Giving women a voice ..........................13
In action against AIDS...........................17
Best practices...........20
U N I T E D N A T I O N S H U M A N S E T T L E M E N T S P R O G R A M M E
The legacy of the Urban Management Programme
2 Habitat Debate December 2005
After nearly two decades, theAAUnited Nations system is handing overAAthe Urban Management Programme to its
beneficiaries at the regional, national and
local level. This passing of the baton of one
of the largest global urban programmes is
in every sense a measure of its great success.
We in the United Nations, and the many
bilateral donor agencies who have so gen-
erously supported it over the years, have
every reason to be proud.
It is indeed one of those rare occasions
where a catalyst for the improvement of
human settlements around the world has
gained such momentum that it has taken
on a life of its own, and is now able to move
ahead with its vast repository of knowledge,
best practices and innovations in making
our rapidly urbanizing world a better place
for all. It is as much a new beginning, as it
is the end of an era of which we take stock
in this issue of Habitat Debate.
As a global programme, the UMP has
made many significant contributions in
building the capacity of local authorities
in developing countries through the pro-
motion of pro-poor participatory gov-
ernance and poverty reduction strategies.
The programme has supported the imple-
mentation of the Habitat Agenda and the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
at local level through partnership with na-
tional governments, local authorities, and
civil society organizations. Indeed the
UMP has worked in 120 cities in 57 devel-
oping countries through six regional and
sub-regional offices, 19 regional anchor
institutions and over 40 national and local
institutions and other networks of com-
munity-based organizations, NGOs and
municipal associations. This is certainly an
impressive record.
The 21st century will witness massive
and rapid urbanization, with two billion
new residents in cities of the developing
world in the next 25 years. This process,
though stimulated by economic develop-
ment, has also led to sharp divisions in
growth between cities and among social
groups. We already see increased urbani-
zation of poverty with one billion poor ur-
ban residents living in slums. For many
local authorities, it has not been possible
to meet the challenges of generating suf-ff
ficient employment, providing adequate
housing and meeting the basic needs of
their citizens. The challenge is to improve
equity, efficiency, productivity and gov-
ernance in order to provide sustainable
livelihoods, safe and secure living environ-
ments and a better quality of life for the
urban poor.
The Urban Management Programme
has played a pivotal role here. It has brought
urban poverty, environmental sustainabil-
ity and participatory governance, through
its innovative city consultation process to
the fore of the national agenda in many
countries and municipalities. The UMP,
working closely with UNDP and other
organizations of the UN system, helped
strengthen inter-agency cooperation. The
networks of cities, anchor institutions and
other partners working with UMP today
provide a rich resource base for human set-
tlements-related activities. And although
the UMP is now being phased out, its net-
works of anchor institutions and cities and
the rich experience of almost two decades
should not be lost. Many of us, in cities
around the world, have worked hard and
spent significant resources and energy to
establish these networks.
The overall mission of UN-HABITAT
is to promote socially and environmen-
tally sustainable human settlements devel-
opment and the achievement of adequate
shelter for all with the objective of reduc-
ing urban poverty and social exclusion.
This mandate today has been strengthened
by the Millennium Development Goal on
environmental sustainability, focusing on
biodiversity (target 9), water and sanita-
tion (target 10) and slum upgrading (tar-
get 11).
At the United Nations summit meet-
ing in September 2005, world leaders gave
this mandate special priority. The summit
endorsed not only slum upgrading, but
also slum prevention as common goals. At
the global level, the Habitat Agenda and
the MDGs have identified a possible road-
map and time frame to achieve these goals.
The pro-poor participatory city consul-
tation approach of UMP focused on the
process, but was weak on follow-up invest-
ments and actions.
UN-HABITAT is moving forward with
the implementation of the MDGs through
its Water and Sanitation programmes in
Africa, Asia and Latin America. Its new
programme called the Slum Upgrading
Facility (SUF) is aimed at mobilizing re-
sources for slum upgrading. The idea is to
unlock capital for pro-poor investment,
and to promote and coordinate a new set
of partnerships to raise domestic and in-
ternational funding for affordable low-in-
come housing and urban infrastructure in
the developing world.
In passing the UMP baton to the an-
chor institutions, I am sure that we will
be working closely with many of our UMP
partners at every level in this new quest.
Anna Kajumulo TibaijukaExecutive Director
A Message from the Executive Director
The Urban Management
Programme has played a
pivotal role in bringing
urban poverty, environmental
sustainability and participatory
governance, through its
innovative city consultation
process to the fore of the
national agenda in many
countries and municipalities.
3Habitat Debate December 2005
Cover PhotoThe fabled city of Jodhpur in India, with
good urban practices. Photo © JeremyHorner / Panos.
EditorRoman Rollnick
Editorial AssistanceTom Osanjo
Design & LayoutInformation Services Section, UN-HABITAT
Editorial BoardDaniel Biau (Chair)Lucia KiwalaAnantha KrishnanDinesh MehtaEduardo López MorenoJane NyakairuFarouk TebbalMariam YunusaNicholas You
Published byUN-HABITATP.O. Box 30030, GPONairobi 00100, KENYA;Tel: (254-20) 621234Fax: (254-20) 624266/7,623477,624264Telex: 22996 UNHABKEE-mail:[email protected]: http://www.unhabitat.org/
ISSN 1020-3613
Opinions expressed in signed articles
are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official views
and policies of the United Nations
Human Settlements Programme
(UN-HABITAT). All material in this
publication may be freely quoted or
reprinted, provided the authors and
Habitat Debate are credited.
Contents
A MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
OPINION From research to ownership – the legacy of the UrbanManagement Programme, Akin L. Mabogunje........................4
the Urban Management Programme, Michael Cohen.............5
OVERVIEW Our Common Past: the contribution of the UrbanManagement Programme, Dinesh Mehta ...............................6
FORUM Two decades of urban management, Daniel Biau ..................8
UNDP support to the Urban ManagementProgramme – connecting global actors to localrealities, G. Shabbir Cheema, Jonas Rabinovitchand Robertson Work ...............................................................9
FORUM The UMP has a future on its own, Stig Egnell.......................10
Strengthening local governance, poverty reduction, and a better environment. ..................................................... 11
REGIONAL Building urban management in Asia,Nathaniel von Einsiedel.........................................................12
Giving women a voice in Urban Governance – Experiences from UMP-Asia, Girija Shrestha and Ranjith Perera .......................................................................13
The Urban Management Programme in theArab States, ...........................................14
Democratic urban management in Latin America and the Caribbean, Rocío Lombera ......................................15
City consultations with poor people in Belem, Brazil.............16
The UMP in action – bringing local authorities intothe frontline against AIDS, George Matovu...........................17
Managing biomedical waste in Dakar, Senegal,Salimata Seck .......................................................................18
BEST PRACTICES Nigeria • Sri Lanka, • Thailand • Tunisia................................20
PUBLICATIONS The Urban Management Programme • Urban-RuralLinkages Approach to Sustainable Development • International Migrants and the City • Towards the Poverty Eradication Goal – The Structure and
Industry in Eastern Africa ......................................................21
EVENTS New Deputy Executive Director for UN-HABITAT • A new international drive for better cities • A new record for World Habitat Day observances • China meeting • UN-HABITAT to the rescue of Pakistani quake victims • Major Norwegian boost for UN-HABITAT’s water and sanitation trustfund • Global Parliamentarians on Habitat • Upcoming Events
• Upcoming issuesof Habitat Debate ......................................................... 22 & 23
4
Habitat Debate December 2005
Opinion
From research to ownership – the legacy of
the Urban Management Programme
By Akin L. Mabogunje
The “urban reality” in any country is a multi-faceted phe-
nomenon. The agglomerations of citizens in large, compact
settlements covering substantial areas of a country cannot be
treated as an abstraction.
Yet, it is a distressing fact that many policy makers in gov-
ernments, international organizations and donor agencies have
difficulty in accepting this reality and conceding that its devel-
opment and management has to be confronted deliberately and
purposefully in its totality and not as a series of disparate sectors
of activities.
Even the World Bank, for many years, saw urban centres in
this mode as only a series of infrastructural investment prospects,
such as in transportation and water, rather than as a communi-
ty whose capacity for action underpins such investments. It was
to deepen an appreciation of the challenges presented by the ur-
ban phenomenon worldwide that Michael Cohen and his team
in the Urban Development Unit of the World Bank decided to
launch in 1986 a 10-year research programme called the Urban
Management Programme. The programme was promoted t the
time in partnership with the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlement (UNCHS) and with funding from the United Nations
Development Programme.
Over the next two decades, the Urban Management Programme
emerged as perhaps one of the largest global technical assistance en-
deavours in the urban sector. During its first five years (1986-1991),
the programme, although largely funded by the UNDP, was housed
in the World Bank in Washington. It undertook research into five
principal areas – Urban Land, Urban Environment, Municipal
Finance, Urban Infrastructure and Urban Poverty. It sought to de-
velop manuals and toolkits to help cities in these areas.
The major transformation, however, occurred with the ap-
pointment of Shabbir Cheema to the UNDP in 1991. Following
a UNDP evaluation, it was decided that for greater effectiveness
and impact, the Programme not only needed to be regionalized
but also to engage in capacity building of regional experts and di-
rect involvement of cities in developing countries.
Consequently, regional offices were opened in Abidjan, Cote
d’Ivoire (for the sub-Saharan African Region), Cairo, Egypt (for
the Arab States), Bangkok, Thailand (for the Asia Pacific Region)
and Quito, Ecuador (for Latin America and the Caribbean
Region). Regional Managers of the Programme were appointed
for these offices working under a Coordinator based in the then
UNCHS in Nairobi, Kenya. Later sub-regional centres were es-
tablished in Johannesburg, South Africa for Eastern and Southern
Africa, and in New Delhi, India, for South Asia.
Over the following fifteen years, the regionalized Programme
went through three phases of maturation and became a real cata-
lyst for direct local action and eventual ownership by what came
to be known as “anchor institutions”, and by mayors of cities in
each of the regions.
The first phase (1992-1996) entailed enhancing the proficien-
cy of regional panels of experts through workshops and consul-
tations to introduce new policies and tools. Attempts were also
initiated to determine where the anchor institutions were to be
located.
The second phase (1997-2001) saw the anchor institutions
promoting participatory mechanisms as the major strategy of
the Programme for enhancing the quality of urban management.
Participatory mechanisms were particularly important for City
Consultations, which were seen as critical for dealing with prob-
lems of urban poverty, urban environmental sustainability, and
good urban governance. By the end of this phase, some 19 re-
gional anchor institutions had been established in all the regions
along with 40 partner national institutions. Some 120 city con-
sultations were conducted.
The third phase (2002-2006) whilst continuing all of these
themes, capitalizing on knowledge management of the informa-
tion gained, and adding the control of the HIV/AIDS pandemic
to its concerns, initiated the process of gradual international dis-
engagement. It witnessed the gradual transfer of ownership of the
Programme to the anchor institutions and the development of re-
gional national partner institutions.
After two decades, the questions could, therefore, be asked:
What has been the legacy of the Urban Management Programme?
How far has the process of improving urban management been ad-
vanced in the various regions of the developed world?
I believe there can be no better testimony to the legacy of the
Programme than first, the existence in each region today of a
very active constituency of stakeholders in the urban manage-
ment field comprising the regional networks of institutions, ex-
perts and practitioners, informed academics, consultancy firms,
non-governmental organizations and city managers. Second, the
existence of these networks has meant vast improvement in the
database, knowledge, and expertise available for dealing with
problems of urbanization in individual countries and regions.
But thirdly and most importantly, the existence of these networks
has enabled the new international effort at urban development
known as the Cities Alliance to take off effectively without much
concern with issues of capacity building.
Yet, in spite of this legacy, there is no room for complacen-
cy. The enormity of the challenge which the Urban Management
Programme was set up to confront some twenty years ago remains
as daunting as ever. With the world’s urban population projected
to rise to more than 53 per cent of the total by the year 2015 and
with more than 90 per cent of the 1 billion increase between 2000
and 2015 occurring in developing countries, the task of ensuring
that policy makers in governments, international organizations and
donor agencies generally treat the problems of their exploding ur-
ban population and sustainable urban environment with the exi-
gent seriousness that they deserve is going to be as critical as ever.
This is particularly so if many countries of the developing world are
to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which the
United Nations and the whole of the global community had set
themselves to achieve within the next few decades.
Professor Akin L. Mabogunje is the Chairman (retired) of the
Nigerian Presidential Technical Committee on Housing and
Urban Development. Based in Ibadan, he was awarded the 1998
Habitat Scroll of Honour for his academic contributions to urban
development in Africa.
5
Habitat Debate December 2005
Opinion
Present at the Creation: Reflections on
the Urban Management Programme
By Michael Cohen
My involvement with the Urban Management
Programme came in the mid-1980s through my regular
participation in UN-HABITAT Governing Council meetings as a
member of the World Bank delegation. During the 1980s there
was considerable concern among urban staff at the Bank that UN-
HABITAT needed to become a stronger institution in order to
play a larger role in international urban assistance.
We were frustrated by the fact that UN-HABITAT’s work pro-
gramme seemed too dispersed over a wide range of subjects and,
given the limited financial resources of the organization, unable
to really focus on key urban issues. Many of us believed that a
stronger UN-HABITAT would be a major asset in internation-
al urban assistance.
This perception led to discussions between Anthony Churchill,
the Director of the Water and Urban Development Department
of the World Bank, and Dr. Arcot Ramachandran, Executive
Director of Habitat, about the possibility of the Bank helping the
agency acquire more financial resources to build up a critical mass
of expertise on high priority subjects. An agreement was reached
about a joint approach to the United Nations Development
Programme and a polling of resources to focus on various subject
areas of urban management.
Later, in 1989, when I returned to take over the Urban
Development Division in the Bank, I found an elaborate tri-par-
tite collaboration between UN-HABITAT, UNDP, and the Bank.
Staff and consultants working under this programme were pro-
ducing a variety of state of the art papers – which were mistaken-
ly called “policy papers”, because they were not determining the
policy of any institution.
In the early 1990s, the UMP seemed to me to have wildly ex-
aggerated perceptions of its own self-importance.
At no time did the UMP ever exceed US$5 million per year. Yet
the Bank’s urban lending programme during the 1990s averaged
from US$1-2 billion in projects, all of which included at least 10-
15% in technical assistance and studies. In other words, the Bank
was lending, on the low side, from US$100 million to the high
side US$300 million a year in urban technical assistance.
Indeed, the UMP seemed to be heavily relying on the World
Bank urban staff, such as William Dillinger and Fitz Ford, for
generating policy approaches apart from the Bank’s work.
This point was underlined in the commitment made by the
Bank at Habitat II in Istanbul in June 1996 when Mr. Caio Koch-
Weser, then Managing Director of the World Bank, committed
the Bank to US$15 billion over 5 years in urban lending. These
funds were available for country projects, but actually only about
half that amount – still a considerable sum – was allocated to ur-
ban lending.
UNDP’s “exaggerated” view of the importance of the pro-
gramme undermined the credibility of the programme in the
Bank and reduced the interest of Bank urban staff who might
have worked with the UMP. This can be understood as inter-
agency rivalry - with UNDP becoming increasingly resentful of
the Bank in that period.
The two major contributions of the UMP, in my view, appear
to have been:
The decentralization of capacity outside of Nairobi, New
York, and Washington, to regional offices where local initi-
atives and priorities were heard and supported.
The establishment of a forum of donors and aid-related in-
stitutions to discuss urban issues. This group proved to be
the forerunner of the Cities Alliance and helped to advance
the international debate on urban issues. A case can be
made that the UMP contributed to the City Development
Strategy work now promoted by the Cities Alliance.
Finally, while I believe that these two contributions were sig-
nificant, it has to be asked whether a truly hard-headed evalu-
ation of the UMP would give us all very high grades. I suspect
not. It is not evident to me on the basis of my admittedly limited
knowledge of the present programme that the UMP can claim to
have had a major impact on the process of urbanization in devel-
oping countries. This suggests to me that greater humility would
have been more appropriate on the part of the participants dur-
ing the 1990s.
Michael Cohen, former Chief of the Urban Development
Division, World Bank, is now the Director, Graduate Program in
International Affairs, New School University, New York.
6 Habitat Debate December 2005Overview
Our Common Past: the contribution of the Urban Management ProgrammeBy Dinesh Mehta
The two decades of UMP experience
is a valuable depository of knowledge,
innovative best experiences, and new pol-
icy initiatives. Even though the UMP as a
programme has ended, its principles and
knowledge are sustained and used in im-
proving urban management practices in
the developing countries through various
urban programmes and the urban govern-
ance campaign.
Responding tothe global agendaAs a global programme, designed and gov-
erned collectively by global partners, the
UMP provided a platform to focus on
putting urban issues on the international
agenda. The underlying vision of the UMP
was to respond to the Habitat Agenda
themes of sustainable urban development f
and the urbanisation of poverty. The initial
perspective was a global one, concentrat-
ing on the development of urban manage-
ment frameworks and tools.
But with the process of decentraliza-
tion being initiated in many countries,
the UMP programme management struc-
ture was decentralised by establishing
four regional offices in Asia, Africa, Latin
America, and the Arab States region. These
regional offices operated under a common
mandate and had a common set of oper-
ating procedures. But they adopted differ-
ent approaches to translate the global tools
and frameworks to regional and national
circumstances.
The United Nations Conference on
Human Settlements (Habitat II) in
Istanbul in 1996, identified major princi-
ples guiding future activities of the UN sys-
tem. In response to these, the UMP began
working directly with local governments
in developing countries to build their ca-
pacity. During this phase, over 120 city
consultations in 57 countries were carried
out through regional anchor institutions
Promoting new paradigmsImproved urban governance is one of the
most important factors in reaching the
potential of cities, not only in addressing
the challenge of urban poverty, but also
in harnessing the economic opportuni-
ties. The programme has been at the fore-
front promoting new paradigms of urban
development through its activities at the
global, regional and local level. The UMP
aimed to supplement the largely techno-
cratic processes used by urban managers in
dealing with a range of urban issues, with
a more inclusive approach of city consul-
tations that promoted participation and
empowerment. In a sense, the UMP suc-
ceeded in shifting the focus away from
‘management’ to ‘governance’ at the local
level. It was seen as the operational arm
of the urban governance campaign. The
city consultation approach that promoted
pro-poor participatory governance used a
range of thematic areas as entry points to
promote these new paradigms.
Fostering innovationThe UMP has been at the forefront of sup-
porting innovative urban management
practices and fostering its adaptation in
other countries. For example, the initial
activities in urban agriculture in a few cit-
ies have now been replicated through a
network of cities involved in urban agricul-
ture in Latin America and the Caribbean,
Asia and Africa.
Similarly, the UMP has been instru-
mental in promoting management of the
HIV/AIDS pandemic at local level. The
Participatory Budgeting practiced in cities
of Brazil was promoted by UMP in Latin
America. Through UN-HABITAT’s urban
governance campaign, tool-kits have been
developed to promote the practice of par-
ticipatory budgeting. The UMP’s flexible
demand-driven approach to take up new
and innovative ideas has resulted in major
programmes in UNDP and UN-HABITAT
that sustain these innovations.
Strategy of City ConsultationsThe UMP city consultations are aimed
at promoting participatory urban devel-
opment. As the UMP guidelines on city
consultations states: “Participatory devel-
opment stands for partnership which is
built upon the basis of dialogue among
various actors, during which the agenda is
jointly set, and local views and indigenous
knowledge are deliberately sought and re-
spected. This implies negotiations rather
than the dominance of an externally set
project agenda. Thus people become ac-
tors instead of being beneficiaries. ”
Through the process of participation of
civil society, the UMP city consultations
sought to cement a true partnership among
the civil society and the local government.
Many innovative tools and approaches for
engaging civil society were adopted during
these consultations. Despite the different
circumstances under which local govern-
ments operate, many cities were able to
derive significant benefits from the city
consultations.
The city consultations were generally
undertaken in those cities that had dem-
onstrated their willingness to engage in a
participatory process. These cities also had
some capacity to improve their internal or-
ganization, service delivery and credibility
with stakeholders. There was also a strong
presence of organized stakeholder groups
in these cities. These characteristics seem
to be a pre-requisite for a successful city
consultation process.
Anchor InstitutionsUnlike most technical assistance pro-
grammes that depend on expert consult-
ants, the UMP strategy was to locate the
city level activities in local institutions.
These institutions were referred to as “an-
chor” institutions, where the UMP princi-
ples, philosophy and knowledge would be
sustained beyond the life of programme.
The UMP strategy to engage anchor insti-
tutions has provided additional value to
the programme.
As a result of their engagement with
the Programme, these regional institu-
tions have been able to expand their ac-
tivities and gain further recognition in
their regions. The anchor institutions of
the UMP are established leaders in the
field of urban development. However,
through their association with the
Programme, many institutions had the
opportunity to extend the geographic
and thematic coverage of their activities.
These institutions are now well recog-
nised, not only in their own countries,
but also in the region through their ac-
tivities related to the UMP.
The transition of the UMP from a UN-
managed programme run by the anchor
institutions in the past two years has been
an important experience in building “val-
ue-based’ partnerships.
7Habitat Debate December 2005 Overview
Vision Sustainable urban development
Improved living conditions for the poor
Promoting New Paradigms Partnership
Participatory governance
Empowerment of local actors, especially the poor
Thematic Entry-points Land Management, Municipal Administration and Finance, Urban
Environment, Poverty Reduction, Governance, Gender, Urban
Agriculture, HIV/AIDS
Key-strategies City-consultations
Anchor institutions and networks
Strategic outcomes Capacity building of all stakeholders
Promotion of national policy change
Institutionalisation of participatory processes at local level
Building knowledge of innovative urban management experiences
Key Outputs Partnerships with programmes (Sustainable cities, Safer cities, LA
21, LIFE, PPPUE, Cities Alliance, HIV/AIDS, urban governance
campaign)
Knowledge Repository – over 500 publications from global and re-
gional partners
Tools and guidelines on a range of urban management topics
Innovative local experiences through 120 city consultations in 57
countries
Anchor institutions and local partners networks in each region
(Source: Adapted from a presentation by Françoise Liberherr at a UMP meeting in 2001)
There are now anchor institutions net-
works in each region: The African Network
of Urban Management Institutions
(ANUMI(( ), The Near East and North
Africa (NENA) Urban Forum, the Urban
Resource Centre for Asia and Pacific
(URCAP), and the consortium of UMP-
Latin America and Caribbean anchor in-
stitutions. They are now responsible for
ensuring that urban management and ca-
pacity building activities are sustained be-
yond the life of the UMP. The challenge
for the anchor institution networks is to
transcend beyond their programmatic
origin, and get recognized on their own
merit.
Outcomes and impactsAs a first major global urban programme,
the UMP has influenced global discussions
on urban issues and is instrumental in
promoting many new urban programmes.
Though its influence on urban policy at
national level can not be easily ascertained,
it has been instrumental in promoting di-
alogue among cities and national govern-
ments on a range of issues. By involving
local partners and anchor institutions, it
has also provided a platform for engage-
ment of a range of actors in the urban
development process. But above all, the
UMP is recognised as a major repository
of urban knowledge.
While the principal focus of the UMP
was on promoting participatory process-
es, it was weak when it came to measuring
the impacts of these participatory proc-
esses on the performance of local author-
ities and on the well-being of the poor.
The follow-up to UMP city consultations
have also been weak. The city consulta-
tions were meant to ‘change the way lo-
cal authorities do their business’. But this
has not always happened. By its design,
UMP partners were unable to remain en-
gaged with the same city for a long peri-
od of time. It was therefore difficult to
assess the impact of UMP city consulta-
tions in cities. The participatory nature
of consultations often resulted in ambi-
tious plans, but there was no investment
follow-up to ensure that these plans were
implemented.
Recognising these shortcomings,
in the final years of the UMP, a pro-
gramme on localising the Millennium
Development Goals was drawn up, be-
cause the targets of the MDGs provide
universally accepted measures of so-
cial development. A few UMP partners
and institutions have begun to use the
MDGs as a framework for city consul-
tations. It is expected that these consul-
tations will be able to establish the link
between improved local governance and
the MDG targets at local level.
Dinesh Mehta is Coordinator of the Urban
Management Programme at UN-HABITAT.
8 Habitat Debate December 2005Forum
Two decades of Urban ManagementBy Daniel Biau
The UMP was initiated in at
Istanbul, 10 years after the first Habitat
conference, and a decade before Habitat
II. Its launch marked an important step in
the evolution of international thinking on
urban development.
In 1976, at Vancouver, the world dis-
covered slums and squatter settlements,
the problems of rapid urbanization in the
South, as well as the serious limitations of
urban planning. The international com-
munity also discovered the first urban
projects, sites and services and settlements
upgrading schemes. This project-approach,
based on the implementation of well-de-
fined physical projects, prevailed from
1976 to 1986, while master planning dis-
appeared progressively from the priorities
of developing countries.
Between 1982 and 1986, a new concept
of urban management emerged. The idea
was to replace long-term physical planning,
which had no real impact on city devel-
opment, with daily action-oriented urban
management, integrating both physical
and financial parameters. The other goal
was to insert discrete projects within a
framework of overall city management.
However, the approach remained secto-
ral, and UMP-Phase 1 addressed three are-
as, revealing still a technical understanding
of urban challenges – finance, land and in-
frastructure – as key components of the
urban development process. In addition,
UMP-Phase 1 tried to influence central
governments more than local authorities.
Urban management was replacing master
planning, but municipal development was
not yet on the agenda.
One of the discoveries of this first phase
was precisely to highlight the potential
role of local governments in urban man-
agement. The second phase of UMP went
further, by directly supporting decentral-
ization processes in various developing
countries.
The UMP-thematic focus evolved in
parallel, as Phase 2 incorporated two mul-
tisectoral objectives of urban policy: en-
vironmental management and poverty
reduction. These two objectives became
also top priorities of multilateral and bi-
lateral support agencies, as well as of the
Habitat Agenda adopted in Istanbul in
June 1996.
From the thematic point of view, UMP-
Phase 2 has combined the sectoral ap-
proach of the 1980s with the integrated
approach of the 1990s.
This transition led to a structuring of
Phase 3 around three objectives: protect-
ing the environment, reducing poverty
and improving governance, which are all
multisectoral.
The importance given to urban govern-
ance reflects a major step towards a bet-
ter understanding of urban problems and
also offers a direction for their resolution.
The concept of good or sound governance
– defined as a system of government that
is participatory, transparent, equitable and
effective – refers to the political dimension
of urban management. Sound governance
requires the combination of urban man-
agement and local democracy. It emerged
in the early 1990s as the new paradigm in
the urban development arena.
This is where we stood in 1996. From
planning to management, from manage-
ment to governance, from central govern-
ment to local authorities, from technocracy
to partnerships, from large infrastructure
to sustainable development, UMP was at
the heart of many debates on urban devel-
opment during the 1986-1996 decade.
During its third phase (1997-2001),
the UMP tried to build adequate regional
capacities to implement these new policies
in developing cities. Having established
four regional offices, the UMP devel-
oped an institutional anchoring strategy
through which it built the capacities of a
number of national and regional institutes
which became centres of excellence in ur-
ban management (see articles). This was a
difficult process as it was going against the
well-established approach whereby exper-
tise comes systematically from the North.
In fact this exercise had to be extended
into a fourth phase (2002-2005).
A most interesting dimension of
the last decade was the promotion of
city consultations as a means to trans-
late good urban governance into reality.
Invented by the UMP and its twin sister,
the Sustainable Cities Programme, city
consultations are a practical way to in-
volve stakeholders in urban planning and
management, i.e. to define common pri-
orities, agree on responsibilities and in-
itiate concrete actions. More than 100
cities, helped by UMP, adopted this ap-
proach which has become an interna-
tional standard.
While city consultations are essential at
the planning stage, they have to be com-
plemented by follow-up mechanisms at
the implementation stage. This may have
been the weakness of UMP, connected to
the persistent weakness of municipal fi-
nance systems in many developing coun-
tries. The programme has identified some
promising options such as city communi-
ty challenge funds and participatory budg-
eting, but a lot remains to be done in this
area. In fact, after 20 years, we are back
to this crucial issue of urban finance, the
stumbling block of urban management
that the World Bank has not been able to
fix in spite of billions of US dollars of capi-
tal assistance (see article page 5 by Michael
Cohen).
Finally, we should emphasize an im-
portant result of the UMP, which is to
have introduced urban poverty and ur-
ban governance into the mainstream of
UN-HABITAT activities. The Global
Campaign on Urban Governance,
launched during UMP-Phase 3, has been
derived directly from the UMP experience.
And the UMP has worked closely with
UN-HABITAT Regional Offices to pro-
mote City Development Strategies and
Regional networks of urban experts.
The UMP has been a useful think-tank
and a broad network of experts. It has re-
newed urban planning approaches and
built new capacities in the developing
world.
Three global coordinators played an
important role to ensure its success: Emiel
Wegelin (1994-1996), Paul Taylor (1997-
1999) and Dinesh Mehta (2000-2005)
managed the programme in a highly pro-
fessional and efficient way. Their contribu-
tions must be publicly recognized.
Daniel Biau is Director of u UN-HABITAT’s
Regional and Technical Cooperation
Division.
The UMP has been a useful P
think-tank and a broad
network of experts.
9Habitat Debate December 2005 Forum
One of the most remarkable trends
in the recent history of development
cooperation is the process of bringing glo-
bal structures to respond to local needs
and assets. In its 60th year, the UN as a
whole is no longer a club of central gov-
ernments but is increasingly a convener
and facilitator of genuine demands com-
ing from all societal actors.
The history of the Urban Management
Programme (UMP) thus reflects the his-
tory of development cooperation. The
United Nations Development Programme
is proud to have started UMP and sup-
ported it in all four phases of its existence.
It is important to remark that our sup-
port has been changing in accordance
with changes within the UNDP – from a
purely funding in Phase 1 from 1986 to
1991, to funding and monitoring between
1990 and 1996 in Phases 2 and 3, to a ful-
ly fledged substantive partner from 1997
to 2005 in Phase 4.
UNDP drove the process of chang-
ing the executing agency arrangements
from the World Bank in Phase 1 to
UN-HABITAT in view of technical coop-
eration with UN-HABITAT at the country
level, while the World Bank remained as a
global partner.
UNDP was also instrumental in the
establishment of Regional UMP Offices
in Africa, the Arab States, Asia and Latin
America, while UN-HABITAT prepared
the format.
In its role as Chair of the Programme
Review Committee, UNDP contributed
not only in terms of substantive monitor-
ing, but also in transparent follow-up and
resource mobilization from donors. For
their part, the donors were not only finan-
cial contributors, but also active substan-
tive partners and long-term colleagues.
The flexibility and openness of UMP
partners was an important factor in es-
tablishing a smooth thematic transition
from one phase to the next. From the
purely technical concerns with munic-
ipal finance and land-use management
in the early 1990s, to state-of-the-art
participatory approaches in the new
Millennium, UMP has uncovered new
thematic arenas for global cooperation
and left a legacy of lessons learned and
concrete partnerships.
These included breaking new ground in
urban governance and HIV/AIDS in cit-
ies and towns. Many UNDP programmes
provided inputs and have learned from
UMP: The Local Initiative Facility for
the Urban Environment, and the Public-
Private Partnerships Programme for
the Urban Environment are examples.
UNDP, through the UMP, contributed
to UN-HABITAT’s very successful urban
governance campaign. The UNDP pol-
icy paper on Governance for Sustainable
Human Development, approved by thett
UNDP Executive Board in 1996, was
mainstreamed through various compo-
nents of the Programme. And, not least,
the fact that UMP continues spontane-
ously as a relevant network of institutions
based in the regions.
At the country level, the network of
UNDP Country Offices helped provide
institutional and even financial support to-
wards scaling-up and mainstreaming some
of the activities pioneered by the UMP.
UNDP was very concerned to develop the
City Consultation methodology with lo-
cal follow-up funding and action to ensure
implementation at the local level. In this
regard, the role of anchor institutions in
providing local knowledge and action to
the global network was fundamental.
There is no question that the UMP suc-
ceeded because of the relative strength of
each of the three main partners – the World
Bank in terms of its original research capa-
bilities, UN-HABITAT as the operational
arm and lead agency in the UN in this sec-
tor, and UNDP as the programme coordi-
nator and substantive monitor.
G.Shabbir Cheema is Principal
Adviser and Programme Director, UN
Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UNDESA). Jonas Rabinovitch
is Programme Adviser, Capacity 2015,
and Senior Policy Adviser for Urban
Development and Rural-ll Urban Relations,
UNDP. Robertson Work is Principal k
Policy Advisor, Decentralised Governance,
UNDP.
UNDP support to the Urban Management Programme – connecting global actors to local realities
By G. Shabbir Cheema, Jonas Rabinovitch and Robertson Work
Global partnership lessons learned through the UMPTo be effective, partnerships should be outcome-oriented.
2 Effective global programmes should combine local, national, regional and global activities.
3 Participatory processes like the City Consultation are essential to engage lo-cal actors in their cities and towns. Direct targeting of the urban poor, wom-en and the degraded environment was essential to the programme’s impact.
4 On-going analysis and documentation of experience provide an important knowledge management component that contributes to scale-up global co-operation at the local level. Combining research and action in an ongoing in-terplay enhanced both knowledge creation and effective implementation.
5 The establishment of networks at the national and regional levels is an im-portant means to connect global programmes with local realities.
6 The network of anchor and partner institutions helped consolidate lessons learned at the local level and enhanced the sustainability of the programme.
-stantive partners provided transparency and a true sense of programme ownership.
8 The institution of regular Programme Review Committee meetings en-hanced transparent monitoring, participation and sustainability.
development cooperation while following major substantive developments in
10 Challenges at the local level are integrated. The ability to provide integrated solutions combining poverty, environment and governance concerns, among others, gave the UMP a realistic track record in handling development chal-lenges at the local level.
10 Habitat Debate December 2005Forum
The UMP has a future on its ownBy Stig Egnell
The Swedish International Develop-
ment Cooperation Agency (Sida)
has supported the Urban Management
Programme (UMP) for many reasons.
Sida found that its general and themat-
ic focus corresponded closely to Sweden’s
own development priorities on problems
of poverty reduction, good governance,
environmental concern, gender equality
and the fight against HIV/AIDS.
A plus factor was the Programme’s flex-
ibility and adaptability. The UMP has
evolved from its technical beginnings into
a goal and process oriented programme.
Another positive factor was the logical de-
centralisation process of the Programme
from global to regional structures, down
to the local municipal level. The focus on
partnerships and networking was also no-
table – especially the development of re-
gional and national anchoring institutions
as a means of leveraging and sustainabili-
ty, as well as the emphasis on knowledge
management and dissemination of lessons
learned. Finally, there was an appeal in the
innovative transparent governance struc-
ture, based on the Programme Review
Committee, with active participation of
donors and multilateral partners. It ena-
bled donors not only to be considered as
financial sources, but as a resource for de-
veloping experience and as a channel for
communicating that experience to others
engaged in development.
As a major global programme running
for nearly two decades, the UMP is credit-
ed with putting urban issues on the inter-
national agenda, and influencing policies
at regional and national level. Indeed, the
UMP was one of the very first programmes
to focus the urban challenge. Its role at the
frontline here has gained increasing recog-
nition as testified by the strong demand
for UMP publications which number
more than 500 titles.
The UMP´s impact is clearly evident in
the many cities where the Programme has
been active and its ideas adopted.
A major contribution of the UMP is
the introduction of city consultations
as a means of participatory governance
including a wide group of stakehold-
ers. Other programmes have also adopt-
ed this methodology. Not the least, the
Programme has been instrumental in ad-
vocating good governance as a prerequi-
site for poverty reduction.
For the future, a strong focus on the
local and community level should be
maintained and strengthened. To achieve
impact on the ground, and indeed at-
tain the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), the action plans devised through
the city consultation process have to be
implemented.
Many international agencies have be-
gun to use the MDGs as a development
framework for assistance. The number of
people living in slums and squatter settle-
ments is increasing and putting an added
burden on urban infrastructure. Therefore,
the achievement of MDGs in urban are-
as may not only be the most difficult to
achieve, but also the most urgently needed.
The importance of including and empow-
ering the urban poor and other stakehold-
ers to co-operate with capacitated local
governments in this process is obvious.
The UMP’s investments over a long pe-
riod have resulted in a valuable capital for
improving living conditions of the urban
poor. In summary, this capital includes:
A wealth of knowledge in the form
of lessons learned, tools and guide-
lines on urban management in de-
veloping countries.
An innovative methodology in the
form of participatory pro-poor city
consultations carried out in many
cities and countries.
A network of regional anchor insti-
tutions and many national or local
partner institutions.
This capital can be utilised to help ”lo-
calizing” the MDGs. The city consultation
process offers a means for local authorities
and stakeholders to take ownership of the
MDG process at local level.
Although the UMP will cease to be a
UN programme this year, the anchor in-
stitutions and networks are expected to
carry on its work. These now have a very
important role to play in managing and
disseminating the Programme’s wealth of
knowledge. The regional structures are
also interesting potential executing part-
ners for other initiatives. Many donors
are changing their funding modalities. In
Sida’s case, the main resources are chan-
nelled via regional funds.
However, the four regional net-
works might still be fragile. It is there-
fore important that they remain able
to rely on the advice and assistance of
UN-HABITAT.
Stig Egnell, is a Consulting Architect
Planner and Urban Advisor to Sida. He has
been engaged in the UMP since 1995.
Bringing the MDGs to places like this slum on the outskirts of Nouakchott, Mauritania has been a goal of the UMP and donors like Sida. Photo © Giacomo Pirozzi / PANOS
11Habitat Debate December 2005 Forum
Objectives Progress-
ments in developing countries for improved prac-tices of pro-poor participatory urban governance,including (a) adoption of improved and coherentpro-poor (urban poverty reduction) policies and (b)improved legislative and regulatory frameworks aimed at poverty reduction adopted in cities partici-pating in pro-poor consultations.
Number of cities carrying out pro-poor cityconsultations
120 city consultation processes + 7CDS
1.2. Pro-poor action plans/strategies resulting from thecity and country consultations developed, approved and implemented.
Number of Action Plans where key componentsare implemented through internal and external resources and stakeholder participation.
48 cities engaged in the implementa-tion of action plans
1.3. City consultation activities resulting in a scaling-up of territorial, policy, pro-poor participation, gender and poverty reduction programmes in response tourban management challenges
Scaling-up of City Consultation interventionsdocumented and disseminated.
8 cases of scaling up of CCinterventions
2. Capacities of regional anchor institutions consolidated
2.1. Strengthened capacity of anchor institutions to im-plement and scale up action plans/ city develop-ment strategies derived through city consultation processes in selected cities.
Capacity building programme for regional anchor institutions integrated in cooperation agreements with regional anchor institutions / local partners
15 training activities recorded Institutional development plans pre-pared by anchor institutions
Training and capacity-building effortsare taking place in regional centres.
2.2. Establishment of knowledge management systemsin anchor institutions.
Number of training manuals, tool-kits, lessonslearned publications, best practices publications and related KM products developed per region per year
Overall, nearly 400 reports and docu-ments published
City consultation tools developed and other KM materials and strate-gies underway in all regions. Frequentto steady publication output. Globalnewsletter a regular output.
2.3. Anchor institutions with adequate capacity to advo-
in pro-poor urban governance and support coun-tries within the region to formulate, develop, and implement policies and programmes of action on urban management.
Number of regional networks and forums thatanchor institutions are actively involved with.
Frequent involvement in regional net-works and forums. Examples includeAfricities, Asia Urban Forum, Social fo-rum in LAC and NENA forum.
3. Consolidate UMP knowledge management systems with complementary global knowledge management initiatives
3.1. A global and regional network of information, ex-perts, practitioners and policy makers for poli-cy development, best practices/lessons learnedexchange and knowledge management on pro-poor participatory urban governance and urban management.
Global and Regional web sites operational, fre-quently used and updated every two months
Database containing all city consultation experi-ences, anchor institution documents, and UMP publications.
4 regional and 1 global website active and regularly updated.
Global database in UMP publication no 27
3.2. Analysis and synthesis of lessons learnt from expe-rience and capacity building materials in pro-poor participatory urban governance for local authori-ties, municipal networks and regional associations.Produced and disseminated.
Knowledge management tool and training manu-al produced and disseminated at the global level
Activities carried out by city/country networksand organizations to disseminate the city consul-tation experience
Toolkit on Participatory Planning pro-duced through UN-HABITAT govern-ance campaign
Evaluation report of city consultation published
-icies of External Support Agencies and enhanced global awareness of urban management issues.
Results of one global seminar and four regional seminars disseminated to stakeholders
Number of media reports at global, nation-al and local level per year, covering UrbanManagement activities
UMP Phase 3 report prepared and dis-seminated.
Media reports of city consultation re-ported at PRC
4. Mainstreaming Gender in Urban Management
4.1. Gender mainstreamed into all UMP programmeand projects and reporting activities.
Number of products, including city consultations documentation, capacity building tools, training manuals and policy papers, where gender analy-sis/impact dimension has been integrated
20 products with clear gender dimen-sion
Gender focus in 7 CCs. LAC and Asia Regional Gender competition. All HIV/
gender.
Compiled by Michael Parkes, Senior Urban Advisor to DfID, UK
Strengthening local governance, poverty reduction, and environmental improvementThe table below gives an accurate reflection of the UMP’s achievements as seen from the vantage point of the Department for International
Development of the United Kingdom.
12 Habitat Debate December 2005Regional
Better Urban Management in AsiaBy Nathaniel von Einsiedel
When UN-HABITAT’s invited me WWinWW to join the Urban Manage-
ment Programme, little did I expect that
I’d be spending the next 13 years with one
of the most professionally fulfilling experi-
ences of my life. It was a total learning ex-
perience, starting with my being engaged
as Task Manager for Capacity Building
and subsequently as Regional Coordinator
for Asia-Pacific.
There had never been a technical coop-
eration programme like the UMP before.
Its city consultation approach was unique,
and has been widely documented. What I
would like to share are three lessons that
stand out in my mind – it was demand-
driven, participatory, and valued Local
Partner Institutions (LPIs).
I found being demand-driven to be dif-ff
ficult when introducing more effective ur-
ban management practices to city mayors
and managers who do not exactly know
what to ‘demand’. Thus with the help of
the Asia Regional Panel of Experts, we de-
veloped a “menu” of technical assistance
topics from which mayors or city manag-
ers could choose the support they needed.
This helped elicit the request for technical
support, but there were a number of cas-
es where the menu item chosen did not
really reflect the most critical need, requir-
ing major redirection midway through the
consultation process.
Phase 1 of the UMP produced many
publications, but these were largely too
technical for the typical Asian mayor or ur-
ban manager. I tried to help by producing
the UMP-Asia Occasional Paper, Primer on
Urban Management. But our budget did
not allow us to print this in languages other
than English. In Asia, knowledge of English
is extremely limited especially in developing
countries.
On the participatory approach, it was
when we launched the city consultations
in China and Vietnam that I realized the
cultural difference in how the terms ‘stake-
holders’ and ‘citizen participation’ are used
or understood. It was wrong to assume that
the Chinese and Vietnamese mayors under-
stood these terms as I did. They explained
that their People’s Committees (PCs) repre-
sented the city stakeholders, and thus there
was no need to organize new groups. I was
not sure how representative the PCs were,
but I gave them the benefit of the doubt,
and it seemed to work well, at least in their
particular circumstances.
It was similar with the term ‘citizen par-
ticipation,’ which I’ve realized is culturally
contextual. How it is understood and prac-
ticed in the industrialized world compared
to the developing world is very different.
In Asia, hardly anyone attends a town hall
meeting. The urban poor particularly do
not participate in formal public hearings. In
promoting the UMP’s participatory proc-
ess, we tended to impose our own way of
thinking instead of adapting this to the lo-
cal cultural context. We pushed the Western
norms of participation without first deter-
mining the local approaches to achieving
consensus. We should have devoted more
time and effort to studying the local culture
before launching city consultations.
On the final lesson, Local Partner Institutions were crucial too to the success
of every city consultation. With the diver-
sity of Asia’s cultures, it is impossible for an
outsider to get effective urban management
accepted without any local support. Not
only does the LPI speak the local language,
it also has knowledge of local decision-mak-
ing processes, including the political dy-yy
namics underlying it.
The UMP consultation process invaria-
bly involves change. This inevitably gener-
ates sensitivities if not outright objection
from those affected, especially those in posi-
tions of power. Thus, the LPIs contribution
in dealing with those obstacles is indispen-
sable. Its better “feel” of the local dynamics
is crucial to forging consensus. Often, we
tend to give too much weight to the tech-
nical or substantive qualities of change
agents, rather than their process skills in fa-
cilitating dialogue, and in getting change
considered accepted, implemented and
institutionalized.
However, there is an obstacle that needs
to be overcome. It is the tendency among
some Asian mayors, particularly those in
least developed countries, to favor expa-
triate consultants over local experts. These
mayors seem to believe that local experts are
not ‘good enough’, that the farther away an
expert comes from, the better his or her ex-
pertise. As we know, this is not true, but it
remains an obstacle.
Nathaniel von Einsiedel was the UMP’s
Asia-Pacific Regional Coordinator.
UMP-Asia Local partner InstitutionsCountry RPI/LPI Contact
1. Bangladesh Bangladesh Center for AdvancedStudies (BCAS)
Email: [email protected]: www.bcas.net
2. Cambodia Gender and Development for Cambodia (GAD/C)
Email: [email protected]
3. China Shenyang Environmental Protection
(SEPFFIO)
4. India Citizens Voluntary Initiative for theCity (CIVIC Bangalore)
Email: [email protected]
Administrative Support College of India (ASCI)
Email: [email protected]
5. Indonesia Pt. Wiswakharman Email: [email protected]
7. Nepal Lumanti Support Group Email: [email protected]
Municipal Association of Nepal(MuAN)
E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.muannepal.org
8. Philippines VEDCOR Philippines (Ventures and Entrepreneurship Development Center in the Orient, Inc.)
Email: [email protected]
9. Sri Lanka SEVANATHA Urban Research Centre
Email: [email protected]
10. Thailand Thailand Environment Institute (TEI) Email: [email protected]
11. Vietnam Urbnet-Vietnam Email: [email protected]@hn.vnn.vn
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Bangkok, Thailand – Dr. Girija Shrestha [email protected]: http://www.serd.ait.ac.th/ump/ All India Institute of Local Self Government (AIILSG), Mumbai, India [email protected]
13Habitat Debate December 2005 Regional
Giving women a voice in Urban Governance – Experiences from UMP-AsiaBy Girija Shrestha and Ranjith Perera
It is common knowledge that wom-
en’s participation in public decision-
making is minimal compared to that of
men. In a pattern prevalent in most gov-
ernment and local administrative sectors
in the Asia-Pacific region, women consti-
tute only 6 percent of mayors and 18 per-
cent of city councillors.
This under-representation means that
the needs and priorities of women, espe-
cially those living in urban poverty, are ex-
cluded from the decision-making process
at every level and thus from the develop-
ment process.
The Urban Management Programme
sought to redress this by using the city
consultation system to solicit the concerns
of women and bring them into the deci-
sion, planning and implementation phas-
es of city development.
The UMP led by anchor institu-
tions in the region, is now called the
Urban Resource Network for Asia Pacific
(URNAP). The Bangkok-based Asian
Institute of Technology serves as a regional
secretariat of URNAP, while the All India
Institute of Local Self Government is a sub
regional secretariat. Using available limit-
ed resources, it strives for gender sensi-
tive city consultations, and seeks to ensure
that city-level government officers under-
stand the concerns and needs of women. It
has also been conducting workshops and
seminars to share knowledge and even ar-
ranged a local government contest on gen-
der sensitivity.
For example, it held a series of ur-
ban poverty reduction seminars focused
on the needs of women in Phnom Penh,
Vientiane, New Delhi, and Lalitpur, Nepal
– each different in socio-economic terms
and the way it is administered. The con-
sultations covered shelter, capacity build-
ing for women in poverty, HIV/AIDS and
other key problems.
The UMP intervention in Delhi, has
had a visible impact on the status of slum
women, who are now much more aware
and better informed of their position and
status on land tenure and the right to shel-
ter. They are also in a better position to ne-
gotiate for their demands of basic services
and land tenure with the authorities. At a
household level, being engaged in micro-
credit activities, women have more bar-
gaining power and more say at home.
Similarly, in Lalitpur, self-help groups
were formed and women’s leadership was
developed. The consultation approach
gave these slum dwellers confidence that
they have the potential to be the biggest
agent of change.
The consultation in Vientiane showed
that bringing women into the implemen-
tation of infrastructure development is
pivotal to the success of any given proj-
ect, and the UMP gender consultation
has expanded from 3 to 40 villages with
assistance of Asian Development Bank
funding.
Despite the differences between the
cities, a common approach was adopt-
ed to ensure better commitment of gen-
der needs at the leadership level, to bring
more women representatives into the pro-
cess, encourage reporting that takes wom-
en’s concerns into account, and raising
awareness so that gender sensitive action
plans are implemented.
The consultations found that gender
awareness does not come naturally to pro-
fessionals and decision-makers whether
they are men or women, and that chang-
es in organizational culture are required. It
was also found that inclusive partnerships
in urban governance must also take into
account the obstacles to women’s involve-
ment in public life, such as a lack of confi-
dence or skills, and the burden of multiple
responsibilities.
The experiences of the UMP have
shown that participation in the deci-
sion-making body is the first step to meet
gender equality. The capacity building ac-
tivities can be conducted in parallel to it to
make them more efficient and confident
as well as sustainable.
Women leaders said the UMP consul-
tations had helped lead to a change for the
better in their social status, encouraged
more women to join in, increased confi-
dence, raised their economic empower-
ment and given them a stronger voice in
their communities and their homes.
UMP evidence clearly shows that a proj-
ect designed with an understanding of the
needs of disadvantaged people not only im-
proves their living conditions but also rais-
es their self-esteem and self-confidence.
Girija Shrestha and Ranjith Perera are
faculty members of the Asian Institute of
Technology coordinating UMP activities in
the region.
14 Habitat Debate December 2005Regional
Cairo, home of a UMP anchor institution in the Middle East. Photo © Mark Henley / PANOS
The active partners of the Urban
Management Programme in the Arab
States Region conducted a wide range of
city consultations on land management,
gender, governance, and HIV/AIDS. These
activities built new awareness, opening
the debate on problems that were either
neglected or deemed taboo. In some cases,
they influenced policy. UMP implementa-
tion in the region was initially undertaken
by a number of institutions and individ-
uals. To ensure sustainability, these insti-
tutions created a regional network called
the Near East and North Africa (NENA)
Urban Forum. The members today in-
clude the institutions such as EQI, Egypt;
FUM, Morocco, JUM, Jordan; LEDA,
Lebanon; and FNVT, Tunis in association
with UN-HABITAT’s Regional Office for
Africa and the Arab States.
In the Arab States, the UMP has had
a unique approach differing from oth-
er regions – the establishment of a me-
dia network, the Arab Media Forum on
Environment and Development. It has
played an influential role in raising the
profile of urban management among or-
dinary people all the way up to govern-
ment level.
Through the years, the UMP success-
fully helped Arab cities and national
governments implement pro-poor par-
ticipatory urban governance through
the city consultation process. This also
helped strengthen the capacities of re-
gional and national anchoring insti-
tutions. Knowledge management was
taken forward through the establish-
ment of a web site, while the AMFED
media network has championed advo-
cacy and awareness building across the
region. Addressing the challenges of gen-
der mainstreaming and HIV/AIDS has
also achieved notable progress.
Future UMP plans in the region have
been developed through a consultative
process including all the anchor institu-
tions under the coordination of NENA.
Good local governance was the fo-
cus of the first regional programme.
UN-HABITAT Arabic language train-
ing materials were used Egypt, Jordan,
Morocco, the occupied Palestinian territo-
ries and Somalia with great success. The
goal was to elevate local governance to the
aspired inclusiveness, transparency, part-
nership, equitability, and sound local pol-
icy development and decision-making.
The goals are achieved through leadership
training for councilors and NGOs and
other local development partners.
Gender was identified as the second
programme, an area still in need of con-
certed efforts in the region to arrive at
more equitable governance and to im-
prove the status of women as a main con-
stituency of the urban scene. Building on
the UMP experience in this field where
a number of workshops have already
been successfully implemented, FNVT
of Tunisia and LEDA of Lebanon haveA
developed a new programme to address
gender in local development. Persistent
efforts are needed to achieve policy and
tangible change in the male-dominated
politics of the region.
The third programme focuses on mi-
cro credit schemes to enable the poor to
improve productivity and reduce the eco-
nomic divide in the region. This concept
is built on the experience gained in Egypt
where a bank with branch offices country-
wide has taken the lead in making micro
credit available to poor people. High re-
payment rates are an encouraging sign for
replication of this experience.
Mohamed El Sioufi is Senior Human
Settlements Officer at UN-HABITAT.TT
The Urban Management Programme in the Arab States
By Mohamed El Sioufi
The Near East and North Africa Urban Forum (NENA) and its anchor institutionsNENA’s extensive professional networkacts as the brains of the three-year oldorganisation based in Morocco and cov-ering six other countries – Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey.NENA’s raison d’être is threefold: identi-fying the main urban development issues
makers, together with development and promotion of innovative solutions. Thenetwork is also instrumental in the shar-ing of experiences, best practices and in-formation between members. It maintains dialogue with ordinary citizens through extensive media partnerships that enableit to raise awareness and stimulate civ-ic engagement. It also actively engaged with multilateral and bilateral aid institu-tions such as the World Bank, USAID), non-governmental regional organisa-tions like the Centre for the Environment and Development for the Arab Region and Europe, and global associations like the Cities Alliance and the InternationalUrban Development Association. Its agenda is in line with the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. Priorities includemainstreaming of gender issues in local policies, poverty reduction, governanceand sustainable development. Website: http://www.umpasr.org
Forum Urbain Maroc, Rabat, Morocco, <[email protected]>
Environmental Quality International (EQI), Cairo, <[email protected]>
Centre for Environment andDevelopment for Arab Region and Europe (CEDARE), Cairo, <[email protected]>
Fédération Nationale des Villes Tunisiennes (FNVT), Tunis, <[email protected]>
Housing and Urban DevelopmentCorporation (HUDC), Amman [email protected] http://www.umpasr.org
15Habitat Debate December 2005 Regional
Democratic urban management in Latin America and the CaribbeanBy Rocío Lombera
The Urban Management Programme
in Latin America and the Caribbean
(UMP-LAC) has served as the ultimate
paradigm developing major new networks
between nations, regions, countries and
cities. Beyond those, what has really mat-
tered is the predominant role of the people,
their communities and various grassroots
groups as they have engaged in the com-
mon endeavour of solving major problems
confronting them at the local level.
In effect, this means that peoples and
governments have been implementing
the UN vision, from the local to the glo-
bal level, anchored as they are in the ter-
ritorial realities of our Latin America, yet
together building a better world for all re-
gardless of gender. This stands as the main
UMP achievement in Latin America and
the Caribbean.
The UMP was innovative insofar as im-
plementation was “anchored” in regions
around the world and based on the joint
workings of the various programmes con-
ducted by the UN system – and particular-
ly by UNDP and UN-HABITAT. However,
nowhere has the global-ranging UMP been
deployed more thoroughly and extensively
than in Latin America and the Caribbean. A
strategic alliance has been built and operat-
ed, with Mr. Yves Cabannes as Coordinator,
with a selected group of institutions. These
represent civil society and those local au-
thorities, the so-called Regional Anchor
Institutions (RAIs). During its seven years
so far, this alliance has brought together
practically all the major urban management
stakeholders in the region.
This “anchoring” has taken place at var-
ious levels.
At regional level, social-technical,
methodological and educational support
has been provided by RAIs with links
to regional networks whose main stra-
tegic themes are similar to those of the
UMP. Those RAIs include Agora XXI
and Cearah-Periferia (Brazil), Ciudad
and IULA-Celcadel (Ecuador), Copevi
(Mexico), Fedevivienda (Colombia) and
IPES (Peru).
Meanwhile, the Regional Consultative
Forum has brought together regional bod-
ies representing various sectors that pursue
UMP-type objectives, such as grassroots
campaign groups, NGO and local author-
ity networks, universities, government de-
partments in charge
of housing and urban
development as well
as Parliamentarians
for Habitat. The
Forum has been play-
ing a more political,
two-pronged kind of
role than the RAIs:
analysing and recom-
mending those poli-
cies most conducive
to deployment of the
Programme; and ar-
ticulating the desires
and compromises em-
anating from Forum
members while fa-
vouring participative
governance, sustain-
able environmental
policies as well as fair and inclusive urban
management – all of this in the face of ris-
ing poverty and social inequality.
At the national and local levels, pro-
gramme development has been anchored
in an endless string of “local associates”
from local authorities, grassroots cam-
paign groups and organisations, to NGOs,
universities and others dealing with urban
problems.
Every stakeholder involved has effec-
tively played a relevant role in the deploy-
ment of UMP-LAC, either as a “resource
city”, a “city of reference”, an “associate
city”, an “associate institution” or a “tech-
nical associate”. Every stakeholder has set
examples and learned from one another. In
the process, they have built a vast network
for the management of regional knowl-
edge based on the sharing and systematic
assessment of experiences, hands-on train-
ing, and dissemination through the widest
possible range of media and formats.
This is the background against which
UMP-LAC has been making headway,
and it is therefore appropriate that it ac-
tivities now continue through the two re-
gional bodies, the International Urban
Management Centre (CIGU) and the
Consortium of Urban Management
Institutions.
We need to regain our capacity and
our ability to govern ourselves in the wid-
er sense of decision-making. This includes
society’s control and alertness over the mo-
mentum it generates, as well as its capaci-
ty to face challenges in a positive manner,
create the conditions for common pro-
posals, generate consensus, and put into
practice a genuinely democratic social and
institutional ethic. Far from being an add-
on luxury for the political class, this is a
matter of survival for humankind, in view
of the explosive nature of the social and
environmental conditions in which we
live in today.
As the builders of UMP-LAC, this is
what we have learned. This is our legacy.
Ms. Rocío Lombera is Director and
Chairperson of the Centro Operacional
Anchor Institutions in Latin America and the CaribbeanUrban Resource Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean, [email protected], Website:http://www.pgualc.org
Centro de Capacitación y Desarrollode los Gobiernos Locales (IULA-CELCADEL) <[email protected]>
org.co
Instituto de Promocion de la Economica Social (IPES) <[email protected]>
Centro Operacional de Vivienda y Poblamiento (COPEVI), Mexico <[email protected]>
Agora XXI <[email protected]>
Website:http://www.pgualc.org
Reducing urban poverty in places like this rundown tenement building in the heart of Mexico City is major goal of the UMP. Photo © Aubrey Wade / PANOS
16 Habitat Debate December 2005Case study
Making a difference for poor people — new low income housing in Belem. Photo © UN-HABITAT
City consultations with the urban poor in Belem, Brazil.
Belem on Brazil’s north coast is the
largest city in the Brazilian Amazon
with a working population of 600,000
inhabitants. However, 70 percent of the
population live in conditions of poverty
with 10 percent living on an income less
than US$ 50 per month.
The city is faced with the problem of
urban growth, and land occupation in un-
planned settlements. Most of the immi-
grants live in shacks, and 50 percent of
the population are without sewage sys-
tems, basic infrastructure, hygiene. From
a crime point of view, they live in a con-
stant state of insecurity.
In 1997 the municipality institution-
alized a Participatory Budget for the
city and between 1997-1998 the top-
ics considered were those related to the
problems of basic sanitation and liv-
ing conditions. Many people had set up
shacks along river banks.
A UMP city consultation started in
January 1998 to develop a pilot project
aimed at the design and management of a
river conservation system that would im-
prove the living conditions of families set-
tled in the Mata Fome basin.
The consultation helped local partners
devise a participatory action plan. It in-
cluded a housing credit programme for
the poorest people. But the process ran
into some problems like a lack of resourc-
es, and difficulty in identifying a man-
agement and coordination unit. Some
government organs did not show an in-
creased sense of responsibility.
The action plan provided for road im-
provement in Mata Fome district, better
water and sanitation access, and a “better liv-
ing” programme giving preference to wom-
en. The plan was replicated in other parts of
the city under a participatory method that
supports community participation through
seminars, research and other methods. The
credit fund formed with resources from the
municipality, NGOs and the community
was in 2000 expanded to 300 families.
Although the city consultation helped
raise public awareness of some of the
problems, lessons learned showed that the
local government was predisposed against
the development of participatory manage-
ment in the city. It also showed that the
Urban Management Programme had to
be very well understood by all involved
so as not to raise false hopes. Another les-
son was that the presence of a local partner
such as the UMP-LAC and the existence
of a municipal government receptive to
popular participation enabled the ex-
change of experiences with other cities.
Excerpted by Tom Osanjo from the
UMP publication, “Implementing the
Habitat Agenda”.
17Habitat Debate December 2005 Regional
The UMP in action – bringing local authorities into the frontline against AIDS in AfricaBy George Matovu
Anchor Institutions in AfricaAfrican Network of Urban Management Institutes (ANUMI), e-mail [email protected]; Website:http://anumi.bnetd.ci
Bureau National d’Etudes Techniquespour le Développement (BNETD) Abidjan, Cote d’ Ivoire [email protected]
Institut Africain de Gestion Urbaine (IAGU) “Oumar Cisse” <[email protected]>
Graduate School of Public andDevelopment Management (P&DM), Johannesburg, South Africa [email protected]
Municipal Development Programme(MDP) Eastern and Southern Africa
Development Policy Centre (DPC), Ibadan, Nigeria [email protected]
In , the Municipal Development
Partnership in Eastern and Southern
Africa (MDP-ESA) became a stand-alone
regional not-profit organisation headquar-
tered in Harare, Zimbabwe. In its quest
for partners, UN-HABITAT’s Urban
Management Programme was a natural
ally in promoting decentralisation and
strengthening the capacity of urban local
authorities.
Through two projects in Malawi and
Mozambique aimed at bringing local au-
thorities into the frontline in the fight
against HIV/AIDS, the MDP-ESA not
raised awareness about HIV/AIDS, but
it has also been recognized a centre of ex-
cellence in Sub-Saharan Africa in tackling
the myriad problems of African cities and
towns.
The two highlights of the UMP HIV/
AIDS partnership with MDP-ESA in
Blantyre, Malawi, and in Manhica,
Mozambique are based on the City
Consultation process whereby every ef-ff
fort is made to engage representatives of
the government, local authorities, the pri-
vate sector, civil society, community groups,
and NGOs on urban governance, urban
poverty reduction, and gender balance with
a view to developing follow-up activities.
The process of consultation emphasis-
es participation and dialogue to establish a
mutual and supportive framework for all
actors. Alongside this goal, is the idea of
enhancing the capacity of local authorities
to build partnerships as a strategy to sup-
port sustainable urban development and
management.
The Blantyre City Assembly (BCA)
HIV and AIDS initiative was implement-
ed between 2002 and 2004.
It was borne out of a 1999-2004 MDP-
ESA programme funded by Finland
through the World Bank on Strengthening
Civic Participation in Municipal
Governance in Malawi, Mozambique,
Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.
The MDP-ESA helped the Blantyre
City Assembly forge a partnership with the
Malawi Association of Local Governments
(MALGA), and the Malawi Congress
of Non- Governmental Organizations
(CONGOMA) to provide leadership and
support in the fight against HIV/AIDS.
The Harare-based SAfAIDS was invited to
help collect and share information from
other countries in the region.
It started with three special training and
awareness seminars. They forged an action
plan that set up a Community HIV/AIDS
Challenge Fund in Malawi and urged the
creation of urban youth centres to provide
awareness and education of HIV/AIDS
problems. The action plan also sought to
lobby for free medical treatment and addi-
tional clinics.
The consultations, culminated in the
launch of the National Chapter of the
Alliance of Mayors Against HIV/AIDS
on 6 November 2003. It has also seen
the city assembly accept the involvement
of civic organisation in municipal budg-
eting, the development of the HIV/AIDS
Prevention and Management Strategy for
Blantyre, the establishment of a resource
centre that provides information on HIV/
AIDS, and civic organisations supported
by SAfAIDS.
Today, there are strong bonds between
the City Assembly and various stakehold-
ers concerned at the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, council-
lors, and the Chief Executive Officer have
openly expressed their commitment and
support for the initiative. The Alliance of
Mayors and Municipal Leaders on HIV/
AIDS in Africa, SAfAIDS, and UNDP
have pledged additional funding and tech-
nical assistance to support Blantyre in its
effort to implement the HIV/AIDS pro-
gramme. The overall impact is visible in
terms of the scope of the responses, and
the emerging behavioural change of the
most vulnerable groups.
Building on the results of Blantyre City
Assembly, MDP-ESA was asked by the
Municipality of Manhica in Mozambique
to help launch a similar project on fight-
ing HIV/AIDS. This too produced an ac-
tion plan for the city. The Mozambique
National Association of Aids Service
Organizations (MoNAASO) helped pro-
vide information, while the Swiss Agency
for Development and Cooperation ex-
pressed interest in providing budgetary
support to Manhica to ensure the success
of the action plan.
Indeed, the Blantyre City Assembly
HIV/AIDS initiative has evolved into an
international best practice tool for improv-
ing municipal responses in fighting HIV/
AIDS. Besides Mozambique, the initia-
tive is being extended to Tanzania, Uganda,
and Zambia.
George Matovu is Regional Director,
MDP-ESA, based in Harare.
There is increasing evidence that lack of adequate shelter has a direct impact on the care of affected persons and prevention of HIV/AIDS. For slum dwell-ers, lack of secure tenure, poor access to basic services, and lack of access to public health care result in improper and infrequent access to anti-retrovi-ral therapy drugs (even when they are supplied at no cost). Slum residents are often unable to adhere to medical regimes because they lack a supportive
issues. HIV/AIDS orphans, street children, particularly young girls, and home-less adults are the most affected, as they are most susceptible to HIV/AIDS pandemic in urban areas. – From the publication, The time to address HIV/AIDS in our cities is Now, UN-HABITAT/UNDP 2002.
18 Habitat Debate December 2005Regional
Managing biomedical waste in Dakar, SenegalBy Salimata Seck
Adequate medical supplies are alAA -
ready a problem for many develop-
ing countries, but disposal of biomedical
waste is another, more serious matter. A
programme conducted in the Senegalese
capital, Dakar, shows that a sustainable
approach, complete with city consulta-
tions, delivers effective benefits, including
awareness-raising and replication.
The factors behind West Africa’s prob-
lems with biomedical waste stem from
poor infrastructure and poor risk aware-
ness. Due to an absence of sorting at
source, all types of waste get mixed up
together along the whole disposal chain,
from collection to transportation to elim-
ination. Similarly, the risks entailed by bi-
omedical waste remain largely ignored by
all those involved, from governement au-
thorities to healthcare professionals and
the wider public.
This is why in 1998 the African office
of UN-HABITAT’s Urban Management
Programme (UMP) mandated Dakar’s
African Institute for Urban Management
(IAGU) to hold urban consultations on bi-
omedical waste issues in four major West
African cities : Dakar, Bamako (Mali),
Cotonou (Benin), and Ouagadougou
(Burkina Faso). IAGU conducted the
programme in close co-operation with
the African Foundation for Urban
Management (AFUM).
The UMP-IAGU programme focused
on four activities: assessing the situation
through an inclusive, participatory ap-
proach, raising awareness among local
authorities and the public, identifying pri-
ority actions to improve the situation, and
deploying a network of experts.
In all four capitals, IAGU followed up
an environmental assessment with a lo-
cal consultation. The process aimed at
validating the findings and developing ac-
tion plans. Financing and implementation
were steered by monitoring committees
comprised of well-placed representatives
from municipal authorities, the public,
the business sector and civil society.
The more innovative aspect of the
UMP-IAGU programme was a region-
wide consultation which in late 1999
brought together in Dakar all the mem-
bers of the AFUM governing council.
These included a number of African may-
ors whose cities were formally outside
the scope of the programme. The meet-
ing also drew a wide range of munici-
pal officers, local elected representatives,
healthcare experts, utility profession-
als and scholars, together with experts
from UNDP, the secretariat of the 1989
Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes,
the WHO African office and aid agency
executives.
This wealth of discussion found its prac-
tical outcome in the Dakar Declaration
whereby West African mayors committed
themselves to sustainable management of
biomedical waste. The mayors also high-
lighted the need for demonstration pro-
grammes in the post-consultation phase in
order to sustain community support and
facilitate replication across the whole of
Africa.
The post-consultation phase ended in
2000 as the demonstration projects in
Bamako, Cotonou and Dakar came on
stream. An awareness-raising film that
had been shown at the Dakar meeting
was broadcast on two major TV channels
and a specialist handbook published (in
French). In the meantime, in 1999 and
as an offshoot of the programme, the
secretariat of the Basel Convention and
the Government of Senegal designated
IAGU as the anchor institution for the
International Centre for Training and
Technology Transfer on Hazardous Waste.
The centre is sponsored by 22 African
countries and has since then been man-
dated by WHO and Switzerland’s Ecole
Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne to
assist action plans in major African cities.
The UMP-IAGU programme has suc-
ceeded beyond the significant recent
improvement in biomedical waste man-
agement in Dakar and other cities in
Senegal. It has raised awareness in both
central and local governement. The dem-
onstration projects have enabled hospitals
to test management techniques that are
both economically and environmentally
sustainable. As a result, the UMP-Africa/
IAGU programme stands as a model of
advocacy for sustainable biomedical waste
management across West Africa.
Salimata Seck is the IAGU Project Officer
in Dakar.
Making progress in safe waste management is an uphill struggle throughout Africa. Photo © UN-HABITAT/Saltbones.
19Habitat Debate December 2005 Conclusions
A mine of information
Awealth of information is one of theAAmost valuable assets of the Urban
Management Programme, especially the
lessons learned and the experienced gained
over the years through city consultations
around the world.
Sharing information and knowledge,
and building a strong knowledge manage-
ment system for urban management was
always central to the UMP.
Regional information strategies were
implemented to support information and
knowledge needs. Each strategy focused
on the needs of the region while at the
same time fitting in with the overall vision
and global strategy of the programme.
In the Arab States, for example, a strong
emphasis was placed on partnership with
the media, resulting in broad coverage and
awareness of UMP activities and issues in
the region and sustained information dis-
semination and exchange. In Africa and
the Latin America and Caribbean region,
under the Urbanet component of UMP,
an extensive database highlighting posi-
tive examples of local management and
models to solve urban problems has been
developed.
Information focal points in the anchor
institutions in Africa continue to work
on a consolidated knowledge manage-
ment strategy. In Asia, a regional website
and CD-ROMs have been used to distrib-
ute information on specific city consul-
tations. All regions are making more and
more use of the electronic media to fur-
ther spread the word on sustainable urban
management.
As part of its overall information strate-
gy, the UMP Core team and the Regional
Offices produced over 500 publications,
regional newsletters, flyers, papers and
other materials to support their work.
Carrying a wealth of information on ur-
ban problems, and ways of solving them,
they cover experiences from cities around
the world.
The UMP also supported UN-
HABITAT’s Global Campaign for Good
Governance framework. It thus advocated
good governance and inclusive, participa-
tory decision-making processes, building
capacity at the local and regional lev-
els and synthesizing lessons learned and
knowledge to contribute to the normative
debate at the global level.
Toolkits developed within the cam-
paign framework with key inputs from
the UMP have been widely disseminat-
ed. This will help the anchor institutions
network continue developing the norma-
tive framework and advocating good ur-
ban governance.
The many publications and working
papers produced by the programme clear-
ly reflect the different conditions, charac-
teristics and culture of each region and the
variations in implementation of the UMP
strategy.
The publications reflect in detail how
the city consultation process brought
about a major change in the mindset of
local government officials on transparen-
cy, accountability, efficiency and respon-
siveness. They show how cities can be
transformed from passive service provid-
ers into proactive facilitators of infrastruc-
ture and services. At the same time, they
show how excessive controls still exercised
at the national level in countries in Africa,
Asia, and the Arab States limit the func-
tional and financial responsibilities of lo-
cal authorities.
Today, much of this information is to
be found on the UN-HABITAT website
in the virtual library of the UMP’s CD-
ROM reviewed on page 21, and through
the anchor institutions listed on these
pages.
Visitors at the Shanghai City Planning Museum get a glimpse into what local authorities hope their will eventually look like.Photo © Qilai Shen / PANOS
20 Habitat Debate December 2005Best Practices
NigeriaA city consultation in Ijebu-Ode, Nigeria, was undertaken to pro-vide a new action plan focusing on income generation and im-proving provision to basic urban services. The scond-largest city in Ogun State, Ijebu-Ode has a population of approximate-ly 163,000.
The administration in the past decade had alienated itself byits top-down planning approach and its inability to improve thequality of life in urban areas. For a number of years only forms of traditional authority have held an on-going dialogue with com-munities. The traditional ruler in Ijebu-Ode was instrumental in mobilising the community during the city consultation process and providing support to the resulting action plan. The project also succeeded in breaking down a number of previous social barriers in the community.
The city consultation resulted in the setting up of local pov-erty reduction development board. The elected local govern-ment council (Local Government elections in 1999) was quicklyincorporated in development board by nominating the LocalGovernment Chairman as Vice-Chairman of the board, by ap-
the Development Board was ‘competing’ with the local ‘new’ government authority. This enabled the board managed to raise US $100,000 from community donations for implementation of the propject.
The main lesson learned was the need to fully integrate dif-ffferent forms of government and authority that are present in acity, both traditional and municipal, and to invest in raising their awareness of urban management issues and the city consulta-tion process.
Sri LankaThe municipality of Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka, ap-proached the UMP in 1997 in quest of help to build capacity
service delivery in a participatory drive involving local residents.From a 24-hour information centre and complaint desk opento all, the programme over the years created a new dynamism that brought several international agencies to Colombo such asthe Asian Development Bank, the Department for InternatinalDevelopment of the United Kingdom, the Konrad Adenauer Striftung of Germany, and UN-HABITAT’s Sustainable CitiesProgramme. The city consultation process succeeded mainly because of the willingness of the local government authoritiesto join hands with the public through the expertise of Sevanatha,UMP’s local partner NGO in Colombo. The key outcome of theprocess was the establishment of a multi-stakeholder forum for broad-based civic involvement in decision-making. With strong backing two successive mayors, it comprises the council, oth-er parastatal organisations, community development councils, NGOs and other civil society groups. An institutional frameworkwas prepared for community participation in development deci-sion-making, service delivery, and municipal tax collection. This led to improved access to shelter and basic services, better in-tegration of poor people, a reduction in pollution, more public-private partnerships to stimulate employment, administrative decentralisation and better governance, and enhanced interna-tional cooporeration. The example of Colombo has inspired oth-er cities to initiate better urban management practices.
ThailandAt a seminar in Bangkok six years’ ago, the deputy mayor of Nonthaburi City raised the need to develop an action plan to save Thailand’s last remaining urban canal in Nonthaburi prov-ince from destruction from by unregulated urban growth. UMPagreed to support joint activities of all 16 local governments withadministrative responsibility for the canal landscape, operatingunder the Nonthaburi Sustainable Canal Development Project.A project steering committee was formed and observers invit-ed from national agencies and the chamber of commerce. Themayors and heads of community administrations nominated a total of 31 project coordinators and deputy coordinators. The lo-cal governments formed an informal governmental group calledthe Grum Khon Rak Naam (GKRN). Organisational structure of the project succeeded in integrating a large group of govern-mental actors at two separate administrative levels.
The example of Nonthaburi illustrates that it is worth spend-ing time and effort to communicate project mechanisms to alllevels of government. The process by UMP in Nonthaburi hasattracted considerable media interest resulting in more resourc-es. The project has so far been quite successful especially in theimplementation of the Habitat Agenda including environmentalmanagement, economic development, governance and interna-tional cooperation.
TunisiaIn the early 1990s, the rapidly urbanising city of Kasserine with a population of 70,000 people, had one of the lowest employ-ment rates in the country, poor infrastructure unable to absorb itsgrowing population and a poverty rate of 15 percent comparedto the 9 percent national average. The municipality was seek-ing ways of strengthening relations between the local adminis-tration and residents, especially disadvantaged young people.UMP therefore found in the city a municipal team that realized usefulness of participatory approaches. The city consultationsagreed from the onset that that the youth problems should begiven priority. The consultations involved sensitizing and inform-ing the city council and mobilizing neighbourhood youth around
municipal youth council had been established, along with a se-ries of community youth centres. The action plan for poverty re-duction in Kasserine led to the establishment of daycare centresand nurseries employing local young women, home help for the elderly and the handicapped, and small businesses owned and operated by young providing auto repair, construction, gar-dening and cleaning services — all neighbourhood-based. TheUMP fostered project has helped mobilise funding for the con-tinued implementation of the action plan, and additional fundingis being leveraged to continue the battle against unemployment.
the city’s youth was conducted that led to a new strategy for bet-ter integration of young people in the city. The plan has helped transform Kasserine into a city with more opporitunities, better employment prospects and new hope for the future.
21Habitat Debate December 2005 New Publications
The Urban Management Programme
Interactive CD-ROM
With the UMP winding up,
every effort has been made to
prepare a comprehensive data-
base of all UMP outputs on a
CD-ROM. The interactive CD-
ROM has been produced and
contains electronic versions of
publications, reports and infor-
mation from the UMP Global
and Regional Offices. Many of the very useful publications
include all of the working and occasional papers and UMP
Formal Series publications from the four regions, in elec-
tronic format. The CD-ROM also contains a comprehensive
search facility for easy access of documents. This document
constitutes an essential urban management resource tool. To
obtain a copy, please send an email to [email protected].
Urban-Rural Linkages Approach to Sustainable Development
ISBN: 92-1-131751-7HS: 765/05ELanguage: EnglishPublisher: UN-HABITAT, 2005
This publication looks at the re-
lationship between rural and
urban areas, and the econom-
ic, social and environmental in-
terdependence between towns
and cities and their hinterlands.
It argues that sustainable devel-
opment is more likely to be re-
alised if the development of
both ends of this human set-
tlements continuum is consid-
ered holistically. With nearly
half the global population, and
three-quarters of the population of developed countries now
living in urban areas, the development problems of cities
cannot be effectively addressed by only tackling problems
within the cities themselves. Although the rural popula-
tions of developing countries is still above 60 percent, these
countries are rapidly urbanising as more and more people
seek better opportunities in towns. But a lack of employ-
ment prospects, inadequate services, poverty civil war and
natural disasters has seen a phenomenal growth of slums.
This is why UN-HABITAT considers the urban-rural link-
age approach so important to future sustainable develop-
ment. This report is one of two publications arising out of
the Inter-Regional Conference on Urban-Rural Linkages in
October 2004 organised by UN-HABITAT in cooperation
with the United Nations Environment Programme (NUEP),
the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), and the
International Institute of Environment and Development
(IIED).
International Migrants and the City
ISBN:92-1-131747-9HS:760/05EPrice:US$ 15Language:EnglishPublisher:UN-HABITAT and the Università IUAV di Venezia,2005
Jointly published by UN-
HABITAT and the Università
IUAV di Venezia, this work
gives an account of different pol-
icies, practices and governance
models that address interna-
tional migration in an urban-
izing world. The book reviews
the policies and practices of 10
cities – Bangkok, Berlin, Dakar,
Johannesburg, Karachi, Naples,
São Paulo, Tijuana, Vancouver
and Vladivostok. Key issues of
analysis include the impact of national policies on interna-
tional migration, the role of migrants in the local economy,
the relationship between local and migrant communities,
and the migrants’ use of urban space.
Towards the Poverty Eradication Goal – The Structure and Infrastructure of the
in Eastern Africa
ISBN: 92-1-131752-5HS:767/05ELanguage:EnglishPublisher:UN-HABITAT, 2005
As we move into the new mil-
lennium, one trend overwhelms
our concerns: the rapid urbani-
sation with growing poverty, and
burgeoning slums that create tre-
mendous challenges in achieving
the goal of adequate shelter for all.
At the same time, there are grow-
ing calls for people to take re-
sponsibility so that the poor can
help themselves. One solution is
the growing recognition in recent
years that microcredit is a good weapon in poverty reduction.
It was with this in mind that The United Nations designat-
ed 2005 as the International Year of Microcredit to increase
public awareness and understanding of the potential of micro-
credit. This publication, and an awareness-building workshop
that preceded it is part of UN-HABITAT’s efforts to promote
these objectives. It carries useful insights on how access to fi-
nancial services for the urban poor can be improved. It also
examines the policy, institutional, financial and legal oppor-
tunities and constraints for microcredit, and discusses ways of
solving its limitations for both providers and clients, with real
life examples.
INTERNAT IONALMIGRANTS AND THE CI TYBANGKOK BERLIN DAKAR KARACHIJOHANNESBURG NAPLESSÃO PAULO T IJUANAVANCOUVER VLADIVOSTOK
Marcel lo Balbo (ed)
Università Iuav di Venezia
22 Habitat Debate December 2005News & Events
New Deputy Executive Director
Swedish Ambassador, Inga Björk-Klevby as Deputy Executive Director of the UN-HABITAT.
Ms. Björk-Klevby, an economist, is ambassador to Côted’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, after having been in charge of Sweden’s international development co-operation policies, programmes and budget for years. She also spent more than twodecades in internation-
Bank of Sweden, theInternational MonetaryFund (IMF), the WorldBank, the AsianDevelopment Bank andthe African DevelopmentBank.
The main task of the Deputy ExecutiveDirector of UN-HABITATis to revitalize and over-see the management of the Habitat and HumanSettlements Foundationso that it can contrib-ute effectively to the wa-ter and sanitation goalsand the slum upgradingtargets of the Millennium Declaration, as requested at the United Nations World Summit in September.
Prior to her current assignment, Ms. Björk-Klevby served as the Ambassador of Sweden to Kenya, Rwanda, Seychelles and the Comoros and as Permanent Representative to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT). During this period, she was involved in restructuring the UN Centre for Human Settlements, leading to its current upgraded status as a Programme. She holds a master’s degree from the Stockholm School of Economics and is married with two children.
A new international drive for better citiesThe International Platform on Sustainable Urban Development, adopted the “Geneva Declaration for a viable future in cities” with the objective of creating a world solidarity network for bet-ter human settlements.
Organized by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the Republic and Canton of Geneva, and the City of Geneva the 11-13 October meeting drew over 2,600 partic-ipants including mayors, international and local organisations, managers from the public and private sectors, researchers, experts, students and others interested in sustainable urban development.
UN-HABITAT, represented at the meeting its Acting Deputy
four workshops. These covered promoting international partner-ships through best practices, Social Housing in Eastern Europe
needs assessment, and promoting safer, crime-free cities.
A new record for World Habitat Day observancesNearly 80 events in 55 countries were held towns and cit-ies around the world to mark this year’s World Habitat Day on Monday 3 October at ceremonies, seminars and meetings at-tended by many government and local authority representatives
-ing conditions of the urban poor and their basic right to ade-quate shelter.
The 2005 theme was “The Millennium Development Goals andthe City” with the main celebrations in Jakarta, Indonesia drawingover 1,000 people from Indonesia and abroad. The event was in-augurated by Indonesia’s Vice-President, Mr. Jusuf Kalla.
In his address, the Governor of Jakarta, who received the Scroll of Honour on behalf of the Municipality of Jakarta high-lighted the problems of the mega-city. The city, which has over 10million people, has a high population density, averaging 14,000 people per square kilometre and rising to 30,000 in some are-
-tion, and water and air pollution. Governor Sutiyoso outlined the Municipality’s plans to improve Jakarta, including providing al-most 12,000 housing units to meet the housing needs of low and middle income households. He welcomed the support of UN-HABITAT to help build an environmentally friendly city.
The diversity of the cities, towns and countries that marked the event underscored the importance World Habitat Day continues to be accorded globally. Some of the countries that marked the event included Benin, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia, The Netherlands,Nigeria, United Kingdom, Spain, Fiji, Mexico, Brazil, Haiti, Palestine territories, Bangladesh, India, Canada and USA.
Urban development conference in ChinaUN-HABITAT, the European Commission and the Government of China held a three-day conference last month called to discuss urban governance, sustainable housing, and land-use and plan-ning. Mrs. Tibaijuka told participants that sustainable urban de-velopment would remain “an illusion” if the urban poor, who are the majority of the urban population in most developing coun-tries, remained excluded from decision-making. The conference was held in Nanning, the capital of the Guangxi Autonomous Region of China.
UN-HABITAT to the rescue of Pakistani quake victimsFollowing the devastating earthquake in Kashmir that claimed thousands of lives in October, UN-HABITAT offered the agency’s immediate support with emergency relief and recovery.
In a letter to Pakistan’s President, General Pervez Musharraf,Mrs. Tibaijuka expressed her dismay and condolences and pledged immediate assistance. At the same time, UN-HABITAT staff and experts were sent to Pakistan to help both the govern-ment and the United Nations Resident Coordinator effectively address and coordinate immediate and transition elements re-lated to shelter and settlements recovery.
UN-HABITAT also appealed to the donor community for ap-proximately US$ 8 million to bring relief to more than 150,000families affected by the 7.6 magnitude earthquake that struckclose to Muzaffarabad in Pakistan-administered Kashmir on Saturday morning. Estimates have it that upto 40,000 people could have perished in the quake.
the main areas affected have been Kashmir and Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province.
23Habitat Debate December 2005 News & Events
Citing recent lessons learned in disaster recovery operations, Mrs. Tibaijuka reiterated a plea to sister agencies, non-govern-mental organizations, and UN-HABITAT partners to ensure that initiation of recovery programming in the earliest stages of crisis response, can ease the transition from emergency, through re-construction to genuine recovery and development.
Major Norwegian boost for UN-HABITAT’s water and sanitation trust fundNorway announced that it would grant UN-HABITAT’s Water and Sanitation Trust Fund nearly US$ 7 million in 2005 to help alle-viate the water and sanitation crisis confronting millions of slum dwellers across Africa and Asia.
Norway’s contribution to the Water and Sanitation Trust Fund began in 2003 with an initial contribution of US$280,000. This was followed by a commitment announced by Norway’s Minister of International Development, Ms. Hilde Johnson that Oslo would contribute US$ 6.9 million for 2005, as well as additional regular
total Norwegian contribution to the fund stands at approximate-ly $1.8million.
The Trust Fund has helped UN-HABITAT forge strategic partnership arrangements with the African Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank, promoting pro-poor invest-ments in urban areas through its Water for Cities Programme in Africa and Asia. Thirteen African countries – Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Tanzania,
-ly involved in the programme.
Global Parliamentarians on HabitatOver 170 legislators from Africa, Asia, Europe and the United States attending the Fifth Global Parliamentarians on Habitat Forum in Rabat, Morocco in adopted the Rabat Declaration ad-
-
mechanism to cope with natural disasters. The lawmakers sup-ported the strengthening of UN-HABITAT, especially in its slumupgrading initiatives and the establishment of a database on good practices in urban development and improvement of infor-mal settlements. Mrs. Tibaijuka said currently, more than one bil-lion people were living in slums and inner cities and that if present
would imply that one in four people on this planet would be living without adequate shelter and without access to clean water and
consider that over half of all slum dwellers are under the age of 25,” she said. The meeting also discussed rural-urban migration and migration from southern countries to the more prosperous northern regions. Many attributed the November wave of arson attacks in French cities to a lack of decent housing and poor em-ployment prospects for young people.
Climbing Africa’s highest
crimeThe United Nations Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) and UN-HABITAT are supporting a climb to the summit of Africa’s highest peak, Mount Kilimanjaro, 25 February to 1 March 2006 aimed at improving safety in east African cities.
The idea came from Tim Challen, a UNFCU representative in Nairobi, who sustained serious gunshot injuries during an armed
robbery. Since then, he has decided to use that event to raise
projects in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya.Mr. Challen teamed up with UN-HABITAT’s Safer Cities
Programme. “Having experienced some of their harsh realities,I wanted to help makeEast African communitiessafer places in which to live,” said Mr. Challen. “If this climb can inspire oneperson not to give up on their dreams and to be-lieve that their life can im-prove, I feel our missionwill have succeeded.”
Mr. Challen will leada party of 25 young people up the moun-tain in a quest to raise US$50,000.
are proud to work with Tim and UNFCU to continue to strength-en civic responsibility within communities, engage youth and pre-vent crime,” said Mrs. Tibaijuka. “The climb represents a mission of hope and a true lesson in overcoming adversity.”
The launch for the Kilimanjaro Initiative coincides with the UNInternational Year of Sport, Development and Peace Conference– itself a prime mover in enhancing safe spaces through sports and youth development.
“UNFCU supports Tim’s remarkable climb and his ability tochannel his energies from a harmful experience into buildinghope and a brighter future for others,” said Mr. Michael Connery,President and CEO of UNFCU.
A website, (www.kilimanjaroinitiative.org) has been set up for further information. Donations to the Kilimanjaro Challenge Fundcan be made through the UNFCU’s website, www.unfcu.org.
Upcoming Events 9th Special Session of the UNEP Governing Council
Dubai International Conference Centre, UAE 7-9 February 2006
Third Session of the World Urban ForumVancouver, 19-23 June, 2006
World Habitat Awards 2006The UK-based Building and Social Housing Foundation iscurrently seeking entries for the World Habitat Awards 2006. The awards, which carry prize money of 10,000 pounds ster-ling, are presented each year on World Habitat Day on the
Upcoming issues of Habitat DebateSubject to changes, the issues planned for the year 2006 willcover energy (Vol. 12, No. 1), migration (Vol. 12, No. 2), theWorld Habitat Day theme (to be announced, Vol 12, No. 3) anddisaster management (Vol 12, No. 4). UN-HABITAT does not pay for articles or letters submitted, and these are published strictly at the discretion of the Editor and the Editorial Board of Habitat Debate. The agency will not enter into verbal, postal or e-mail discussion on any articles or letters it deems unsuitable for pub-lication. Write to [email protected], or send a fax to +25420-623477. Our postal address is: Information Services Section (Habitat Debate), UN-HABITAT, P.O. Box 30030 GPO, 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.
Headquarters
UN-HABITATP.O. Box 30030, GPO,Nairobi, 00100, KenyaTel: (254-20) 623120Fax: (254-20) 624266/624267/624264/623477/624060E-mail: [email protected]:http://www.unhabitat.org/
Africa and the Arab States
Africa and the Arab StatesP.O. Box 30030, GPO,Nairobi, 00100, KenyaTel: (254-20) 621234/623221Fax: (254-20) 623904/623328
E-mail: [email protected]:http://www.unhabitat.org/roaas/
ACROS Fukuoka Building, 8th Floor1-1-1 Tenjin, Chuo-kuFukuoka 810-0001, JapanTel: (81-92) 724-7121Fax: (81-92) 724-7124E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.fukuoka.unhabi-tat.org
Latin America and the Caribbean
Latin America and the Caribbean
America Latina y el Caribe (ROLAC)Av. Presidente Vargas, 3131/130420210-030 - Rio de Janeiro RJ,BrazilTel: (55-21) 2515-1700Fax: (55-21) 2515-1701E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.unhabitat-rolac.org
Two United Nations PlazaRoom DC2-0943New York, N.Y. 10017, U.S.A.Tel: (1-212) 963-8725/963-4200Fax: (1-212) 963-8721E-mail: [email protected]
ONU-HABITAT Bureau de GenèveMaison Internationale de l’Environnement 2International Environment House 27, Chemin de Balexert5th FloorCH-1219 Châtelaine, GenèvePostal address:
Palais des NationsAvenue de la Paix 8-14CH-1211 Genève 10, SwitzerlandTel: (41-0) 22 917-86 46/7/8Fax: (41-0) 22 917-80 46E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.unhabitat.org
with the European Union andBelgium14 rue MontoyerB-1000 Brussels, BelgiumTel: (32-2) 503-35-72(32-2) 503-1004Fax: (32-2) 503-46-24E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]: www.unhabitat.org
Hungary
H-1124 BudapestNémetvölgyi út 41. 2. ep. 1.1.,HungaryTel/Fax: (36-1) 202-2490E-mail:[email protected]
India
5th Floor (East Wing)Thalamuthu Natarajan Building(CMDA Building)Egmore, Chennai 600 008IndiaTel: (91-44) 2841-1302Fax: (91-44) 2851-6273E-mail: [email protected]
China
No. 9 Sanlihe RoadBeijing 100835People’s Republic of ChinaTel: (86-10) 6839-4750, 68350647Fax: (86-10) 6839-4749E-mail: [email protected]:http://www.cin.gov.cn/habitat
Russian FederationUN-HABITAT Executive Bureau inMoscow8, Stroiteley Street,Building 2
Moscow, 119991Russian FederationTel: (7-095) 930-6264Fax: (7-095) 930-0379E-mail: [email protected]: www.unhabitatmoscow.ru
UN-HABITAT OFFICES