Chapter 3: Enabling Conditions for Sustainable Development
“….the localization of the 2030 Agenda is not the implementation of a global or national agenda at local level; but rather building adequate conditions at local level to achieve the global goals.” [40].
Much of the discourse on SDG localization relates to what cities and human settlements can do to help countries and the world achieve the SDGs, and some limited discussion is devoted to what the SDGs can do for cities. Amidst the calls for localizing the SDGs, there has been insufficient discussion on whether cities and human settlements have the autonomy, capacity, and resources to effectively implement the SDGs in the first place.
Local governments often struggle to take action on sustainable development due to a number of constraints. These include limited political and fiscal power, lack of access to development finance, low levels of institutional capacity, absence of robust multi-level government cooperation and integration, and the inability to attract or be part of strong multi-stakeholder partnerships. Without first acknowledging and addressing the challenges faced by local governments in many parts of the world, SDG localization will not benefit the majority of the global urban population, will fail to build sustainable governance, and will constrain the achievement of sustainable outcomes.
Business as usual will not be good enough to bring about the transformative results needed for a sustainable future. Local governments need to strengthen their own capacities for action, build up strong partnerships, and above all, be committed to the SDG vision of inclusive sustainable development that leaves no one and no place behind. This chapter discusses the key enabling conditions for local governments to promote sustainable development and to implement the SDGs.
3.1 Decentralized governance
The SDGs offer a window of opportunity for proponents of decentralization to demand reforms, for greater resources, capacity development, executive authority, and accountability mechanisms at the local level.
Over the past few decades, decentralized governance has come into practice in almost all countries, in one form or another. Today, service provision in many of the sectors addressed by the SDGs, including water, sanitation, health, education, planning, waste management, and transport, is the responsibility of local governments and authorities in an increasing number of countries [41]. This division of powers between different levels of government, and the growing responsibilities of local governments, has the potential to ensure more inclusive and representative decision-making.
Sustainable development depends on “the effective decentralization of responsibilities, policy management, decision-making authority and sufficient resources, including revenue collection authority, to local authorities, closest to, and most representative of, their constituencies” [42]. Empowered local and regional governments have been shown to have a positive impact on service delivery and quality of life [41]. And yet, development gains from decentralization continue to be uneven, with increasing spatial inequalities and exclusion within territories. In some countries, this can be attributed to how decentralization is done, e.g. via top-down processes in which national governments decentralize responsibilities and sometimes powers, but not human and financial resources [43]. In other cases, a lack of adequate accountability mechanisms or unregulated private development have led to poor governance outcomes, such as unequal development and increasing local government debt burdens. And in most countries, there is an insufficient focus on territorial development, which results in fragmented spatial and sectoral governance, and poor cooperation between different local entities [44].
Improving the quality of decentralization within a country is a long-term process, depending on political will and better mechanisms for autonomous and accountable governance. However, local governments embarking on SDG implementation should be proactive in strengthening their discretionary powers, as well as their performance and accountability, using the international mandate and responsibility given to them to insist upon greater local autonomy. Specifically, local governments should strive to:
i. Be informed. Gather evidence-based information to demand greater legislative, fiscal, or executive powers, within specific sectors or in operational processes.
ii. Evaluate performance. Improve accountability for fiscal and expenditure management, and performance on key governance and sector-based indicators.
iii. Improve transparency and inclusion in local government through more open governance, open data and greater public participation.
iv. Work in partnership with higher levels of government and with local communities to improve autonomy and accountability.
v. Cooperate with neighboring local governments through formal or informal mechanisms, for mutual improvements in development outcomes.
vi. Form coalitions of cities and local governments to exchange best practices, and to lobby for greater powers. Convene public support for stronger local government.
Box 25: City Enabling Environment (CEE) Assessment
Countries or cities can use the City Enabling Environment (CEE) rating as a quick diagnostic to assess the institutional environment of local governments within a country [45]. For local governments that want to engage with higher levels of government on strengthening local governance for the SDGs, the CEE Assessment allows local governments to benchmark their performance against governance strutures in other countries. As such, it provides an evidence base to identify areas that need improvement, and to make a case for strengthening governance mechanisms.
The CEE assessment uses ten indicators that cover five areas: local governance, local capacity, financial autonomy, local efficiency, and the national institutional framework. These five areas cover the essential elements of a city’s institutional environment. The CEE adopts a qualitative approach by assessing local governance frameworks on a scale of 1 (least effective) to 4 (most effective) for each indicator. The ratings benchmark countries on the environment they provide for city action, areas where further progress is essential and above all, the reforms necessary to improve the city enabling environment in a given country.
For more information on the assessment tool, which was jointly developed by Cities Alliance and UCLG Africa, see the report Assessing the Institutional Environment of Local Governments in Africa.
Metropolitan governance and sustainable development
With intensifying urbanization and a global economy that is increasingly concentrated in urban areas, an increasing number of cities are at the heart of metropolitan regions,¹ with large populations spread over a wide territorial expanse, as a result of urban sprawl. The governance of metropolitan areas will be central to achieving sustainable development, and to ensuring social equity, economic development, and environmental conservation. Metropolitan governance structures and mechanisms have the potential to strengthen local SDG impact, and increase the political and economic clout of local authorities.
Metropolitan governance structures come in many shapes and sizes, ranging from a comprehensive metropolitan ‘‘government’’ to a variety of forms of cooperation among the numerous jurisdictions in a metropolitan area [46]. While the advantages and disadvantages of different types of metropolitan governance continue to be debated, the case for some form of cross-border cooperation is increasingly evident in metropolitan areas, as the potential of integrated regions become more and more apparent [44]. There is evidence that this form of regional thinking, and the use of networks of business, nonprofits, and governments, has resulted in positive efforts to address environment degradation, poverty and inequity, governmental inefficiencies, and regional competitiveness [46].
In the context of SDG implementation, metropolitan cooperation has the advantage of encouraging a territorial approach to development, and of transcending the urban/rural divide to bring together local governments that may not be able to achieve the SDGs alone. Forms of cooperation may vary, from horizontal cooperation between local governments for delivering specific SDG targets through single projects, to the creation of regional bodies for improved planning, transportation, urban-rural linkages, water and environmental conservation or any other SDG objectives. Inter-municipal cooperation for the SDGs can also benefit smaller cities and towns and help them to achieve sustainable development, by providing common targets around which local authorities can collaborate, and create attractive investment opportunities for the private sector.
For more information, mechanisms, and instruments of metropolitan governance for sustainable development, see the report Unpacking Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Development by GIZ and UN-Habitat.
3.2 Integrated local governance
Successful implementation of the SDGs, with the triple bottom line of social development, economic development, and environmental protection, will require an integrated approach to governance and policy.
Integration in government refers to the coordination of working arrangements where multiple departments or public sector organizations are involved in providing a public service or program [47]. An integrated approach to sustainable development emphasizes the social, economic and environmental dimensions of development, by: i) breaking down traditional sector-based governance structures; ii) encouraging coordination between departments and public sector institutions; iii) aligning development priorities across different levels of government, iv) encouraging mutually beneficial decision-making and minimizing trade-offs, and; v) promoting multi-sector planning through joint action.
This is in contrast to the increasing fragmentation of governance today, in which different levels of government, neighboring municipalities and different departments within the same municipal bodies work independently of one another in the same territories, with little coordination. As far back as 1987, the Brundtland report noted that institutions facing the challenges of sustainable development tend to be ‘independent, fragmented, working to relatively narrow mandates with closed decision processes’ [48].
Integration between the policies, priorities, and programs of different government bodies is essential for balanced SDG implementation, both at the local and national levels. Forms of integrated local governance include:
i. Vertical coordination with national and state/regional governments: Local governments can work more closely with higher levels of government to jointly address development, and for better-coordinated approaches to planning, implementation, and reporting. Vertical coordination in SDG governance will promote improved resource allocation based on knowledge of local needs and development gaps.The vertically-integrated Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (V-NAMAs) are a good example of coordination between multiple levels of government. They form part of a set of tools and resources developed by GIZ in collaboration with ICLEI to enhance multi-level climate action for sustainable outcomes in key areas, including energy efficiency in public buildings and municipal solid waste management. For more information, go to http://bit.ly/24LS7wM.
ii. Horizontal coordination across departments/ministries: Horizontal integration refers to coordinated policy-making across different sectors of government to optimize resource utilization and aim for mutually beneficial outcomes [47]. There is a need for governments to re-evaluate sector-based governance, establish cooperation mechanisms between different departments, and embed cross-cutting issues like environmental protection, gender, economic inclusion, and climate change adaptation and mitigation into government-wide operations. Horizontal integration is critical to the success of the SDGs in order to balance social, economic, and environmental development outcomes.
iii. Territorial coordination between local governments: SDG 11 promotes a place-based approach to development. This must be supported through mechanisms of territorial integration; of policy, planning, infrastructure, and accountability across neighboring administrative borders. Be it through formal structures of regional or metropolitan governance, or informal cooperation between municipalities, territorial strategies aim to improve development linkages within the region to reduce territorial inequalities, protect ecological systems, and improve economic productivity in the region as a whole. Resultant outcomes from territorial coordination may include integrated transportation networks, regionally-coordinated service delivery, controlled urban growth and protection of agricultural lands, and stronger labor market linkages.
Box 26: Territorial integration in Gauteng, South Africa
Territorial integration may be operationalized through a number of instruments, such as regional planning documents, and/or dedicated agencies. The Gauteng City-Region provides an example of different integrating mechanisms for territorial development.
In 2004, the provincial government of Gauteng, South Africa’s most populated region, rallied the twelve municipalities in the region to establish the Gauteng City-Region to overcome urban challenges to sustainable development and economic competitiveness. Moving from a sectoral approach to development to a territorial approach, the provincial government established an Integrated Urban Planning Framework ‘to guide inclusive, resilient and livable urban settlements through spatial integration.’ This required the cooperation of multiple public and private stakeholders, and a collaborative partnership between the provincial and municipal governments. The territorial integration was operationalized in the form of the Gauteng Integrated Infrastructure Master Plan, using spatial data to guide balanced regional development, and the development of Municipal Integrated Transport Plans, which have led to key transportation projects being implemented.
Indicators of success include increased access to services across the region, greater horizontal and vertical coordination of public and private actors, and the development of the ‘Strategy for a Developmental Green Economy,’ which aims to identify opportunities for economic growth and job creation. Further regional institutions have also been developed such as the Gauteng City Region Observatory (GCRO), which has been integral in finding and providing data, maps and research outputs for the better understanding of the city-region in order to enable informed decision making and effective M&E [49].
The table below proposes examples of institutional arrangements for vertical, horizontal and territorial integration in local SDG governance. Short-term integration can be achieved by bringing stakeholders together for specific projects, while long-term cooperation mechanisms can be embedded over time.
Box 27: The Urban Nexus approach for integrated governance
A practical form of integrated governance for sustainable urban development is illustrated by the ‘Urban Nexus,’ a concept developed and operationalized by ICLEI in cooperation with GIZ. The Urban Nexus seeks out opportunities for ‘integration in cities and metropolitan regions at the different scales of the built environment and its infrastructures; integration of the region’s supply chains and resource cycles; and of the policies and operations of local, regional, sub-national and national jurisdictions’ [50]. By challenging traditional sectoral thinking, trade-offs and divided responsibilities that result in poor coordination, the approach guides stakeholders in identifying synergies between sectors, jurisdictions and technical domains so as to enhance institutional performance, optimize resource management and service quality. The Urban Nexus defines water, energy and food supply as its core sectors.
An Urban Nexus solution thus promotes integration. This is manifested as the integration of scales, systems, silos, services and facilities, and social relations and behaviors [50].
- Integration across Scales: This relates to the integration of scales of the built environment, infrastructures, local and regional supply chains and resource cycles, and policies and operations of local, regional, sub-national and national jurisdictions.
- Integration of Systems: The integration of systems relating to resource extraction and power generation, food cultivation, processing, manufacture, resource supply and waste management by establishing cascades, and cycles of resources between systems.
- Integration of Services and Facilities: To avoid the underutilization of valuable fixed assets by integrating services and facilities conventionally separated by sectoral functions.
- Integration across Sectors: The consolidation of institutional interests and managerial and professional sectors arising from the organization of urban areas and systems, into separate jurisdictions, utilities, and departments.
- Integration of Social Relations and Behaviors: To enable all stakeholders’ engagement in the above integration dimensions, and counter legacies of cultural, social, and political division.
Urban and local governments aiming for more integrated development can use the Urban Nexus framework to support SDG implementation. For more information on the Urban Nexus framework, see Operationalizing the Urban Nexus: Towards resource-efficient and integrated cities and metropolitan regions by ICLEI and GIZ. For case studies of Nexus solutions identified in various cities, go to http://www.iclei.org/urbannexus.html.
3.3 Municipal Finance
Adequate municipal finances will be key to successful SDG implementation, and the fiscal autonomy of local governments as well as their capacities for financial management need to be strengthened for SDG localization.
One of the biggest hurdles facing local governments today is the mismatch between their increasing responsibilities and static revenues. Many local governments are unable to fund rising demands for investments in infrastructure and public services. While urban governments in certain countries have strong fiscal bases and are creditworthy, many local governments have weaker fiscal bases, creditworthiness and limited access to long-term funding [51].
Weak local finances may be the result of various factors, including: i) national government restrictions on local powers of revenue generation; ii) limited local capacity to collect revenues and/or deliver services; iii) local revenue generation disincentives from poorly designed fiscal transfer programs, and; iv) low political credibility/accountability of local governments, weakening revenue compliance [51].
Local governments embarking on SDG localization will face even greater financial demands, as the goal-based agenda calls for accelerated outcomes. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development both emphasize the need for increased funding of local governments, for more equitable and sustainable development outcomes; “the city must be able to better finance the city” [52]. There are two key considerations for local governments as they seek to finance the SDGs and achieve the targets:
i. Local government fiscal frameworks: These encompass the fiscal frameworks that define the assignment of revenues, expenditures, and the financial autonomy of local governments e.g. in setting taxes, tariffs and fees [53]. As such, they are crucial to determining the scope of local government development finance, through own source revenue generation, national and sub-national government allocations and transfers, and access to sub-sovereign lending mechanisms. Local governments’ fiscal frameworks will depend on the political context, the scope and degree of decentralization, and the capacity and maturity of local government administrations. In federal countries, regional or provincial governments will also influence the scale of fiscal devolution to the local level. For local governments, implementing the SDGs will require greater fiscal resources, and the process of localization provides a key entry point for negotiation with higher levels of government to increase financial allocations and gain greater fiscal powers for own-source revenue generation.
ii. Other financing mechanisms: Cities can also explore alternative financing mechanisms for SDG implementation. Urban areas, as a result of their productive economies, potential returns on investment, and high economies of scale are well-placed to attract significant private investments, and the role of credit markets and public-private partnerships is increasingly relevant in financing capital-intensive urban infrastructure projects. Similarly, the high value of urban land can be effectively mobilized through a variety of land-based financing mechanisms to stimulate development. Many alternative financing mechanisms depend on intergovernmental fiscal frameworks, which allow autonomous action by local governments, such as the ability to borrow funds from capital markets. See section 2.3 in Chapter 2 for a table of financing mechanisms that may be mobilized to achieve the SDGs in cities.
Box 28: Land readjustment for value capture
Value capture mechanisms are flexible, land-based financing instruments that promote a self-financed approach to urban development. The two examples below look at land readjustment as an innovative form of value capture for financing large-scale urban growth.
Town planning schemes (TPS) are a form of land readjustment practiced in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra in India. Local governments in Gujarat, in large cities such as Ahmedabad and Surat, use the TP schemes to influence urban growth at the peripheries, and to finance land development, basic infrastructure and affordable housing. The TPS is used to develop parcels of peri-urban and agricultural land for urban development, and requires land owners to transfer up to 40 percent of their land to the government for redevelopment. The land from different owners within a given TP scheme is pooled and reconstituted as urban plots equipped with roads and basic infrastructure. In return, land owners receive cash compensation for the land taken, and retain the remaining 60 percent of their land in the form of serviced plots with a higher value than their previously undeveloped land parcels. The government builds roads and other public facilities on a portion of the land received from the landowners and reserves a portion to sell at auction to cover the costs of infrastructure development. As such, TPS does not replace urban planning, but provides financing for an incremental approach to urban development through a value capture mechanism that captures a portion of the increased land value that accrues to owners of developed urban land [54].
Land readjustment for value capture is also used by Tokyu Corporation, a private railway company that serves suburban Tokyo and connects it to the city center. Tokyu Corporation, one of several transit companies that build, own, and operate Greater Tokyo’s railway network, relied heavily on land value capture from 2000 through 2010. Its railway construction costs from the 1960s through the 1980s were financed half by commercial loans and half by the Development Bank of Japan, with proceeds from land sales used to pay off the loans. Gains in land values from the time those properties were in agricultural use to when they were served by rail lines generated the profits. Particularly important to Tokyu’s co-development process has been the practice of “land readjustment.” Under this system, landholders give up their property and in return receive parcels that are roughly half the size of their original parcels, but that enjoy full infrastructure services (e.g., railway stations, roads, water, and electricity). The remaining land is used for roads and public spaces such as parks and is also sold to cover railway development costs. Tokyu’s co-development approach has been internationally viewed as the most successful example of transit value capture in the late twentieth century [55].
While land value capture mechanisms do have drawbacks and may not be appropriate for all projects and contexts, they represent an important instrument of self-financing urban development that can be mobilized in capital-intensive transport and service infrastructure projects.
Local public financial management (PFM)
A key aspect of healthy municipal finance systems is the public management of finances. Public Financial Management (PFM) is a system of rules, procedures, and practices for government to manage public finances. It encompasses budgeting, accounting, auditing, cash management, management of public debt, revenue generation, and public sector reporting on financial operations. PFM seeks to address the key challenges of controlling government spending and making agencies operate efficiently and effectively [56]. PFM directly affects the delivery of public goods and services, and promotes the sustainability of development programs and projects by curbing spending to available resources. It ensures that public funds are spent in a cost-effective manner, on projects and initiatives that directly respond to policy objectives and development goals.
Strengthened PFM processes within local government can ensure the attainment of i) fiscal discipline, ii) strategic allocation of resources and, iii) efficient service delivery [56]. The SDGs will increase the pressure on available local resources, and local governments will need to transparently and equitably allocate limited finances among a diverse set of SDG targets. An open PFM system has the potential to ensure that SDG targets are prioritized and implemented in alignment with development needs and voter preferences, rather than in response to special interest groups.
For more information, see the World Bank report Public Financial Management Performance Measurement Framework.
Box 29: Participatory budgeting
Citizens’ participation in budget formulation and in maintaining accountability is key to empowered participatory governance, especially at the local level. Participatory budgeting is one such enabling process used by municipalities across the world.
Participatory budgeting (PB) is a well-established and innovative way to manage public money, and to engage people in government. It is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. It enables taxpayers to work with government to make the budget decisions that affect their lives. The process was first developed in Brazil in 1989, and there are now over 1,500 participatory budgets being undertaken around the world. Most of these are at the city level, for the municipal budget [57]. In 2015, Paris undertook the world’s largest participatory budgeting process with an allocation of EUR 75 million, or 5% of the city’s total budget [58]. In Porto Alegre, where participatory budgeting was born, public residents are the final decision-makers for approximately 20% of the annual budget [57].
Though each experience is different, most follow a similar basic process: residents brainstorm spending ideas, volunteer budget delegates develop proposals based on these ideas, residents vote on proposals, and the government implements the top projects. For more information on participatory budgeting, and examples of participatory budgeting processes, go to http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/.
Box 30: Local Governance Reform Program, Palestinian Territories
Financing non-programmatic, crosscutting capacities such as financial management can be difficult for local governments that are working with constrained budgets. The Local Governance Reform Program (LGRP) supports local governments in modernizing their administrations, introducing transparent financial management and improving the quality of their service provision. GIZ is implementing the LGRP in cooperation with a number of Palestinian partner institutions, including the Ministry of Local Government and the Municipal Development and Lending Fund (MDLF), as well as selected municipalities and civil society organizations.
The MDLF, a Palestinian semi-governmental institution, aims to encourage the flow of financial resources from the Palestinian authority, and various donors, to local government units and other local public entities to improve the delivery of local infrastructure and municipal services, to promote economic development and to enhance municipal efficiency and accountability. In addition, the MDLF aims to increase mobilization of donor assistance, strengthen intergovernmental financial transfers and promote emergency response capacity. GIZ is contributing to the fund, together with 12 other development partners, including KfW development bank.
With financial support from the MDLF via grants and loans, elected local officials and employees of civil society organizations receive training that enables them to contribute to local policy planning and decision-making processes, and to carry out joint initiatives in accordance with policy guidelines for strategic local development and investment planning, which were prepared in cooperation with LGRP partners and local authorities.
For more information, go to http://www.mdlf.org.ps/.
3.4 Government capacity development for the SDGs
The scale and breadth of the SDG implementation challenge is immense, and governments at all levels will need to build their institutional capacity to deliver. This section looks at tools and mechanisms to develop local government capacity.
The UNDP defines capacity development as “the process through which individuals, organizations and societies obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time” [59]. In the SDG context, this is especially relevant for local governments, many of which will be taking on expanded mandates and responsibilities as they adopt global goals for implementation.
Capacity development initiatives can focus on strengthening different types of skills and abilities within local governance: i) functional and operational skills, which are needed for efficiency in program and project management, tax collection and procurement processes, and municipal finance management; ii) technical skills, associated with particular areas of expertise in specific sectors, such as water and sanitation engineering, urban planning, integrated waste management, and civil and transport engineering; iii) behavioral norms, which have to do with cultural shifts and changes in attitude among all stakeholders including citizens, be it to reduce waste generation or encourage greater public transit ridership among citizens, or better multi-sectoral program planning among government organizations [59]. Interventions for local capacity development will depend on the type of skills or abilities being developed. For example, technical capacities may be enhanced by employing professionals with the necessary skills, or by partnering with an external organization. Capacity assessment tools can help local governments prioritize and optimize investments in capacity development where they are most needed.
Local capacity development initiatives must have clear objectives and performance indicators, must be tailored to specific capacity needs, and have sufficient resources to ensure sustained capacity development. While capacity development is a continuous and long-term process, some mechanisms for building project capacity in the short- and medium-term are indicated below.
i. Legislation: Legal stipulations requiring capacity development plans and/or budget allocations for all implementation programs.
ii. Training programs: Regular staff-training programs or requirements for continued learning among public sector employees.
iii. Partnerships: Project partnerships with higher levels of government, public or private organizations, academic institutions, and civil society groups.
iv. External experts: Consultants from private organizations or academic institutions with sectoral and/or technical expertise.
v. Accountability measures: These may include regular auditing by external organizations, or social accountability through watchdog groups.
vi. Technology: Incorporating digital technologies that ease administrative burden, promote greater cooperation between stakeholders, and allow for greater oversight and transparency in operations.
vii. Best practices: Learning from the experiences and outcomes of initiatives by other cities or local governments.
Box 31: UNDP Capacity Assessment Framework
The UNDP Capacity Assessment Framework is a three-step capacity assessment process, the design of which is driven by an understanding of the motivation behind the assessment. For SDG implementation, local governments may want to assess the capacity of the enabling environment for financial management, monitoring and evaluation, and multi-sectoral planning. The framework can also help assess government departments, public sector institutions or other organizations in terms of: 1) institutional arrangements; 2) leadership; 3) knowledge; and/or 4) accountability. Keeping in mind the limited budgets of local governments, it may be strategic to limit capacity assessment to high-impact, crosscutting issues. Self-assessment and internal assessment models are other low cost options to support capacity development initiatives.
See the UNDP Capacity Assessment Practice Note for more details.
Box 32: Capacity development for local revenue investment, Peru
Peru LNG, the largest foreign direct investment in Peru’s history, consisted of the development, construction, and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant, a related marine loading terminal and a natural gas pipeline. The project attracted a large amount of foreign investments and was expected to generate revenues that would increase the country’s GDP by 1.5%, resulting in significant royalty flows to the Peruvian government, and the municipalities of the regions in which the project was located. A lack of local government capacity to address the obligations and responsibilities of the project, and to design efficient and effective mechanisms to distribute project royalties to local communities, led to a multi-pronged program of capacity development that was built into project planning, and delivered by a range of project partners [59].
Peru LNG, the private consortium responsible for implementing and operating the project, worked with private consultants to strengthen municipal investment management. Local governments received capacity building to efficiently plan, manage, and make sound investment decisions. At the same time, civil society organizations received support on monitoring revenue inflows and municipal investments in order to increase both transparency and accountability. Municipalities received in-depth technical support and training to resolve bottlenecks in the investment cycle. Investment committees were established in each municipality to promote sound investment practices. Results from the various monitoring and supervision programs were made available to project stakeholders, which include the local population and non-governmental organizations.
The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) provided a $5 million loan to the Government of Peru to strengthen its capacity to supervise and monitor the project’s environmental and social aspects, and to ensure balanced development in the project’s area of influence [60]. The governmental entity responsible for supervising the project was also strengthened with over 21 inspectors assigned during construction and 12 for operation.
For more information on the Peru LNG project, go to the IDB report Environmental and Social Strategy- Peru LNG Project.
3.5 Policy frameworks
This section looks at how policies can enable sustainable urban and local development, including national urban policies that can support universal SDG achievement across all cities and human settlements.
Policy frameworks are a set of principles and long-term goals that form the basis of legislation and regulations, giving overall direction to the planning and development for a country/region, or within a sector of operation. They form the scaffolding for development planning and market regulation, and are instrumental in creating an enabling or limiting environment for achieving sustainable outcomes. From more sustainable production and consumption patterns to more equitable distribution of wealth, the SDG agenda demands profound changes in the way people, organizations and governments function. An enabling policy environment for sustainable development creates the appropriate structures of incentives and sanctions to align the personal interests of individuals and businesses with the collective good.
Enabling policy frameworks will constitute the foundation of progressive social and economic development, in achieving climate protection goals, and in meeting ever-increasing global energy demand [61]. While policy frameworks are typically framed at the national level, local governments often have some political authority for independent policy-making in sectors such as housing, spatial planning and development, urban services and infrastructure, economic development, environmental protection and resilience etc. Through a wide range of policy instruments such as climate change plans, procurement policies, minimum wage laws, building bylaws, energy ordinances, planning regulations, and tax rebates, local governments can decisively facilitate the achievement of SDG targets, and sustainable development.
Sectoral development policies and priorities will be highly contextual, depending on a number of factors including prosperity, the rate of urbanization or urban development, migration flows, electoral priorities, and vulnerability to disaster risks. Local government powers for policymaking also vary from place to place, with some cities having more political powers and fiscal autonomy for decentralized energy policies, incentivized tax structures, and sustainable development initiatives. Thus, local authorities will need to work with higher levels of government, both to frame enabling sectoral policies in the short-term, as well as to promote greater decentralization for action in the longer run.
While sustainable policies and programs in metropolises and capital cities are often more publicized, many smaller cities and municipalities too, are taking the lead on implementing progressive policies. The German town of Vauban, home to 5000 people, was constructed in the mid-1990s as a ‘sustainable model district’. All buildings have low energy-dependence, and its design encourages pedestrians and cyclists. Smaller cities and towns may also find it easier to implement bold sustainability measures; Vauban is a unique example of, “learning while planning.” As a result of the highly bottom-up and participatory nature of planning and development, as well as its innovative planning schemes, the town is a model for integrated planning, and low-impact development [62].
National Urban Policies
A National Urban Policy (NUP) is a coherent set of decisions derived through a consultative process, for a common vision that promotes more transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban development in the long term [63]. National urban policy frameworks are key to shaping urban development within countries by highlighting local priorities, framing territorial development approaches, and by defining legislation that grants local autonomy for action. They enable action for sustainable development across all cities and territories, by promoting and incentivizing sustainable outcomes.
See Section 2.3 on planning and policy frameworks for sustainable development.
NUPs serve two overarching purposes [64]:
i. To mobilize political and institutional support for a concerted effort to shape the trajectory of urban development, and
ii. To develop the technical capabilities, legal frameworks and financial instruments to implement this commitment over time.
National urban policies provide a coordinating framework to address urban challenges and plan for future development in order to maximize the benefits of urbanization, while minimizing its adverse effects [63]. They establish connections between the dynamics of urbanization and the overall processes of national development, and set the stage for empowered local and regional governance, through outcomes such as spatial, cross‐governmental institutional architecture, effective political and fiscal devolution, capacity assessment and appropriate capacity development [65].
NUPs may be comprised of a single implementation document or may cover a range of policy measures and instruments that are framed and refined over time. There is no single model or approach for an NUP, and the issues they address will depend on the political, socio-economic, and cultural context of a country and its cities. Table 6 below provides a selection of NUPs from different countries, which illustrate their different forms, and variations in thematic and sectoral focus.
National urban policies are an essential component of an enabling policy framework for sustainable urban and local development. They have the potential to facilitate more territorial approaches to development that shape inter-municipal cooperation and development- issues which local governments cannot influence alone. Urban and local governments must work in cooperation with national governments in shaping urban policies that target the development of a balanced system of cities and guide the urbanization process by promoting more compact, socially inclusive, better connected and integrated cities and territories [66]. NUPs can help realize the potential of urban areas and urbanization processes in providing a higher quality of life to citizens, and for contributing to the equitable and sustainable development of surrounding regions. For cities and human settlements embarking on SDG localization, NUPs may be instrumental in supporting the achievement of the global goals locally.
Box 33: Ghana Urban Policy Framework
The Ghana National Urban Policy is a participatory and action-oriented document developed with assistance from GIZ, on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Development and Cooperation (BMZ) and in cooperation with Cities Alliance, as well as the World Bank program “Ghana Urban Transport Project.” It provides an example of how governments may structure the process of formulating an NUP.
In recognition of the inadequacy of urban infrastructure as well as the piecemeal and uncoordinated planning that characterized urban development in Ghana, the government undertook a national urban policy initiative in order to provide a comprehensive framework for urban areas. Over four years, a sequence of workshops, proposals, consultations, reviews, analyses and assessments were mobilized through an inclusive process that involved local communities, traditional leaders, private industry, and NGOs, including the country’s representatives of the urban poor, informal traders and settlement dwellers.
The framework comprises the development of a vision, guiding principles and 12 action areas which are further refined by establishing numerous detailed policy initiatives and key activities. Problems identified include issues such as a weak urban economy, land-use disorder, urban poverty, and inadequate housing and infrastructure [67].
For more information, see the Ghana National Urban Policy Framework and Action Plan.
Footnotes:
- A metropolitan region is a territory consisting of a densely populated urban core and its less-populated surrounding territories (satellite cities, towns, rural areas) characterized by housing, infrastructure and economic linkages, and comprising multiple jurisdictions and local governments [70].
References
[40] UN-Habitat. International Guidelines on Decentralization and Access to Basic Services for All. 2009. Available at: https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/guidelines_0.pdf
[41] Voices and Views. What is the Territorial Approach to Local Development? [Online] February 18, 2015. [Cited: May 1, 2016.] Available at: http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/article/what-territorial-approach-local-development
[42] UCLG. GOLD I: Decentralization and Local Democracy in the World. s.l. : UCLG, 2008. pp. 255–278. Available at: http://www.cities-localgovernments.org/gold/Upload/gold_report/gold_report_en.pdf
[43] UCLG-Africa & Cities Alliance. Assessing the Institutional Environment of Local Governments in Africa. Morocco: Cities Alliance & UCLG-Africa, 2013. Available at: http://www.afriquelocale.org/en/component/k2/item/318-publication%20-assessing-the-institutional-environmentof-local-governments-in-africa
[44] Zimmermann, Ulf. Metropolitan Governance. Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy. s.l. : Taylor & Francis, 2006. Available at: http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~uzimmerm/Notes/Metropolitan%20Governance.pdf
[45] Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Integration Across Government. London: National Audit Office, 2013. Available at: https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10091-001_Integration-across-government.pdf
[46] World Commission on Environment and Development. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. s.l.: United Nations, 1987. Available at: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf
[47] UN-Habitat. International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning: Towards a Compendium of Inspiring Practices. Kenya : UN-Habitat, 2015. Available at: http://unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/International%20Guidelines%20%20-%20Compendium%20Inspiring%20Practices.pdf
[48] GIZ & ICLEI. Operationalizing the Urban NEXUS: Towards resource-efficient and integrated cities and metropolitan regions. 2014. Available at: http://resilient-cities.iclei.org/fileadmin/sites/resilient-cities/files/Full_papers/Urban_NEXUS_Publication_ICLEI-GIZ_2014_web.pdf
[49] Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments. Financing Urban and Local Development: The Missing Link in Sustainable Development Finance. 2015. Available at: https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/background_paper_of_lrgs_on_ffd3.pdf
[50] Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments. SDGs will not be achieved if financing does not reach local levels. 2015. Available at: http://www.uclg-localfinance.org/sites/default/files/BRIEFING%20LOCAL%20GOVS%20ROLE%20IN%20FfD.pdf
[51] GIZ. Financing Local Infrastructure- Linking Local Governments and Financial Markets. Eschborn: GIZ, 2012. Available at: http://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/citiesalliance.org/files/Financing%20local%20Infrastructure%20Finance%20final.pdf
[52] Bishwapriya Sanyal, Chandan Deuskar. Town Planning Schemes as a Hybrid Land Readjustment Process in Ahmedabad, India. Value Capture and Land Policies. Cambridge MA : Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012. Available at: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2180_Town-Planning-Schemes-as-a-Hybrid-Land-Readjustment-Process-in-Ahmedabad-India
[53] Murakami, Jin. Transit Value Capture: New Town Co-development Models and Land Market Updates in Tokyo and Hong Kong. Value Capture and Land Policies. Cambridge MA : Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012. Available at: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2198_Transit-Value-Capture-New-Town-Co-Development-Models-and-Land-Market-Updates-in-Tokyo-and-Hong-Kong
[54] Department of Budget and Management of Philippines, European Union. Public Financial Management Assessment Tool for Local Government Units. 2012. Available at: http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/DBM%20Publications/PFMAT%20Book.pdf
[55] Participatory Budgeting Project. [Online] [Cited: May 20, 2016.] http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/. Available at: http://www.participatorybudgeting.org/
[56] Mairie de Paris. 5115 ideas submitted for the 2015 Paris participatory budget. [Online] March 16, 2015. [Cited: May 20, 2016.] Available at: http://next.paris.fr/english/english/5115-ideas-submitted-for-the-2015-paris-participatorybudget/rub_8118_actu_154341_port_19237
[57] IFC. Chapter 5: Invest in Capacity Building. Strategic Community Investment: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies Doing Business in Emerging Markets. 2010, pp. 49–57. Available at: http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/f1c0538048865842b50ef76a6515bb18/12014complete-web.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
[58] Inter-American Development Bank. Environmental and Social Strategy- Peru LNG Project. Available at: http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=793018
[59] Woo, Fiona. Sustainable urban development: it’s time cities give back. The Guardian. [Online] August 13, 2013. [Cited: May 18, 2016]. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/aug/13/sustainable-urban-development-regeneration. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/aug/13/sustainable-urban-development-regeneration
[60] Angele Cauchois, et al. District Vauban: a sustainable model for, “learning while planning”. s.l. : GIZ & ICLEI, 2014. Available at: http://www2.giz.de/wbf/4tDx9kw63gma/10_UrbanNEXUS_CaseStory_Freiburg-Vauban.pdf
[61] UN-Habitat. National Urban Policy: Framework for a Rapid Diagnostic. Nairobi: UN-Habitat, 2014. Available at: http://unhabitat.org/national-urban-policy-framework-for-a-rapid-diagnostic/
[62] UN-Habitat & Cities Alliance. The Evolution of National Urban Policies. Nairobi: UN-Habitat, 2014. Available at: http://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/citiesalliance.org/files/National%20Urban%20Policies.pdf
[63] Habitat III Policy Unit 3. Habitat III Policy Paper Framework 3- National Urban Policy. 2015. Available at: https://www.habitat3.org/bitcache/e896d8d210d857cbbb94c8b0fa93504d07d6d61e?vid=566123&disposition=inline&op=view
[64] UN-Habitat. New Generation of National Urban Policies. Nairobi : UN-Habitat, 2014. Available at: http://unhabitat.org/new-generation-of-national-urban-policies-2/
[65] Government of Ghana Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development. Ghana National Urban Policy Action Plan. 2012. Available at: https://www.giz.de/en/downloads/giz2012-en-ghana-national-urban-policy-action-plan.pdf
[66] Cox, Wendell. How much of the world is covered by cities? New Geography. [Online] July 23, 2010. [Cited: May 18, 2016]. Available at: http://www.newgeography.com/content/001689-how-much-world-covered-cities.
[67] Rodriguez, J. EU’s new thinking on decentralisation and territorial development. GREAT Insights Magazine. June/July 2015, Vol. 4, 4. Available at: http://ecdpm.org/great-insights/territorial-development-2/eus-new-thinking-on-decentralisation-and-territorial-development/
