This chapter explores key factors for successful NUP processes, by analysing mechanisms for policy alingment and co-ordinatation, stekeholder engagement, and implementation and capacity gaps. Stakeholder engagement is key for better policy prioritisation in formulating and implementing NUP, which can also guide countries, regions and cities to more concerted alignment of their actions and agendas. In addition, conducive constitutional and legislative frameworks, national-subnational co-financing arrangements, the capacity and performance of local government, and democracy and transparency in governance, are important enabling factors.
Global State of National Urban Policy 2021
Achieving Sustainable Development Goals and Delivering Climate Action
4. Factors for successful NUP processes
Abstract
Key findings
Out of 86 countries surveyed, 64 (74%) have deployed formal multi-ministerial platforms between the leading NUP ministry or agency and relevant sectoral ministries.
In order to co‑ordinate between national and sub-national governments, 51 countries (59%) use legislation and regulatory mechanisms and 44 (51%) have a platform for dialogue between national and sub-national governments in different NUP stages.
In 82 countries (95%), NUPs include at least one mechanism for horizontal policy alignment among local governments in and between urban areas.
A large majority of countries engage sub-national governments ‘extensively’ or ‘moderately’ in the NUP process, which has flow-on benefits for NUP implementation. Forty-four NUPs (51%) have a platform for dialogue between national and sub-national governments in different NUP stages.
In addition to sub-national governments, many countries are taking innovative measures to engage non-governmental stakeholders (urban residents, civil society, academia, the private sector) in the NUP process. Forty-three out of 66 countries (65%) have introduced special measures to ensure that their NUP is sensitive to vulnerable urban populations.
Out of 48 responding countries with a NUP in the implementation stage or beyond, 26 countries (54%) consider insufficient financial and human resources to be two major NUP implementation challenges. This echoes the findings of the first edition of the global monitoring in 2018. Another major challenge is a lack of co‑ordination caused by policy siloes and institutional fragmentation (23 countries, 48%).
Of 48 surveyed countries, 32 (67%) reported that the most important source of financing NUP implementation is national government investment. They also recognise the need to mobilise diverse sources of financing, including national-sub-national co-financing (20 countries, 42%), public-private partnerships (12 countries, 25%) and private financing (9 countries, 19%) and mobilisation of communities or co‑operatives (6 countries, 13%).
Aligning policies among and across levels of government
The success of a NUP is determined by a range of factors throughout the five stages of NUP (feasibility, diagnosis, formulation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation). National and sub‑national governments, as well as their implementing agencies, are facing a number of challenges hereinafter analysed, including: aligning NUPs with other sectoral policies across government; determining the right levels of engagement with different stakeholder groups and at what stage of the process; and bridging the funding gap. This section examines alignment and co‑ordination mechanisms among and across national, regional and local governments.
Horizontal co-ordination at the national level
Most countries have formal alignment and co‑ordination mechanisms between their NUPs and other sectoral policies with urban impacts at the national level (Figure 4.1). Out of 86 countries surveyed, 64 (74%) have deployed formal multi-ministerial platforms between the leading NUP ministry or agency and relevant sectoral ministries. Twenty-six countries (30%) also reported formal bilateral co‑ordination mechanisms between the leading NUP ministry/agency and other ministries. Twenty-six countries (30%) reported that co‑ordination across sectoral ministries is either informal or ad-hoc.
Several countries have longstanding experience with inter-ministerial co‑ordination mechanisms for urban matters. An example is the Inter-ministerial Commission for the City, Housing and Territory (COMICIVYT) of Chile, which is led by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning and includes the Ministry of Interior Security, General Secretariat of the Presidency, the Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism, and other line ministries in charge of social development such as public works, farming, mining, transport and telecommunications, national assets, energy and environment. COMICIVYT has put special emphasis on co‑ordinating national efforts to improve citizens’ quality of life, in light of the need for co‑ordinated investments in public infrastructure as well as land-use planning. New Zealand’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Development also uses cross-government mechanisms such as inter-agency working groups and cross-government agency management groups to develop and implement policies, including its NUP. In Germany, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community and several other national ministries convened within a cross-departmental policy with spatial focus on “Social City (Soziale Stadt)” zones. Ghana has an operational Urban Advisory Platform that comprises all urban-related ministries, departments and agencies, allowing urban stakeholders to evaluate the progress of programmes and seek opportunities for partnerships as they arise.
A number of countries have recently introduced alignment and co‑ordination mechanisms. Burkina Faso established the National Development Planning Commission (CNPD) by Decree in June 2019. In Kazakhstan, the council for the management of the Almaty agglomeration is being formed and intends to extend this experience to other urban agglomerations. Namibia established an Inter-institutional Task Team under the leadership of the Ministry of Urban and Rural Development (MURD) to undertake the National Urban Land Reform Programme. Nepal formed the Nepal National Urban Forum in December 2019, and the country’s umbrella Urban Development Act is soon going to take effect.
Ireland is currently in the early stages of forming an operations-focused urban forum/task force for each of its five cities, reflecting the metropolitan area strategic plan. Each task force aims to include a co‑ordinating and enabling function. The initiative is led by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (DHPLG).
Figure 4.1. Mechanisms to align NUP with sectoral policies at the national level, n = 86
Note: data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.
Vertical coordination between national and sub-national governments
Most of the responding countries also have formal mechanisms for vertically aligning policies in the NUP process. Out of 86 countries, 51 (59%) use legislation and regulatory mechanisms and 44 (51%) have a platform of dialogue between national and sub-national governments in different NUP stages (Figure 4.2). Some countries have developed a multi-sector, multi-level co‑ordination mechanism, which engages both national sectoral ministries and sub-national governments, and in some cases also includes non‑governmental stakeholders:
Czechia created the National Permanent Conference in 2015 to serve as a high-level communication platform. Different ministries, managing authorities, regions, cities and other territorial partners participate. The main role of the conference is to address issues regarding the territorial dimension of European funds as well as regional, urban and rural development aspects. In addition, 13 Regional Permanent Conferences provide regular meetings for representatives of regional, urban and local governments, economic and social partners and representatives of civil society in all Czech regions and provide inputs for the National Permanent Conference.
Israel also strives to facilitate vertical policy alignment. In September 2019, the Planning Administration called for proposals to local authorities and regional planning bureaus to identify and submit areas suitable for urban regeneration. Over 100 proposals from 70 local authorities were submitted and will be assessed based on a set of quality-driven criteria, such as the project’s location, its potential to impact on its surrounding area and to improve the public sphere, and the engagement of the local community and local authority. The selected areas will be re-planned through policy documents, outline plans and strategic regeneration plans. The national government finances the planning processes and provides professional guidance.
Zambia’s vertical alignment mechanisms are linked to the different stages of a NUP. During diagnosis and formulation, the Ministry of Local Government held consultative meetings with local authority representatives and provincial level institutions to align the NUP with sub-national policies and programmes. During the implementation phase, the existing District and Provincial Development Co‑ordinating Committees ensure vertical policy alignment. The NUP proposes the establishment of a NUP Implementation Unit, ensuring both vertical and horizontal policy co‑ordination and alignment, spearheading monitoring and evaluation, and building capacity, including resource mobilisation for the implementation of activities.
Figure 4.2. Mechanisms for vertical policy alignment in the NUP process, n = 86
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.
Horizontal co-ordination within and between urban areas
In 82 out of 86 countries (95%), NUPs include at least one mechanism for horizontal policy alignment among local governments in and between urban areas. The two most common mechanisms are ‘formal arrangement to ensure co‑ordination among local governments in the urban area’ (47 countries out of 86, or 55%) and ‘capacity building or technical assistance programmes for local government policymakers/officials to facilitate co‑ordination’ (42 countries, 49%). This is followed by ‘fiscal and financial incentives from national government’ (28 countries, 33%), ‘monitoring and information sharing (e.g. comparable data across local governments) to facilitate co‑ordination’ (21 countries, 25%) and ‘informal, voluntary arrangements to facilitate co‑ordination among the local governments in the urban area’ (21 countries, 24%) (Figure 4.3).
Several countries have formal arrangements in place to align sub-national policies for urban matters. For instance, Canada’s Metro Vancouver collaboratively plans for and delivers regional-scale services. It regulates air quality and urban growth, manages a regional park system and provides affordable housing. Metro Vancouver is a political body and corporate entity operating under provincial legislation and is governed by a board of directors comprised of elected officials from each local authority. In Latvia, the Development Planning System Law mandates co‑ordination for the drawing up of development and policy planning documents; at the same time, five regional public bodies which are supervised by the Ministry of Environment and Regional Development, ensure co‑ordination of local municipalities’ interests under regional development strategies. There are also several associations representing local municipalities to ensure co‑ordination of priorities and investments among local governments, such as Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments, Latvian Large Cities Association, Association of Regional Centres, Association of Coastal Municipalities, Association of Municipalities of Riga Metropolitan Area. Nigeria’s NUDP provides for the establishment of a National Urban and Regional Commission at the national level with similar bodies at state and local government levels for overall co‑ordination, although full implementation of this provision has not yet occurred,
National fiscal incentives in Finland are linked to ‘MAL contracts’, which are joint municipal plans in major city regions to integrate land use, infrastructure for new housing areas and sustainable transport. New agreements are being negotiated for urban regions of Helsinki, Tampere, Turku and Oulu for 2020‑31. Ireland is providing a EUR 2 billion Urban Regeneration and Development Fund for a wide range of projects, such as low carbon and climate resilient projects in an urban context. Mexico’s Metropolitan Fund seeks to make an impact by investing in sustainable mobility, green-blue infrastructure, public space and infrastructure for resilience, water and waste management. In addition, its Secretariat for Agrarian, Land and Urban Development (SEDATU) facilitates the signing of collaboration agreements in 74 metropolitan areas, facilitating joint planning and metropolitan governance.
Some countries prefer informal co‑ordination mechanisms which build on one or more associations of municipalities. Highlighting the strategic importance of its supra-municipal scale of action as an asset and strategy for the delivery of its NUP, Brazil’s Public Consortium Law and Metropolis Status, and the National System of Urban and Metropolitan Information (an instrument of its NUP), support consortiums, exchange, technical co‑operation and joint actions for urban development.
Examples shared by various European countries, such as Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Serbia and Ukraine, show that they have been active in enabling multiple horizontal policy-alignment mechanisms within countries and across borders. For example, in Bulgaria, regional development councils have been established to ensure horizontal co‑ordination. The country’s regional integration plans are the basis for investment which are implemented through co‑ordinated partnerships between several municipalities.
Figure 4.3. Mechanisms for horizontal policy alignment among local governments in and between urban areas, n = 86
Note: data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.
Working together with stakeholders
Engaging sub-national governments
This section examines the extent and means for engaging sub-national governments and other non‑governmental stakeholder groups in the NUP process. The analysis, based on the NUP country survey, suggests that in most cases sub-national governments have been substantially engaged throughout the NUP process (Figure 4.4). For example, 48 of 59 responding countries (81%) engage sub-national governments extensively or moderately during the formulation process.
Figure 4.4. Engagement of sub-national governments in the NUP process, by level of attention and by stage of NUP development, n = 86
Note: Not all countries provided answers to all the questions for this analysis. The number of responding countries also reflects the stages of development of their NUPs. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020
In Australia, all City Deals involve engagement with sub-national governments, as they require a partnership between different levels of government in order to be agreed and delivered. Each City Deal involves different types and levels of engagement.
In Brazil, currently in the formulation phase, the national municipal associations provide strong representation of sub-national governments and participate at strategic times during the formulation process.
Chile established a multi-stakeholder National Council for Urban Development to monitor the NUP’s implementation and support a holistic view to urban development through diverse representatives from the central government, local governments, the private sector and civil society. They also established several regional councils for urban development, with a view to fostering place-based urban policymaking (Box 4.1).
France identified an extensive contribution of sub-national governments to the formulation phase of the NUP. This was achieved through consultations with key stakeholders and actors in regional and local urban policies, to define and prioritise the NUP objectives into a roadmap. This roadmap was further strengthened by the commitments of sub-national governments and the private sector, which were formalised into pacts.
One of the key outcomes of engagement with sub-national authorities in the formulation phase is better prioritisation of different policy challenges, as reported by Estonia, Eswatini, Jordan, Netherlands, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Spain. They also reported that better prioritisation has led to concerted action by some sub-national authorities to undertake aligned actions. In Ecuador, joint roadmaps and feedback moments were developed not only for the NUP agenda, but also for parallel regulations. In Myanmar, sub‑national engagement led to more comprehensive and action-oriented results. In Poland, it led to a more precise, qualitative and coherent national policy document. In Spain, some regional governments are preparing sub-national urban agendas that are aligned, both in their objectives and in their indicators, with the Spanish Urban Agenda (also see Box 6.5).
Some countries have shared valuable lessons on the lack of sub-national engagement. In Peru, the low level of participation of the sub-national governments in the elaboration of the ‘National Plan for Urban Development Territory for All’ resulted in the municipalities not giving importance to the planning process, leaving real estate developers to set urban development patterns, and preventing the ministry from exploiting synergies and articulating objectives with sub-national governments.
Box 4.1. Stakeholder engagement in Chile’s National and Regional Councils for Urban Development
Chile’s National Council for Urban Development (CNDU) was created in parallel with its NUP, with the aim of monitoring its implementation, and at the same time to serve as an advisor and counsellor on urban policy at the national level, developing initiatives and policy recommendations with a view on contributing towards cities’ improvement and fostering residents’ quality of life.
The CNDU is composed of 31 representatives, including central and local government representatives, the private sector, academia and civil society. The main tasks of the CNDU are:
Assess sectoral policies on issues that have relevant implications in the development of cities and territories, making relevant proposals.
Enrich urban public policies to promote continuous improvement of Chilean cities.
Mediate and integrate the public, private, academic and social areas around the construction of the city with a long-term view.
Advise the national government on the implementation of the five areas of the NUP; social integration, economic development, environmental balance, identity and heritage, institutionalisation and governance. This implies deepening and proposing reforms on institutional, legal and functional dimensions.
Establish urban development council at the regional level, in order to ensure that regional views are fully considered in the work of CNDU.
Contribute to the fulfilment of the international agreements that Chile has signed regarding: New Urban Agenda, Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
The CNDU gathers different stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, allowing for an exchange of experience and knowledge and creating opportunities for work under a constant deliberation exercise for research. The CNDU invites diverse research centres and academic institutions to generate co‑operation opportunities and agreements in order to reinforce and promote a local, regional and national discussion agenda on urban issues.
Chile also created Regional Councils for Urban Development to promote the decentralisation process required to foster urban policies with a place-based approach. This process began in 2019 in two regions out of 17. Four regional councils have been implemented to date.
Regional councils for urban development aim to: i) advise regional authorities on urban development issues; ii) enhance the co‑ordination between the different regional urban actors; iii) enrich national and regional public policy proposals in urban matters; iv) collaborate on the definition of a vision for the development of regional cities with a coherent approach to the NUP; v) propose a regional perspective for the implementation of the NUP; vi) establish a bridge of collaboration between this regional instance and the CNDU. In this way, regional councils promote discussion and solutions, from a local perspective and incorporate local actors which are better suited and more informed about each region’s reality.
The Global Taskforce-UCLG 2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda also provides insights on sub-national government engagement in the NUP process (Box 4.2). The survey analysed the participation of local and regional governments (LRGs) and local government associations (LGAs) in their countries’ NUPs. The result shows a somewhat different picture from that previously discussed, based on the NUP country survey. Although the majority of the 89 respondents of the survey confirmed that they recognise their NUPs, a quarter do not know whether a NUP exists or not in their countries. This implies that local and regional governments in these countries do not feel sub-national engagement as strongly. In addition, although a large majority of LRGs and LGAs contribute into the NUP process, their participation is reported to be ‘moderate’ during feasibility and diagnosis phases (48% and 43% respectively). The result shows that the involvement of LRGs and LGAs decreases and remains low after the formulation stage, implying that national governments should engage them in a more extensive manner in the post-formulation stages to support more effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation of NUPs.
Box 4.2. The Global Taskforce-UCLG 2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda
In 2020, the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments and United Cities and Local Government (UCLG) carried out a survey to understand the level of localisation of the SDGs around the world. The survey was addressed at LRGs and LRAs from several world regions: Latin America, Africa, Middle East and West Africa, North America, Eurasia and Asia-Pacific (Europe is not included in this analysis). 89 participants (45 LGAs and 44 LRGs) responded.
The survey included three questions regarding NUPs in their countries.
The first question was whether the country has or is in the process of developing NUPs or strategies. Sixty-nine% of the LGAs and 55% of the LRGs said their countries have NUPs, while 16% of both LGAs and LRGs replied that their countries do not have NUPs. A further 16 and 30% respectively said they do not know whether a NUP exists in their country.
Where a NUP was in place, a second question inquired whether LGAs had contributed to the NUP process. The majority of LGAs (23) said they had contributed to the process, whereas 6 LGAs responded they had not.
When a NUP was in place and engagement at sub-national level confirmed, a third question focused on the stage (from feasibility to evaluation) and level (low, moderate, extensive) at which such a contribution was. According to the results, most LGAs were engaged at the feasibility and diagnosis stage, while the level of engagement decreases at the formulation stage and remains low after it.
Source: Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments and United Cities and Local Government (2020), Global Taskforce-UCLG 2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda.
Engaging non-governmental stakeholder groups
The NUP country survey also examined the extent to which three non-governmental stakeholder groups (civil society/community organisations, academia and research institutions, and the private sector) have been engaged in the NUP process (Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7).
During the diagnosis stage, 43 out of 72 responding countries (60%) have engaged civil society/community organisation, 42 (58%) countries have engaged academia or research institutions, and 37 (51%) have engaged the private sector, either extensively or moderately. During the formulation stage, 37 out of 68 countries (54%) reported either an extensive or moderate engagement with civil society/community organisation/citizens, 35 (51%) with academia/research institutions, and 33 (49%) with the private sector.
Among the three non-governmental stakeholder groups, the analysis shows that the private sector is not as engaged as the other stakeholder groups. For example, during the implementation stage, only 9 out of 47 responding countries (19%) have engaged the private sector extensively, compared with academia/research institutions (13 out of 48 countries, 27%) and civil society/community organisations (12 out of 48 countries, 25%). The same trend is observed in all the NUP processes.
The data shows that the level of engagement is different across stages of NUP. Overall, while non-governmental stakeholder groups are engaged relatively well during earlier stages (e.g. feasibility, diagnosis and formulation), this is not the case during the monitoring and evaluation stage. Taking civil society/community organisation as an example, only 7 out of 48 countries (15%) engaged them extensively during the monitoring and evaluation stage, compared with the feasibility (18 out of 67 countries, 27%), diagnosis (13 out of 63, 21%), formulation (13 out of 57, 23%) or the implementation stage (12 out of 48, 25%).
The NUP country survey provided a variety of practices engaging non-governmental stakeholder groups. Paraguay extensively engaged all three non-governmental stakeholder groups during the formulation phase by sharing the draft NUP document for feedback ahead of face-to-face meetings and virtual discussions. The formulation of the NUP was also enriched by exchanges with academic experts and leaders of housing policy in different parts of the world, and discussion materials were made available online. Mexico has engaged civil society and citizens through state forums organised in the cities of Toluca, Pachuca and Mexico City throughout the development of its national development plan. In addition, an inter- and multi- sectoral forum on “Sustainable Developmnent and Territory” was organised by the Secretariat for Agrarian, Land and Urban Development (SEDATU) in collaboration with the Ministry of Environmental Resources. In Zambia, the Ministry of Local Government engaged grassroots women’s organisations and People’s Process on Housing and Poverty as part of a technical committee during the diagnosis and formulation stages of the NUP, in order to ensure the NUP process was fully inclusive.
Figure 4.5. Engagement of civil society and community organisations in the NUP process, by level of attention and by stage of NUP development, n = 86
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Not all countries provided answers to all the questions for this analysis. The number of responding countries also reflects the stages of development of their NUPs.
Figure 4.6. Engagement of the private sector in the NUP process, by level of attention and by stage of NUP development, n = 86
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Not all countries provided answers to all the questions for this analysis. The number of responding countries also reflects the stages of development of their NUPs.
Figure 4.7. Engagement of academia and research institutions in the NUP process, by level of attention and stage of NUP development, n = 86
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Not all countries provided answers to all the questions for this analysis. The number of responding countries also reflects the stages of development of their NUPs.
The three most used means to ensure the participation of urban residents in the NUP process are: ‘formal face-to-face consultation of relevant urban residents’ (29 countries out of 86, or 34%); ‘representation in the NUP process’ (26 countries, 30%) (e.g. inviting key urban residents in a steering committee/expert group meetings); and ‘open access to NUP documents and data to urban residents’ (25 countries, 29%). This was followed by ‘online communication’, such as a web-based survey (20 countries, 23%). 13 countries (14%) use ‘co-creation’ such as inviting urban residents to be part of the formulation or monitoring of NUPs (Figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8. Means of citizen engagement in the NUP process, n = 86
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses.
Many countries shared their innovative initiatives to increase the participation of residents in the NUP process and/or raise awareness and foster knowledge sharing:
Cabo Verde engaged non-governmental agents into a wider participatory process and submitted a number of urban profiles for online public consultation to foster innovation in the delivery of its NUP.
France created citizen councils within the National Framework of City Contracts, guaranteeing a space in all steering bodies for citizen initiatives.
Germany has used pilot projects such as the Hansaforum in Munster to test new content and creative methods for collaboration at different levels, with residents invited to take an active part in urban development at neighbourhood level. Germany also brings together 1 000 participants annually at the NUP congress to discuss current issues and civil society projects.
Poland gathered 600 comments through consultations, including from city activists, individuals, experts, academics and chambers of commerce.
Serbia invited students from faculties of architecture and geography to take part in co-creation workshops as representatives of youth.
Thailand engaged representatives of communities and the general public from 77 provinces in the NUP formulation process through open meetings where they provided their recommendations.
Costa Rica provided the entire population with free access to geospatial information, which in the long run will promote greater engagement of citizens in urban policy and meeting the objectives of their NUP.
Inclusion of vulnerable urban populations
Sixty-six countries provided information on the introduction of special measures during the NUP process for vulnerable urban populations, and 43 countries (65%) have introduced special measures to ensure that their NUP is sensitive to vulnerable urban populations (Figure 4.9) both at the process level (e.g. participation, consultation, engagement and evaluation) and in the NUP itself (e.g. guidelines to promote inclusion and participation in further urban programmes, objectives, funding, data). Particular attention is paid to disabled people, the youth, the elderly and women, followed by slum dwellers and the urban poor. To a lesser degree, issues regarding children, minorities and migrants are included in NUP processes. Some countries also mentioned the homeless, unemployed, internally displaced persons (IDPs), LGBTI people (lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender and intersex individuals) and people living in areas more susceptible to disaster risk. A recurring theme was ‘social cohesion/inclusion’, and ‘improving access to affordable housing’, ‘upgrading informal settlements’, ‘human rights’, ‘urban mobility’ and ‘health services’ were most frequently mentioned.
The most common way to include vulnerable groups is ‘participation’, for example online or in national fora or special events in Bolivia, in urban consultations in Cuba, in public hearings in Kazakhstan, or in youth/elderly focus group meetings in Thailand. This is followed by ‘consultation and engagement’ in one or more phases of the NUP process, for example in the formulation and implementation stages in Ethiopia and in the monitoring and evaluation stage in Sao Tome and Principe. In Mexico, various participatory mechanisms were applied to generate inputs for the NUP, including a workshop for the incorporation of the gender perspective.
In Nigeria, vulnerable populations were highly involved in the formulation process, including for instance the internally displaced persons (IDPs), migrants, unemployed, slum dwellers, urban poor and youth. Panama is revising its 2019 NUP ‘Política Nacional de Ordenamiento Territorial de Panamá’ because of the original lack of citizen participation.
Figure 4.9. Special measures in NUP process for vulnerable urban populations, n = 66
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Some countries combine measures related to vulnerable groups with other sectoral strategies. For example, in Thailand, the NUP contains development guidelines and indicators related to specific vulnerable groups which are linked to other national plans for early childhood development, the elderly and people with disabilities.
An alternative is a spatial or place-based approach targeting neighbourhoods characterised by vulnerable populations (e.g. informal settlements). This is often linked with the goal of reducing social and spatial inequities within or across urban areas.
Colombia’s ‘Cities 4.0 Policy’ aims to comprehensively improve informal neighbourhoods and proposes different solutions for cities depending on the living conditions.
The key objective of France’s NUP is social cohesion and solidarity towards disadvantaged suburban neighbourhoods and their inhabitants.
Germany’s ‘Soziale Stadt’ (Social City) programme focuses on disadvantaged areas on the basis that vulnerable groups predominantly live in these areas and they will benefit from the spatially targeted urban development grants.
Italy uses a data-oriented target for poor neighbourhoods.
Malta seeks to integrate social facilities for vulnerable groups to improve access to public transport, jobs and leisure space.
Increasing implementation capacity
Major implementation mechanisms
This section discusses key barriers, capacity and drivers for the implementation of NUPs. Four types of implementation mechanisms are commonly and evenly used according to the country survey, namely regulatory and legislative, institutional/collaborative partnerships, financial measures, and awareness raising and capacity building. Twenty-seven out of 48 responding countries (56%) with a NUP in the implementation stage or beyond use either “regulatory and legislative” or “financial” implementation mechanisms. “Awareness raising/capacity building” are each used in 26 out of 48 (54%) NUPs in the implementation stage or beyond, and “institutional/collaborative partnerships” are used by 25 out of 48 (52%) (Figure 4.10).
Regulatory and legislative measures are key instruments for NUP implementation, often used to align policies, both horizontally and vertically. In Bulgaria, the national Bulgarian Regional Development Act mandates sub-national governments’ responsibility for the preparation of plans aligned with the country’s NUP. Chile illustrated that its legislative frameworks, such as the Law on Land Market Transparency, the Law on Contribution to Public Space, and an upcoming Law on Social and Urban Integration, have directly supported the implementation of the NUP. In addition, “DOM online”, a digital platform which allows municipal administrative procedures through the Internet, also supports the NUP implementation by improving social integration in cities, with the promotion of social housing, balanced densification and modernisation of ministerial management.
Financial measures included national budget lines, instruments and incentives, such as grant schemes in Estonia and the fiscal incentive of EUR 500 million per year in France. In several European countries, including Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia and Portugal, European Union funds and investments play a role. Cuba finances local development projects through a levy of 1% of local economic product.
As for institutional and collaborative partnerships, Estonia, Senegal and Ukraine have inter-ministerial bodies in charge of co‑ordinating and monitoring NUP implementation. Other examples include the ‘Pact with Neighbourhoods for All Businesses (PaQte)’ in France as part of an integrated approach to promote economic activity and employment in neighbourhoods, the ‘State-Commune Territorial Cooperation Agreements’, whereby inter-municipal agents have been hired in Luxembourg and the ‘Urban Partnership Initiative’ in Poland.
Diverse measures for awareness raising and capacity building also exist, including through social media (Philippines, Turkey), guidelines for capacity development or policy training (Czechia, Ethiopia, Peru), training in higher education and universities (Algeria, Ethiopia), publicly accessible interdisciplinary knowledge (Germany), or online communication platforms such as ‘Fórum das Cidades’ in Portugal.
Figure 4.10. Types of implementation mechanisms for NUPs, n = 48
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Many countries, including Austria, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, Italy and Madagascar, reported that implementing their NUPs depends on sub-national governments to a large extent. The most frequently mentioned roles for sub-national entities are strategic, integrated and urban planning, and land use regulation and planning, followed by infrastructure development, provision of public services, environmental protection, public transport, co‑ordination with other communities or municipalities, and housing. In France, NUP ‘City Contracts’ engage departmental, regional, inter-communal and municipal institutions and the civil society.
Implementation challenges for national governments
The NUP country survey examined challenges to NUP implementation faced by national governments (Figure 4.11). The most significant challenges to NUP implementation at the national level are ‘insufficient human resources’ (26 of 48 countries, or 54%), identified by countries such as Colombia, Finland, Lebanon and Rwanda, and “insufficient financing resources (26 of 48 countries, or 54%). For instance, rapid urbanisation and urban sprawl generate high financial and technical needs to manage emerging towns, as illustrated by Tanzania. In Czechia, the challenge may not necessarily be the lack of financial resources per se, but the lack of flexibility in funding allocation to support local needs for sustainable urban development. In Chile, a challenge is how to make sure that sectoral ministries, regional and local governments mobilise their own resource to achieve the ambitious goals of the national urban development policy (PNDU). The National Council of Urban Development (Box 4.1), through recommendations and a dedicated fund, plays an important role in influencing investment decisions of sectoral ministries. However, mobilising key ministries is still a challenge given the council’s limited budget.
Twenty-three of 48 countries (48%) identified ‘policy siloes and institutional fragmentation’ as major bottlenecks, which is consistent with the expectation that NUP should ultimately contribute to ‘improved policy co‑ordination across sectors’. In Austria, each region has its own strategies and instruments for implementing a commonly adopted national policy, which raises co‑ordination needs. Ghana reported having multiple stakeholders with policy planning, management and operational responsibilities and an institutional framework not adequately facilitating horizontal co‑ordination for inter-sectoral policy formulation. Nigeria mentioned the absence of an integrated approach to urban planning and development, with a siloed approach to policy formulation and implementation. In Portugal, horizontal co‑ordination is also challenged by the fact that national sectoral institutions and policies do not explicitly take into account territorial and urban impacts.
Specific challenges reported by countries in terms of horizontal co‑ordination include:
Discontinuous political cycles and changes in the administration (Ecuador, Portugal).
A gap between political priorities and technical expertise on urban matters (Ecuador).
An awareness gap among technical actors and policy makers at all levels (Spain).
A lack of prioritisation of urban matters in the national agenda (Finland).
The locked-in patterns of existing urban form (low densities) and infrastructure (lack of public transport) preventing the implementation of best practices for urban planning (Israel).
A lack of targets and indicators to measure and follow up on implementation (Norway).
Fragmentation of the responsibilities of various ministries with respect to cities, causing overlaps at regulatory level and delaying programmes which execute public investments (Peru).
A lack of classification of urban areas preventing a more strategic and targeted intervention (Portugal).
Figure 4.11. Greatest challenges for NUP implementation at the national level, n = 48
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Implementation challenges for sub-national governments
The NUP country survey enquired about the challenges faced by sub-national governments as implementation partners of NUPs. Similar to the challenges at the national level, insufficient financial resources are the most significant challenge at local and regional level (26 countries of 48, or 54%), followed by insufficient human resources (22 countries, 46%). In contrast, the lack of technical expertise (19 countries, 40%) tends to be more important at the sub-national level, followed by lack of political will (11 countries, 23%), while the institutional challenges (i.e. overlapping/unfunded mandates, unclear responsibility, policy inconsistency) are less common at those scales (8, or 17%) (Figure 4.12). Countries stressed that there is a large diversity of conditions and challenges between sub-national governments, with varying levels of capacity to raise revenues or train professional staff.
A number of countries highlighted challenges related to human and financial capacities at the sub-national level. For example, as a result of the tax system in Israel, local authorities prioritise the development of commercial land uses over residential units, leading to unbalanced development both at regional and urban scales. In Kazakhstan, despite the decentralisation of planning power enshrined in law in 2014, the ‘functional decentralisation’ differs from one local authority to another depending on its capacity. Sub‑national governments in Nigeria play a key implementing role, despite insufficient financial allocation to urban planning and the lack of required skills and expertise restricting their capacity. Portugal is going through a comprehensive decentralisation of responsibilities from central to local governments in parallel with a progressive metropolitan governance political agenda, which calls for the strengthening of capacities and institutions responsible for urban planning, development and management at sub-national levels. Portugal’s sovereign debt crisis and subsequent intervention had an impact on both local budgets and current expenses.
A lack of technical expertise at the sub-national level is common to many countries. In Ethiopia, there is a lack of skilled professionals to manage emerging urban issues; Italy has poor sub-national capacity to implement public infrastructure investment, resulting in delays; Nigeria faces gaps in relation to data collection, analysis and innovative technologies; Portugal often hires private consultants for policy processes and reports a sub-optimal engagement and knowledge transfer to improve public sector capacities.
Challenges related to the lack of political will and/or policy continuity are prominent in Thailand where newly elected mayors tend to change the policy direction of a city, as is the case in many countries. In Turkey, policy continuity is hindered by deficiencies in the technical, administrative and financial capacities of the municipal administrations.
Figure 4.12. Greatest challenges for NUP implementation at the sub-national level, n = 48
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Financing NUP implementation
The NUP country survey shows that the principal source of financing for NUP implementation is national government investment (32 of 48 countries, or 67%), followed by co-financing between national and sub‑national governments (20, or 42 %) and sub-national government investment (17, or 35%). International donor financing is also a common source of financing (16, or 33%). Public-private partnerships (12, or 25%), private financing (9, or 19%) and the mobilisation of communities and co‑operatives (6, or 13%) are less popular means of financing (Figure 4.13).
Figure 4.13. Sources of financing for NUP implementation, n = 48
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Looking at regional variation, national government investment and co-financing between national and sub-national governments are particularly common in Europe and North America, used by 14 countries (56%) and 13 countries (52%), respectively. In Africa, while national government investment is the most common source of financing (8 out of 10 countries, or 80%), international donor funding and public-private partnerships are also widely used (7 countries each, 70%) (Figure 4.14).
Figure 4.14. Sources of financing for NUP implementation, regional data, n = 48
Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
Some country specific examples of NUPs financing mechanisms include:
In Chile, the main source of funding is the national government (from the Ministries of Housing and Urbanism; and of Public Works), including the National Regional Development Fund, dedicated to providing funding to regions for the implementation of urban policies.
In Colombia, the diagnostic work on urban policy pointed to the opportunity and necessity of increasing local governments’ own revenue sources, through such instruments as land-value capture and cadastre upgrading. The role of the national government consists of bringing technical assistance to help localities develop and implement such instruments.
Ethiopia’s co-financing mechanism aims to support selected secondary cities based on their performance.
In France, city contracts (contrats de villes), which engage national and local stakeholders, entail pooling of financial resources to better support multi-level governance and ensure a successful co‑ordinated NUP implementation.
In Germany, urban development grants are co-financed; 1/3 each from national, state and municipal level, while the NUP is financed by national level.
Portugal’s ‘ClimAdaPT Local Project’ is a NUP-relevant blended finance mechanism supported by the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism (EEA Grants), financed and managed by Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, in addition to support from the ‘Fundo Português de Carbono’.
Private funding is a major resource in Algeria in order to reduce the pressure on the state budget. This occurs on the one hand by developing diversified financing mechanisms (e.g., diversified and adapted banking products, savings, real estate management products from public property, etc.) and on the other hand, by strengthening the role of companies with a view to developing the mortgage market. This reflects that housing is a priority area of the Algerian Government, in particular the social issue of ‘access for all to decent and affordable housing’.
In Peru, the ‘Works for Taxes’ mechanism is an example of PPP, promoting the execution of priority public investment projects that have a regional and local impact. It allows private companies to finance and execute public investment projects, subsidised from their income tax, by signing a legal agreement with a public entity. The private company can gain compliance and receive a certificate issued by the Public Treasury, for the amount of the corresponding investment, which will be used to pay the income tax.
Measuring enabling environment for cities
Since NUPs are situated within a broader national institutional environment for urban management, other national enabling factors have an important influence on the capacity for sub-national governments to manage cities effectively. Twelve such factors were identified by the City Enabling Environment (CEE) Rating initiative, led by the Cities Alliance, United Cities and Local Governments Africa (UCLGA) and United Cities and Local Government Asia Pacific (UCLG-ASPAC) (Box 4.3).
The CEE initiative identified and monitored gaps in institutional frameworks that affect sub-national governments in Africa as well as in the Asia and the Pacific region, particularly in the implementation of the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda through three assessments of African countries (2012, 2015, 2018) and one in Asia and the Pacific in 2017. The results indicate that the enabling environment has improved in African countries overall, although still “unfavorable” in select countries. Moreover, “citizen participation”, “transparency” and “financial transfers from central to local government” contribute the most in the improvement of the enabling environment. At the same time, “local government own revenue” and “urban strategy” received the lowest scores in the 12 factors. This suggests countries should increase the resources and their implication into the development of urban strategy, which play an important role in the population’s satisfaction.
Box 4.3. City Enabling Environment (CEE) Rating initiative
The CEE Rating initiative investigated 12 factors through four regional assessments: i) constitutional framework; ii) legislative framework; iii) local democracy; iv) financial transfers from the central government to local government; v) own revenues; vi) capacity building of local government administrations; vii) transparency; viii) citizen participation; ix) local government performance; x) urban strategy; xi) gender equality; xii) climate change.
The initiative assigned a rating to the quality of provisions for each factor in each country, based on an in-depth qualitative assessment. It helps countries to draw lessons from each other, stimulate dialogue between ministers, mayors and development partners on the state of decentralisation and build consensus on institutional reforms to implement. The ‘urban strategy’ factor is most relevant to the context of NUPs, and the CEE has rated urban strategy by assessing if a “clear national urban strategy exists, along with the financial and technical arrangements and capacities necessary to implement it”. Until today, three assessments of African countries (2012, 2015, 2018) and one assessment in Asia and the Pacific in 2017 have been conducted.
The 2018 Africa report demonstrated that, overall, the enabling environments have improved, with 35 of 53 countries increasing their rating score between 2012 and 2018 (UCLGA/Cities Alliance, 2018[2]). However, most African countries still had an enabling environment rated as either ‘unfavourable’ (13 countries) or ‘requiring major reform’ (21). Only four countries received the highest rating of ‘favourable’ and a further 12 ‘somewhat favourable’. Although the overall ratings increased, there were variations between regions: e.g. East African countries improved their average score by 45%, while central African countries only by 3%. The indicators which contributed most to the improvement of the enabling environment in Africa were ‘citizen participation’ and ‘financial transfers from central to local governments’. The strong improvement of these categories is a positive reflection of the political will to support decentralisation. It is concerning however, that the second lowest improvement is in ‘urban strategy’, as it was three years after the adoption of the New Urban Agenda that recommended member states, including African countries, to adopt NUPs to meet the challenges of a primarily urbanising world.
In the 2018 Asia and the Pacific report, 13 out of 28 countries were assessed as ‘very high performing’ in terms of their enabling environments, 12 as ‘high performing’, 2 as ‘moderately performing’ and 1 as ‘lesser performing’. The highest scoring criteria across all countries were ‘transparency’ and ‘citizen participation’, while the lowest scoring were ‘local government own revenue’ and ‘urban strategy’. Again, the poor performance of urban strategy shows that many countries had urban strategies that were either poorly conceived or were not accompanied with appropriate resources to support implementation.
The findings of the CEE rating initiative point to many opportunities for governments at all levels to strengthen enabling environments for cities in African and Asia-Pacific countries. This assists countries to make the necessary improvements to meet the urban management-related targets of the SDGs and other global agendas. The next edition of the CEE Rating for African countries will be delivered in 2022.
Source: UCLGA/Cities Alliance (2018), Assessing the Institutional Environment of Local Governments in Africa: 3rd Edition, https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/assessing-institutional-environment-local-0; UCLG-ASPAC/Cities Alliance (2018), City Enabling Environment Rating: Assessment of the Countries in Asia and the Pacific, https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/city-enabling-environment-rating-assessment.
Ways forward
The chapter identified a number of factors for national governments to take into consideration to ensure the success of their NUPs. A key factor is aligning and co‑ordinating NUPs with other sectoral policies, horizontally across ministries and vertically between different levels of government. To that effect, a vast majority of countries use formal mechanisms, such as use of legislation and regulatory mechanisms or informal voluntary arrangements. There are various methods to achieving policy alignment, and the best approach will depend on the local national and sub-national context and institutional structure. Regardless of how national governments approach policy alignment with NUPs, it is important that they first set out to do so.
National governments facilitate different levels of engagement with sub-national governments and stakeholder groups across the NUP process. A majority of countries do engage sub-national governments, either ‘extensively’ or ‘moderately, throughout the NUP process. When formulating NUP, strong sub‑national and stakeholder engagement is likely to lead to better policy prioritisation in the NUP, as well as having the flow-on benefit of sub-national governments taking greater effort to align their urban actions and agendas with the NUP. The levels of engagement of non-governmental stakeholders is lower than that of sub-national governments, which may reflect the related financial and resource constraints. However, there are significant benefits to increasing the engagement of civil society and community organisations in the diagnosis and formulation stages to ensure an inclusive NUP process through ‘participation’, ‘consultation’, ‘engagement’ and ‘representation’. This, in turn, can lead to policy outcomes that clearly respond to the needs of vulnerable populations, such as the upgrading of informal settlements, affordable housing, urban mobility and improved health services. A key lesson is that an effective participatory approach will require the engagement of sub-national government and other stakeholder groups throughout the NUP process, not only at a single stage such as formation.
National governments resort to a wide range of mechanisms for NUP implementation, including a combination of regulatory and legislative instruments such as laws; partnerships and agreements between institutions; financial measures and incentives; awareness raising and capacity building. National governments face various implementation challenges; the most prevalent is insufficient financial resources. Horizontal co‑ordination challenges are also common, caused by policy siloes and institutional fragmentation whereby national sectoral institutions fail to effectively define responsibilities and integrate their plans and actions. In most countries, NUP implementation is dependent on the role of sub-national governments. Sub-national governments are typically needed to enact the NUP through strategic urban and land-use planning, as well as local infrastructure, housing, environmental protection actions and public services. But in most cases, sub-national levels lack the human resources and technical expertise for such an implementation.
These findings indicate two recommendations going forward:
Engage local and regional authorities, and stakeholder groups in the design, implementation and monitoring of NUP, involving all segments of society to address the needs of the most vulnerable, such as women, the elderly, youth, the disabled, migrants and minorities.
Consider varied sources of finance to support the implementation of NUP, including national-subnational co-financing arrangements, public-private partnerships, private financing and initiatives led by communities or co‑operatives. Governments can consider options to address the financial resources challenge during implementation of NUPs. While the most common sources of financing are national government investment, co-financing arrangements with sub-national governments are increasingly being used. Non-governmental sources of financing are also commonly available and can reduce pressures on state budgets. Many countries benefit from international donor funding, including EU instruments, the World Bank and United Nations funding and technical assistance. Other sources with strong potential include public-private partnerships, private financing and the mobilisation of communities or co‑operatives.
References
[4] Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments and United Cities and Local Government (2020), Global Taskforce-UCLG 2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda.
[1] OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
[2] UCLGA/Cities Alliance (2018), Assessing the Institutional Environment of Local Governments in Africa: 3rd Edition, https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/assessing-institutional-environment-local-0.
[3] UCLG-ASPAC/Cities Alliance (2018), City Enabling Environment Rating: Assessment of the Countries in Asia and the Pacific, https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/city-enabling-environment-rating-assessment.