This chapter examines perceptions of national urban policy (NUP) in policy environments across countries. Definitions of NUP and key outcomes countries aim to achieve vary, but they commonly refer to a coherent set of decisions towards a common vision for urban development and to facilitate inter-sectoral and inter-regional co‑ordination. The COVID-19 crisis raised the profile of NUP as key to more resilient, greener and more inclusive cities and part of countries’ recovery packages. Beyond the public health emergency, the pandemic prompted cities to rethink how they deliver services, how they plan their space and how they can resume economic growth. Overall, the chapter underlines the need for more granular and contextualised NUP monitoring and for sharing knowledge and experience on NUP through multi-stakeholder dialogues, peer-learning and collaboration in global platforms.
Global State of National Urban Policy 2021
2. Perception of NUPs in today’s policy environment
Abstract
Key findings
Countries have different definitions of national urban policy (NUP), ranging from outcome-based, such as sustainable urban development and social inclusion, to process-based, such as stakeholder engagement. 55% of responding countries have their own definition of NUP.
Countries aim to achieve diverse outcomes through NUP. The most common are “balanced territorial and urban development in a country” (55%), “a coherent vision for national urban development” (44%) and “improved policy co‑ordination across sectors” (31%).
Unitary and federal countries differ in institutional contexts for NUP. In federal countries, state and provincial governments generally have strong responsibility for urban policy, though national governments play an important role for capacity development and financial/technical support. Unitary countries demonstrate both centralised and decentralised approaches.
The most common competence of national governments for NUP is regulatory responsibility (89%), followed by legislative capacity (70%), national-level land use planning (60%), co‑ordination (57%) and fiscal capacity for urban development (34%).
Aligning national and sub-national urban policies is crucial for both levels of government. Sub‑national urban policies mobilise actions, strategies and resources of the national agenda towards specific local contexts and objectives, and thus form part of a systemic national urban policy framework.
National definitions of NUP
Definitions of national urban policy (NUP) vary across countries in terms of content and objectives. In total, 46 countries out of 84 surveyed (55%) have their own definition of NUP (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1. Countries with a formal definition of National Urban Policy, n = 84
Note: No information was available for two countries out of the 86 survey respondents. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
The analysis of NUP definitions shows that many countries apply outcome-based dimensions (Box 2.1). For example, 11 countries refer to “sustainability” and “environmental sustainability” within their NUP definitions. Another frequent objective is “quality of life for citizens”. Some countries, such as Brazil and Nigeria mention “well-being”. The Netherlands specifically mentions “healthy” in the perspective for 2050 and priorities of the National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands, 2019[1]) (see Box 7.2). Other countries attribute an important role to social cohesion or equitable development in urbanisation strategy:
In France, the NUP definition states that urban policy is about cohesion and solidarity, targeting disadvantaged areas.
Panama’s definition mentions orientation towards an adequate spatial structure for the equitable development of society.
In Algeria, territorial and social equity are key goals of the National Land Use Planning Scheme and the Law on the Orientation of the City respectively, and two of the six directives on which the country bases its NUP.
Brazil is in the process of formulating a national urban development policy, which aims to reduce socio-spatial inequalities at intra-urban and supra-municipal scales, and across cities.
Certain developing countries highlight the need for economic growth and inclusive urban development. In Rwanda, for example, one pillar of the overarching NUP document is economic growth through a coherent sectoral policy. Jordan, Myanmar and Zambia refer to “productive and inclusive development”.
Box 2.1. Selected examples of national definitions of NUP
Burkina Faso, “National Policy on Housing and Urban Development”, Decree n2008-431, MHU July 14, 2008:
“The policy of organizing the national urban system, controlling urban growth, producing sustainable urban spaces, organizing and improving conditions for access to land and basic urban services and promoting decent housing.”
Cabo Verde, “National Policy on Spatial Planning and Urbanism (PNOTU)”, 2019:
“The National Urban Policy in Cabo Verde is the long-term document that, based on the problems found in a diagnosis of the current territorial conjuncture, establishes the political guidelines for planning of the country's territory and urbanism, having strategic and programmatic dimensions, in addition to dealing with legal and institutional issues. In addition, it allows the national and local governments to be guided in the urbanisation process and constitutes a guiding instrument that establishes a clear and co‑ordinated view of the directions that public policies must take around the territorial development of cities. PNOTU is also an opportunity to lay the foundations for a nationally co‑ordinated urban development plan that includes contributions from various entities in the public and private sectors.”
Cuba, “Cuban Urban Policy”, National Land Planning Scheme, Dec 2018:
“Cuban urban policy promotes the development of compact structures that guarantee maximum use of the internal growth potential of cities and other settlements; increase densities; optimize existing technical networks and services; and encourage the recovery and growth of the housing fund.”
Finland, unofficial definition from early 2000s:
“Urban policy is defined as initiatives and actions carried out together between the national government and cities.”
France, “Programming Act for the City and Urban Cohesion”, 2014:
“Urban policy is a policy of urban cohesion and solidarity, both national and local, towards disadvantaged areas and their inhabitants. It is deployed in suburban territories called ‘priority urban policy areas’, characterised by a significant gap in economic and social development with the rest of the conurbations in which they are located.”
Germany, “Ten years after the Leipzig Charter”, 2012:
“The National Urban Development Policy is a joint initiative of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community, the Conference of German Building Ministers, the German Association of Cities and the German Association of Towns and Municipalities. It aims to bring together actors and interested parties around the topic of the city and is therefore considered as a communication platform, covering current social and urban trends, picking distinctive action and solution approaches (including innovative pilot projects) and serving on the whole as a basis for experience exchange.”
Guatemala, three national instruments constituting national urban policy, 2016, 2017, 2020:
“Guatemala has three national instruments that constitute the country’s urban policy: the Urban Agenda GT, The National Policy on Housing and Human Settlements, and the Policy for the Comprehensive Improvement of Neighbourhoods, the two latter pending government agreement. It defines the need to articulate the three scales of urban planning (housing, neighbourhood and city); the opportunity to strengthen a national urban network; and the opportunity to articulate planning, urban development, land use and risk management processes within the framework of environmental sustainability.”
Morocco, “Government Statement, National Urban Development Strategy”, 2007:
“Urban development is a broad concept, developed in the long term to indicate what future seems both desirable and achievable to local actors. It includes all forms of activity (economic, social, cultural, environmental, etc.) and encompasses all sectors deemed relevant to changing the urban development trajectory and directing it towards a more accomplished form that is more capable of ensuring better living conditions for the population.”
Panama, “Panama’s National Land Use Policy”, MIVIOT Resolution 468-2019 June 27, 2019:
“Integration of socio-economic with physical planning, oriented to the transformation of space; that must be oriented towards the ‘achievement of the adequate spatial structure for the effective and equitable development of the economic, social, cultural and environmental policy of society’; strengthening the link between land use planning, urban and rural planning, environmental sustainability and economic-social development.”
Poland, “National Urban Policy 2023”, 2015:
“National Urban Policy is a document defining the planned activities of government administration regarding urban policy, taking into account the objectives and directions set out in the medium-term national development strategy and the national regional development strategy. It serves the purposeful, territorially directed operation of the state for the sustainable development of cities and their functional areas and the use of their potentials in the country's development processes.”
Portugal, “Sustainable Cities 2020” strategy, Law no. 99/2019 effecting the first revision of the National Spatial Planning Policy Programme:
“Grounded in the sustainable urban development paradigm, the Sustainable Cities 2020 strategy should be understood as a territorial development policy, where the involvement and commitment of a wide variety of stakeholders is an essential condition, so as not to restrain the focus of interventions to the material aspect of urban areas, instead extending it to higher policy designs such as economic development, social inclusion, education, citizen engagement and environmental protection. […] These strategies should include social cohesion, innovation and employment policies and provide ways to achieve environmental sustainability.”
Serbia, “Sustainable Urban Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2030”, 2014:
“Urban Development Policy is a public policy that represents the key instrument for achieving sustainable urban development by the use of an integrated approach. As urban development in each country individually is the result of activities and decisions in different sectors, the main task of the Urban Development Policy is to establish co‑ordination over different sectors and define priorities by co‑ordinating the needs and interests of different actors. National Urban Development Policy, according to modern definitions, represents a coherent set of decisions, guided by the national government through the process of co‑operation of various actors in formulating a common vision and common goals, which are used to direct long-term transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient sustainable urban development.”
Turkey, “Integrated Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan (KENTGES) 2010-2023”, 2009:
“Urban Development Strategy (KENTGES) is a strategy document, having the nature of a reference framework document at the national level. KENTGES is an urbanisation and reconstruction vision of our country considering the issues of spatial planning, settlements and housing, which targets the year 2023. The main purpose of KENTGES is to improve the liveability as well as the quality of space and life in settlements and to establish a roadmap for strengthening of economic, social and cultural structures of settlements. It provides a roadmap for both central and local administrations in issues of urbanisation and planning.”
Note: figures are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020
In contrast, some countries apply process-based dimensions to their NUP definitions. They put emphasis on stakeholders and see NUPs more as processes and platforms.
For Finland, urban policy is about initiatives and actions carried out together between the national government and cities.
Cabo Verde's NUP represents an opportunity for contributions from various entities in public and private sectors to lay foundations for nationally co‑ordinated development.
Germany considers the National Urban Development Policy a joint initiative bringing together actors and interested parties around the topic of the city, and a collective communication platform.
Portugal highlights the role of stakeholders for the successful governance and implementation of urban-related programmes.
Other countries link NUP with urban-related global agendas such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the New Urban Agenda (NUA):
Algeria bases its NUP on strategic national and international roadmaps, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 11 in particular), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and others derived from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.
In Costa Rica, the NUP gives political orientation to implement the NUA and achieve the SDGs, particularly from the point of “resilient infrastructure and sustainable communities”.
For Ecuador, the National Urban Agenda will establish synergies with global agendas such as the SDGs, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the Paris Agreement.
In its NUP, Iran recognises the SDGs as a means to provide a better quality of life for Iranian citizens.
The National Urban Development Policy of Nigeria is aligned with the NUA, its Action Framework for implementation and other global agendas on sustainable urbanisation.
Spain aims to include NUA principles in its NUP.
Expected outcomes of NUP
Surveyed countries expect diverse outcomes from NUP. Respondents considered the three most relevant to be: (1) “balanced territorial and urban development in a country” (47 out of 86 responding countries, or 55%), (2) “a coherent vision for national urban development” (38 countries, 44%), and (3) “improved policy co‑ordination across sectors” (27 countries, 31%) (Figure 2.2).
The next two most expected outcomes of NUP were “productive and competitive cities with job opportunity” (24 countries, 28%) and “decent and affordable housing” (20 countries, 23%). The United States identified “reduced regulatory burden in housing production” and “increased economic opportunity for low-income people” as key expected outcomes of NUP. Canada underscored “decent and affordable housing”, “sustainable urban mobility” and “better urban-rural connectivity”. Israel and Poland aim for “quality of life” through NUP; Cabo Verde, reduction in poverty and inequality; Japan, further interaction between citizens and stakeholders; and the Netherlands, “liveable and sustainable cities”.
Figure 2.2. Key outcomes countries aim to achieve through NUP, n = 86
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were asked to select three responses.
In-depth analysis of five global regions reveals broad agreement on certain priorities (especially coherent vision for national urban development and balanced territorial and urban development) and some geographical diversities regarding the expected outcomes for NUP (Table 2.1):
In Africa, the top three expected outcomes are a coherent vision for national urban development (8 out of 14 responding countries, or 57%), followed by balanced territorial and urban development (7 countries, 50%), and improved basic urban services and infrastructure (6 countries, 43%).
In the Arab states, decent and affordable housing is an important driver in NUP (4 out of 7 responding countries, or 57%), as is a coherent vision for national urban development (3 countries, 43%), balanced territorial and urban development (3 countries, 43%), and sectoral policy co‑ordination (3 countries, 43%).
In Asia and the Pacific, countries seek to achieve balanced territorial and urban development (7 out of 15 responding countries, or 47%), develop a coherent vision for national urban development (6 countries, 40%), and improve basic urban services and infrastructure (6 countries, 40%).
European and North American countries highlight balanced territorial and urban development (23 out of 36 responding countries, or 64%), a coherent vision for national urban development (16 countries, 44%), and productive and competitive cities (13 countries, 36%).
Latin American and Caribbean countries emphasise improved policy co‑ordination across sectors (9 out of 14 responding countries, or 64%), balanced territorial and urban development (7 countries, 50%), and a coherent vision for national urban development (5 countries, 36%), reflecting their strong expectation of the co‑ordinating role of NUP. They also focus urban policies on reducing urban sprawl, improving urban services and infrastructure, and on decent and affordable urban housing (4 countries each, 29% each).
Table 2.1. Key outcomes identified to achieve through NUP, by global region, n = 86
Number of countries selecting a given outcome
|
Africa (n = 14) |
Asia and the Pacific (n = 15) |
Arab states (n = 7) |
Europe and North America (n = 36) |
Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 14) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Urban safety |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Circular economy |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
Participation of citizens |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
|
Other |
1 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
|
Sustainable urban mobility |
1 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
|
Low-carbon transition |
1 |
1 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
|
Social cohesion |
0 |
1 |
0 |
6 |
1 |
|
Adaptation to climate change |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Urban and rural connectivity |
2 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
|
Less urban sprawl, more compact and connected cities |
2 |
3 |
1 |
7 |
4 |
|
Basic urban services and infrastructure |
6 |
6 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
|
Decent and affordable housing |
5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
Productive and competitive cities with job opportunity |
4 |
2 |
2 |
13 |
3 |
|
Policy coordination across sectors |
3 |
5 |
3 |
7 |
9 |
|
A coherent vision for national urban development |
8 |
6 |
3 |
16 |
5 |
|
Balanced territorial and urban development |
7 |
7 |
3 |
23 |
7 |
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were asked to select three responses.
Institutional context for NUPs
Countries vary widely regarding institutional arrangements and the distribution of competences and responsibilities for urban policies across levels of governments. Understanding the diversity is crucial for a contextualised assessment of NUP at global scale.
The answers to the NUP country survey demonstrate that whether a country has a unitary or federal governance structure creates a distinct difference in competence at the national level. However, there are also interesting variations among federal states or among unitary states regarding roles and responsibilities for urban policy across different levels of government.
In most federal countries, state and provincial governments have significant responsibility for urban policy and play a key role in urban development. However, in some countries, federal governments work closely with state and local jurisdictions on urban matters and play a substantive role (Box 2.2). Unitary states also vary in institutional arrangements. National governments in some countries maintain responsibility for urban policy, while others employ more decentralised approaches. In both cases, most governments in unitary states make efforts to find a balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches (Box 2.3).
Analysis by global region shows geographical commonalities, although there are country variations. African countries report a general tendency towards centralised institutional settings, with less institutional capacity in regional and local governments, for example in Malawi, Rwanda and Senegal. In the Arab states, national governments demonstrate strong national competence in urban matters and increasingly work with local and regional governments. In Europe and North America, most countries take a decentralised approach, with relatively strong competencies in local and regional governments. Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean highlight strong institutional frameworks for urban policy at the national level with relatively weak municipal administrative and financial capacity. In countries in Asia and the Pacific, responsibilities tend to be shared across national, regional and local levels.
Box 2.2. Federal states’ distribution of competences and responsibilities for NUP
In Australia, the federal government does not have direct jurisdiction over urban policies and development, which fall under the responsibility of State/Territory and local government jurisdictions. However, the federal government provides the settings for taxation, finance, welfare, superannuation, foreign investment, and immigration policies as well as funding for specific projects (infrastructure and development). The Australian Government’s Smart Cities Plan and its key implementation mechanism, City Deals, is an example of such co-ordination and investment.
In Brazil, the federated entities have political, administrative and financial autonomy with competencies determined by the federal constitution. However, asymmetries in the federative pact in relation to the distribution of competencies and resources make the federal government responsible for supporting municipalities in the implementation of urban policies, including capacity-building, financial resources, a toolbox for local planning, management and governance.
In Canada and the United States, state/provincial governments control urban planning and land-use policies such as zoning, and federal governments provide financial and technical support to urban development and urban policy initiatives undertaken at state/provincial or municipal levels.
In Ethiopia, the federal government provides support and capacity building, prepares overarching strategies, helps establish the appropriate organisational structure, allocates budgets necessary for the development of cities, and formulates laws at the federal level to ensure smooth policy implementation. Regional and local governments share responsibility to devise urban strategies and regulations, and to provide or signal the need for capacity building.
In Germany, the state and federal levels work together on shared responsibility, legislation of an overarching framework for urban development, allocation of funding, and financial support contracts at the state level for investment purposes, which are complemented by state and municipal levels.
In Nigeria, 10 ministries at the national level and several departments/agencies hold responsibilities and roles in urban planning and development, indicated in the National Urban Development Policy and National Housing Policy adopted in 2012. At sub-national level, State Urban and Regional Development Authorities and Local Urban and Regional Development Boards are sometimes also in place.
Box 2.3. Unitary states’ distribution of competences and responsibilities for NUP
In Estonia, urban and other municipalities are responsible for spatial and strategic development planning, and provision of public services within their territories.
In France, urban policy is inter-ministerial, partnership-based, contractual and participatory in its approach, decentralised and deconcentrated in its implementation and integration of the social, urban and economic dimensions within the city contract, and the setting up of citizens' councils.
In Hungary, leadership is at the national level, co‑ordinated between the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Innovation and Technology, and the Ministry of Finance.
In Morocco, housing and urban development is primarily a national competency, and different ministries have responsibilities for a wide range of issues including land use and housing.
Jordan presents a shift towards greater local competence.
Saudi Arabia extends the role of regional and local government, which the national government aims to empower to implement national spatial policies.
In Myanmar, the national government is responsible for regulation, policies, strategies, monitoring and evaluation; the regional level is in charge of regulatory arrangements and implementation; local governments cover most implementation issues.
Namibia, through its new Urban and Regional Planning Act (not yet operational), envisages decentralisation or transfer of some approval procedures to regional and local governments for more efficiency in land use planning and approval process.
In Norway, the private sector (such as entrepreneurs in construction, private investors, private enterprises and entrepreneurs in the house-building sector) play an important role in urban development as main contributors to both planning and building in urban areas.
In Slovakia, the central government influences the urban policies of municipal governments. The Ministry of Transport and Construction, as the central state administration body, prepares and implements NUP. The dual system of public administration authorises local governments to decide autonomously on the overall development of their territories.
Slovenia implements spatial development policy on national (state) and local (municipal) levels. The regional level is not institutionalised, but the current legal framework allows inter-municipal planning.
In Sweden, the urban planning system is highly decentralised, although county administrative boards (part of the national government) have significant responsibilities and competencies, and can intervene in issues that affect national interests, environmental quality standards, inter-municipal interests, and issues concerning health and safety and the risk of accidents, flooding or erosion. Regional governments in general have little competence in urban policy.
In the United Kingdom, the central government is responsible for overall policies towards cities and urban development. Meanwhile, the government's City Deal and Devolution programmes allow a degree of “tailored” devolution of responsibility to English cities and wider regions. Local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) exist between local authorities and businesses involved in decision-making on local priorities (investment in roads, infrastructure, buildings and facilities).
Note: Figures are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Regarding roles and responsibilities in urban policy at the national level, 83 countries indicated specific types of competence (Figure 2.3):
Regulation is the most common competence of national governments for urban policymaking and development. Out of 83 national governments, 74 (89%) identified regulatory responsibility for urban matters as a national prerogative. In Israel, for example, the national government’s Israel Planning Administration (IPA) takes a leading role in planning and regulating land use and spatial development throughout the country.
58 countries (70%) report that they establish the legislative grounds for urban policies. The legislative mandate extends to various urban issues, ranging from land use to housing, spatial development and funding allocation. For example, in Turkey, the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation sets the legislative and administrative framework for “spatial development”, “planning legislation”, “building legislation”, “housing” and “land registry”.
Out of the 58 countries that reported on the distribution of their legislative responsibilities, 12 indicated that they are shared at the national and sub-national levels. In Germany, both federal and state governments have legislative power regarding planning laws.
50 countries (60%) report a national-level land use planning function. In Denmark, the national government has overarching responsibility for spatial planning, urban development, and area-use with related functions allocated across different ministries and authorities dealing with spatial planning issues under the Planning Act.
47 countries (57%) mentioned co‑ordinating urban matters as a national competence. In Burkina Faso, the Ministry of Town Planning and Housing co‑ordinates the execution of sectoral projects in urban areas and ensures the co‑ordination of interventions and investments in cities in accordance with planned development. In Luxembourg, the Department of Regional Planning is responsible for regional planning and inter-ministerial co‑ordination of sectoral policies relating to regional development and land use.
28 countries (34%) report that national governments possess fiscal capacities for urban development. In Canada, the federal government participates in urban policy and development through a variety of fiscal instruments. In the United States, the federal government is a source of funding for some urban policy initiatives undertaken at the state and local level.
26 countries (31%) report urban monitoring and evaluation activities as a national competence. For example, in Slovenia, the government has the authority to monitor the legality of spatial planning activities at local and regional levels.
Figure 2.3. Types of competences for urban matters at the national level, n = 83
Note: No information was available for three countries out of the 86 survey respondents.
Urban policies at different levels of government
A country’s NUP links to and is affected by urban policies at other levels, namely urban policies by sub‑national governments (e.g. state, province, regions and cities) and those influenced by supra-national bodies. Fifty out of 86 responding countries to the NUP country survey reported “policies that are affecting their urban areas and that are not at the national scale”, thus providing concrete examples of sub-national and supra-national initiatives or frameworks.
Sub-national urban policies
Many countries provided examples of urban development strategies planned and implemented by sub‑national governments. Whereas these sub-national policies have local objectives, they also mobilise actions, strategies and resources of the national agenda towards specific territorial contexts. Aligning national and sub-national urban policies is therefore crucial for both levels of government. Sub-national urban initiatives are evident in all parts of the globe and most illustrate links with NUP, such as alignment, guiding, endorsement (Box 2.4).
Several countries provided examples of place-based or sub-national plans and strategies prepared by national governments. Examples include: the Maritime Spatial Plan in Bulgaria, the Spatial Plan for the Coastal Zone in Montenegro and the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plans in Turkey. In the Netherlands, urban strategies equivalent to their explicit NUP (the National Strategy on Spatial Planning and Environment) are also produced by provinces and municipalities. Likewise, Korea developed national policies to achieve objectives for specific regions. While these only cover specific geographical spaces in a country, these plans and strategies can be understood as NUPs.
Box 2.4. Examples of sub-national urban policies
Asia and the Pacific
In Australia, urban policies and development are the responsibility of State/Territory governments, while their respective local governments are responsible for land-use zoning and development approvals. Urban development along transport routes is another area-based focus, as illustrated by Israel’s policy for urban development along mass transportation routes in Jerusalem and in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. Inter-regional territorial development policies and schemes are evident in Kazakhstan for the Almaty, Shymkent and Aktobe agglomerations.
Thailand has masterplans for smart cities that include liveability, economic revitalisation, improved quality of life, reduction of inequalities and inclusive infrastructure. Turkey established Regional Development Agencies to prepare Regional Development Plans in accordance with the country’s National Strategy for Regional Development, and to support local actors, increase integration between sectors and develop spatial unity of local economies.
Europe and North America
In Austria, the region of Upper Austria developed a strategy, combined with financial resources, to stimulate urban-rural co‑operation in a number of smaller urban areas to reduce the land take. Canada regulates land use planning and urban policy implementation through provincial planning acts, with municipalities as "creatures of the province". The Act regulates land use and development, especially in the growth of cities. Germany has policies (programmes) on the Länder-level, like WiN (Wohnen in Nachbarschaften, “Living in Neighbourhoods”) in Bremen and RISE (Rahmenprogramm Integrierte Stadtteilentwicklung, “Framework Programme Integrated District Development”) in Hamburg.
Czechia implements Regional Innovation Strategies in its 14 regions. The strategies support cities’ competitiveness, innovation, research and development, and to better implement public and the European Structural and Investment Funds. Similarly, Ireland has Regional Spatial Planning and Economic Strategies for three regions. The aim is to develop metropolitan areas of the five major cities in the country. For example, key policies from the Dublin Metropolitan Area Spatial Plan include compact sustainable growth to promote consolidation of the city and suburbs, integrated transport and land use along high quality public transport networks, corridors and nodes, and enabling infrastructure capacity. All local authorities in the Dublin metropolitan area must reflect such policies within their local plans. Similar regional development policies exist in Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy and the Netherlands, where the National Strategy on Spatial Planning and Environment has sub-national versions for provinces and municipalities.
Latin America and the Caribbean
Costa Rica intends to create regional plans that define guidelines for urban development in six regions to conform with the National Urban Development Plan as defined by Urban Planning Law, while Guatemala makes regional plans for comprehensive development and establishment of systems of cities in the regions and to guide its territorial organisation. In Brazil, the constitutional competence for implementing urban development policy lies with the municipalities. They must prepare master plans as the basic instrument of urban policy. By 2018, 52% of Brazilian municipalities had master plans for local regulation of urban policy.
Africa
In Nigeria, the Niger State Urban Development Policy is being created in line with the provisions of the Nigeria National Urban Development Policy of 2012. The State Policy will set out a framework for the development and management of urban centres as a basis for improved local economic development and environmental sustainability. Zanzibar, Tanzania highlights similar initiatives. Madagascar has regional-level territorial planning policy and urban-level development policies.
Arab states
Morocco’s policy for the creation of new cities, initiated in 2004, aims to plan cities around primary urban agglomerations in response to growing urbanisation and housing demand. Morocco also points to its 2011 “Plan Communal de Développement”, defining six-year socio-economic development strategies for municipalities and including participatory citizen engagement, and its 2014‑20 Industrial Acceleration Plan for the formation of industrial ecosystems.
Supra-national urban policies
Cross-border policy issues, and urban issues of international concern and global ramification, such as climate change, should be considered not only within a single country, but across nations. Co‑ordination and institutionalisation of urban issues among different actors, sectors and functions sometimes happens beyond national territorial scales as supra-national urban dynamics. The NUP country survey found that such supranational policy frameworks with urban competences were particularly evident in Asia, Europe and Latin America:
Luxembourg engages in cross-border co‑operation policy, with a focus on cross-border agglomerations such as the Franco-Luxembourg conurbation of Alzette Belval, and with various ministries. Examples include the Development, Monitoring and Implementation of Cross-border Spatial Development Strategies led by the Ministry of Energy and Spatial Planning, and the Inter-ministerial Co-ordination Committee for Cross-Border Cooperation led by the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs.
Netherlands also has many years of experience with cross-border co‑operation and international agreements with Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland on river management and the urbanised delta areas. Some issues within NUP involving a cross-border approach relate to housing and labour markets, which go beyond administrative perimeters. Others relate to public transport and infrastructure, energy and nature in relation to ecological and social footprints.
A few countries refer to the contribution of European Union supranational policies and funding mechanisms (e.g. EU Cohesion Policy, European Fund for Regional Development) in supporting integrated urban or regional development (Austria, Bulgaria, Turkey), a city’s potential for innovation, research and competitiveness (Czechia), and new forms of effective partnerships for functional urban areas beyond rigid administrative borders (Poland). At the EU scale, the New Leipzig Charter, a continuation of the 2016 Pact of Amsterdam, is also considered a framework for urban development by several countries (Box 6.3).
Colombia has a Prosperity for the Colombian Borders policy, targeting urban areas on and near the border, with the objectives of promoting sustainable growth, reducing inequities with the rest of the country, enhancing inclusion of ethnic groups along the border, and taking into account the characterisation of each border region.
Thailand adopted the ASEAN Community Vision 2025, which aims to sustain the momentum of regional integration and further contribute to strengthening the ASEAN community-building efforts and regional co‑operation. The Vision also aims to enhance implementation of sustainable development through the SDGs.
Myanmar is in the process of developing a joint spatial development plan for the Myawaddy-Mae Sot cross-border area between Myanmar and Thailand.
NUP can play an important role in these contexts of cross-border and multi-national co‑operation in urban policy. First, NUP can work as a strong basis to guide the international policy making process. Second, it can help co‑ordinate and align policies across sub-national, national and supra-national scales.
Emerging policy needs for NUP
The contribution of NUP to rebuilding cities after COVID-19
Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath prompted cities to rethink how they deliver services and how they plan their space (e.g. urban density, digitalisation and mobility in cities). To a certain extent, “life after COVID-19” will be “life with COVID-19”, which stresses the need to rebuild cities over the long term taking better account of needs such as social distancing and teleworking. The return to proximity to essential urban services provides an opportunity to shift faster from goals of increasing mobility to enhancing accessibility by reimagining public spaces, urban design and planning. Essential concepts such as the circular economy, localisation of the SDGs, tactical town planning and "the 15-minute city" can improve quality of life while preserving productivity, social inclusion and the environment (OECD, 2020[2]). NUP can also play a key role in driving this paradigm shift by engaging policymakers, town planners and city dwellers, and developing an enabling framework for bottom-up and innovative urban strategies.
NUPs have a role to ensure that recovery strategies from the COVID-19 crisis address the uneven impacts of the crisis between and within urban areas. The COVID-19 crisis underlines the urgency to build more resilient, greener and more inclusive cities. NUP can contribute to more balanced and polycentric urbanisation by aligning sectoral policies, facilitating multi-level dialogues, fostering rural-urban linkages and addressing socio-spatial inequalities that the crisis revealed in cities, through an approach centred on people and places. Whereas most responses to the NUP country survey were collected before the COVID‑19 pandemic started, active dialogues among countries at the OECD Working Party for Urban Policy (in April and November 2020) as well as at the fifth Partners Meeting of the National Urban Policy Programme (in December 2020) revealed countries’ ambition and expectation for NUP in the coming years.
NUP contribution to global and regional urban agendas
NUPs are recognised as instruments for countries to implement global agendas such as the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. In 2019, NUPs became part of the indicator framework for SDG 11 on cities. This will increase countries’ attention to and interest in NUP. Despite uneven progress on the SDGs around the world, some gains were visible before the COVID-19 pandemic. These include a decrease in the share of children and youth out of school, an increase in women’s share of leadership roles, and improved access to safely managed drinking water. COVID-19 exacerbated the risk of setbacks in implementing these global agendas. For example, the UNDP and the Pardee Center for International Futures at the University of Denver estimate that the COVID-19 pandemic could push up to 169 million people into extreme poverty by 2030 (Abidoye et al., 2021[3]).
NUP should be leveraged better to address the unprecedented shocks in urban areas induced by climate change. Embedding climate measures in an effective enabling framework such as NUP enhances governments’ ambition and reduces cities’ emissions and exposure to climate risks. Urban areas have untapped opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050 local governments can reduce by a third of urban emissions and national-local collaboration can achieve reduction of another third (Coalition for Urban Transitions, 2019[4]). NUP can support the transition to the zero-carbon economy, as NUPs cover a range of policy areas with a profound effect on climate policy goals and well-being, such as economic development, land use, housing, transport, labour and health.
Many countries are also reviewing and renewing their NUPs against regional urban agendas. For example, the Urban Agenda for the European Union, notably the Pact of Amsterdam, acknowledges the contribution of urban areas to development at large, and the need for national and European policy frameworks to consider them to foster more territorial cohesion. Moreover, the “New Leipzig Charter – the transformative power of cities for the common good” emphasises strong national urban policy frameworks, urban resilience, including the risk of pandemics, and digital transformation. Its implementation plan calls for better connection and collaboration with existing urban networks and knowledge creation initiatives on the science-policy continuum. Lastly, in Africa, several countries are revisiting their NUPs to achieve the African Union’s Agenda 2063. This will be further discussed in Chapter 6.
NUP contribution to balanced urbanisation and urban-rural linkages
In many countries, ongoing and sometimes accelerating urbanisation remains a challenge. NUP can balance territorial development, avoiding overconcentration in major cities and oversaturation of public services and infrastructure, promoting a more polycentric system of cities of different size, and better connectivity between urban and rural areas. Urban and rural areas’ development is connected through functional relationships and complementarities (OECD, 2019[5]). Hence, urban policies should consider the functional geographies and relations addressing urban-rural linkages by means of integrated policies.
Place-based actions based on these functional geographies might foster the economic growth of all territories and promote the quality of life and well-being. NUPs cannot help cities and rural areas in isolation. On the contrary, they should promote complementarities and synergies within the urban-rural continuum by a systemic and integrated approach. The development of intermediary cities plays a key role in spatially balanced development within the urban-rural continuum. On one hand, intermediary cities can provide functions and infrastructures for rural areas. On the other, they can balance the overconcentration of activities in large cities and its negative impacts in terms of economic, social and environmental costs. Rwanda’s NUP clearly illustrates the importance of urban-rural linkages and the role of secondary cities and towns (Box 2.5).
The COVID-19 crisis starkly illustrated the importance of addressing socio-spatial inequalities in urban areas and enhancing urban resilience, since cities marked with inequality and a high concentration of urban poor proved more vulnerable than those that are better resourced, less crowded and more equal (OECD, 2020[2]). Inequality and divides within and between cities are increasing, and addressing them can be a strong political rationale for NUP.
Box 2.5. Mainstreaming urban-rural linkages in NUP: the case of Rwanda
Rwanda’s 2015 National Urbanisation Policy, currently in the implementation stage, has a significant focus on urban-rural linkages. The NUP argues for the importance of managing urban sprawl in peri‑urban and rural areas, and enhancing mutual benefits and functions by stressing the need “to enhance the opportunities of increased demand of horticultural and livestock products in urban areas and diversification of off-farm employment opportunities for the rural counterparts” and “to mitigate the risks of urban sprawl, resources depletion and other negative environmental impacts at the urban peripheries”. Implementation used five ‘entry points’: (1) integrated human settlement planning and coordination; (2) City of Kigali, secondary cities and other potential towns developed to spur socio‑economic growth; (3) liveable, well-serviced, connected, compact, green, and productive urban and rural settlements with cultural identity; (4) access to social and affordable housing; and (5) upgrading informal settlements.
The Urbanisation and Rural Settlement Sector Strategic Plan 2018-2024, meant to help implement the NUP, echoes these messages. Key action includes transport services to connect urban and rural areas.
Source: Government of Rwanda (2015), National Urbanisation Policy.
Ways forward
The analysis in this chapter indicates that most countries value NUP as a tool to develop a common vision for national urban development and facilitate inter-sectoral and inter-regional co‑ordination. While NUPs are commonly framed as “a coherent set of decisions through a deliberate government-led process of co‑ordinating and rallying various actors towards a common vision and goal that will promote more transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban development for the long term”, countries have diverse definitions. Such definitions range from outcome-based dimensions, such as sustainable urban development and social inclusion, to process-based dimensions, such as stakeholder engagement. For instance, while some NUPs aim to achieve quality of life and well-being for urban residents, others distinctly target disadvantaged urban areas. This underlines the need for more granular and contextualised NUP monitoring across and within countries.
Whether a country is federal or unitary, all levels of government need to align policies in cities, in which NUP can play a role. While the distribution of responsibilities of urban policy and development across and within countries reflects different underlying political, social, economic, geographic and constitutional contexts, urbanisation and urban challenges call for co‑ordinated efforts across levels of government. Country examples show that NUP can act as a multi-level platform for dialogue and aligning policies, including connecting cross-border and sub-national urban policies. In certain federal countries, where state and provincial governments lead urban policymaking, the national government provides important capacity-building, financial and technical support, which complements state/provincial action. Unitary countries demonstrate both centralised and decentralised approaches to urban policy, which nonetheless strive for co‑ordination mechanisms.
This chapter’s findings indicate three recommendations:
Enhance the role of NUP as a comprehensive, strategic and shared vision for balanced, quality and polycentric urbanisation, and effective alignment and co‑ordination across places, sectors and levels of government. The varying NUP definitions, drivers, and institutional contexts highlight the diverse perception and implementation of NUP around the world, but also underscore how policy makers can learn from each other’s experiences to enhance the potential of their NUP. Countries that focus on the potential of NUP to set a vision could consider leveraging NUP frameworks’ proven potential to go beyond vision-setting and strengthen implementation (e.g. enhancing vertical and horizontal co‑ordination mechanisms, engaging diverse stakeholders).
Promote NUP as key framework to rethink post COVID-19 urban paradigms towards just, green and smart cities that can anticipate and respond to future shocks. The three most frequently identified drivers of NUPs – “balanced territorial and urban development”, “a coherent vision for national urban development” and “improved policy co‑ordination across sectors” – speak to the strength of existing NUP frameworks in shaping balanced and coherent urban development that bridges policy siloes. NUP frameworks should thus be leveraged to anticipate and respond to the implications of COVID-19 in cities.
Share knowledge and experience on NUP through multi-stakeholder dialogues, peer-learning and collaboration in global platforms such as the National Urban Policy Programme, to foster multi-stakeholder dialogues and peer-learning. Since 2016, the National Urban Policy Programme, launched at the Habitat III Conference, plays an instrumental role in sharing experience across international organisations, national and sub-national governments, planning experts, scientific institutions and academia (Box 2.6). It could strengthen its analytical contribution, peer-learning and evidence base on issues related to:
NUP’s contribution to short-term and long-term COVID-19 recovery and rethinking of cities to inform how national urban ministries can contribute to building better and greener cities, drawing lessons from the crisis (e.g. urban density, digitalisation, accessibility in cities).
Fostering intermediary cities and urban-rural linkages, analysing functional relationships and complementarities within urban-rural continuums, and discussing policies to enhance the economic, social and environmental link within functional urban areas.
Box 2.6. National Urban Policy Programme
While 162 countries globally have NUPs in place in one form or another, there is a need for mutual learning on how NUPs can meet new demands. In some countries, national and sub-national governments may not have sufficient resources and specialised skills to undertake the NUP process.
To address this challenge, the OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance established the National Urban Policy Programme (NUPP) at the Habitat III Conference in 2016. The NUPP is a global platform that facilitates the sharing of experiences on NUP and provides targeted support to countries building on the expertise of the three organisations and supporting partners. The objective is to strengthen knowledge and capacity in countries to develop, implement and monitor NUP in an effective, efficient and inclusive way.
The NUPP operates through two-year Workplans. Reflecting the growing interest and demand for guidance in NUP development and implementation, the NUPP Workplan 2021–22 focuses on the following four priorities:
Global monitoring. Monitoring NUP is a pillar of the NUPP mandate. The next phase will explore further methodological development for more detailed and evidence-based monitoring.
Thematic studies and policy dialogues. The NUPP can invite partners to collaborate and conduct thematic studies and policy dialogues, building on their respective expertise.
Enhanced knowledge exchange. In response to countries’ need to exchange best practices, the NUPP will continue to provide a platform for dialogue involving all levels of government.
Stronger engagement and collaboration. The NUPP will aim to solidify and enlarge its partnerships, and engage partners more substantially and frequently in the activities proposed above to create stronger complementarities and synergies.
Source: OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2019), The National Urban Policy Programme: Overview, https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/NUPP-overview.pdf.
References
[3] Abidoye, B. et al. (2021), Leaving No One Behind: Impact of COVID-19 on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), https://data.undp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Leaving-No-One-Behind-COVID-impact-on-the-SDGs-second-flagship-2.pdf.
[4] Coalition for Urban Transitions (2019), Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity, https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.
[8] Government of Rwanda (2015), National Urbanisation Policy.
[1] Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands (2019), “Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment: A sustainable perspective for our living environment”, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/08/01/draft-national-strategy-on-spatial-planning-and-the-environment-engels.
[2] OECD (2020), “Cities policy responses”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/cities-policy-responses-fd1053ff/.
[5] OECD (2019), OECD Regional Outlook 2019: Leveraging Megatrends for Cities and Rural Areas, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264312838-en.
[6] OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
[7] OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2019), The National Urban Policy Programme: Overview, https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/NUPP-overview.pdf.