Sustainable Cities Programme/Localising Agenda 21 Programme
MID-TERM REVIEW
FINAL REPORT
17 February 2006
Glossary
ACCA21The Administrative Centre for China’s Agenda 21
ADBAsian Development Bank
AfDBAfrican Development Bank
AIAnchor Institutions
AIILSGAll India Institute for Local Government Support ?
BUSBasic Urban Services
CACities Alliance
CBOCommunity Based Organisation
CDSCity Development Strategy
CIDACanadian International Development Agency
CPRCommittee of Permanent Representatives
DanidaDanish International Development Assistance
DEDDeputy Executive Director
DEPI (UNEP)Division of Environmental Policy Implementation
DEWA (UNEP)Division of Assessment and Early Warning
DfIDDepartment for International Development
DJBSDecent jobs, Better services
DPDLDivision of Policy Development and Law
DPSCSDisaster Prevention, Safer Cities Section
DTIE Division of Technology, Industry and Economics
EDExecutive Director
EMISEnvironmental Management Information System
EPMEnvironmental Planning and Management
FINNIDAFinnish International Development Assistance
GDGlobal Division
GEOGlobal Environment Outlook
GISGeographic Information System
GPA Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities
GPPGood Practice Paper
GUOGlobal Urban Observatory
HPMHabitat Programme Manager
ICLEIInternational Coalition for Local Environmental Initiatives
IHEInternational Institute for Infrastructural, Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering
IHSInstitute for Housing and Urban Development Studies
IIEDInternational Institute for Environment and Development
ILO ASISTILO Advisory Support, Information Services and Training
ILOInternational Labour Organization
InWEntInternationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung (Capacity Building International Germany)
IPFInstitute of Physical Planning
IRCInternational Water and Sanitation Centre
ISSInformation Services Section
ITC International Institute of Aerial Survey and Earth Observation
JOCJoint Operation and Coordination Group
LA21Localizing Agenda 21
LACLatin America and the Caribbean
LVWATSANLake Victoria Water and Sanitation
MDGMillennium Development Goals
MTRMid-Term Review
NGONon-governmental Organization
NMTNon-motorized Transport
NORADNorwegian Agency for Development Assistance
OECDOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OIOSOffice of Internal Oversight Services (or the UN office for Internal Oversight)
PPPUEPublic-Private Partnership for the Urban Environment
PRSPPoverty reduction Strategy Paper
PSACProgrammes Strategic Advisory Committee
RORegional Office
ROAASRegional office for Africa and ArabStates
ROAPRegional Office for Asia and the Pacific
ROLACRegional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean
RTCDRegional and Technical Cooperation Division
SCPSustainable Cities Programme
SIDASwedish International Development Agency
SUMSustainable Urban Mobility
TCBBTraining and CapacityBuilding Branch
TEIThailand Environment Institute
ToRTerms of Reference
ToTTraining of Trainers
TRThematic Review
UDBUrban Development Branch
UESUrban Environment Section
UMPUrban Management Programme
UNUnited Nations
UNCEDUnited Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNCHSUnited Nations Centre for Human Settlements
UNDPUnited Nations Development Programme
UNEPUnited Nations Environment Programme
UNESCOUnited Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization
UN-HABITATUnited Nations Human Settlements Programme
USAIDUnited States Agency for International Development
WATSAN Water and Sanitation
WSIBWater, Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch
WSSDWorld Summit on Sustainable Development
WUF World Urban Forum
Executive Summary
Introduction
UN-HABITAT/UNEP have commissioned a Mid-Term Review (MTR) of Phases 2 of the Global Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP) and Localising Agenda 21 (LA21) 2003-2007, in consultation with the Governments of the Netherlands and Belgium, carried out during October 2005 – February 2006.
The inputs for the MTR report included the review of global programme documentation and the operations of the UN-HABITAT/UNEP Core Teams, in addition to in-country reviews in Cuba, Kenya, Senegal and Sri Lanka. The MTR team was also presented with self-assessment reports – prepared by the UN-HABITAT/UNEP Core Teams and by local consultants in the four countries – prior to the review of Core Team operations and country visits. Interviews with programme partner representatives and the accumulated experience of MTR team members in other SCP/LA21 countries were also inputs to the review process.
The Mid Term Review has been constrained by the practical limitations inherent in working on the basis of these data sources and approach chosen, which, of course, were dictated by limitations of time and resources. However, the MTR team is satisfied that through the variety of data sources at its disposal it had enough factual basis for its conclusions and recommendations.
Based on the review, the report (which was finalized after extensive consultations with global programme partners and programme staff of UN-HABITAT and UNEP in Nairobi in February 2006) outlines a series of recommendations for the remaining period to complete the 2nd phase of the programmes. It also recommends a perspective beyond their completion. The report is primarily addressed to UN-HABITAT, UNEP and the Governments of Belgium and The Netherlands.
Key Recommendations for Completion of 2nd Phase
An overarching recommendation for the completion of the second phase is the adoption of greater flexibility in the implementation of activities to achieve the programmes objectives. The pre-occupation with the production of quantified outputs (for objectives 1 and 2) must be replaced with a focus on achievement of policy and capacity building outcomes.
Within the framework of that overarching shift in orientation, the major thrusts of the recommendations are for more focus on the normative functions at the global level, consolidation of in-country gains through upscaling, national replication and national policy formulation, and more strategic selection of partner institutions that can sustain support at the regional and national level. Measures to improve programme management and strategic links with other institutions and relevant programmes are also strongly advocated.
Enhance the relevance of programme design. Programme design and overall direction of SCP/LA21 remain relevant. However, other important areas of concern have emerged since the design of the 2nd phase. In order to remain responsive and relevant to demands of the times, the programmes must pay more attention to concerns such as localising Global Agendas and the MDG’s, urban environment-spatial planning nexus, and urban poverty- urban environment nexus.
Increase the flexibility of the EPM Process. The EPM process – the main operational vehicle of the programmes – must be repackaged and fast tracked in recognition of the fact that most local governments already have some planning processes in place, the short terms of office of local government officials, the fact that there are different practical operational entry points in the process in different situations, and that some urgent issues demand immediate action. The EPM approach must become more flexible and responsive to these local conditions.
Emphasize the institutionalization of the Normative Functions. In order to accomplish a sustained up-scaling and mainstreaming of the programme’s interventions, more focus should now be placed on institutionalising the programmes’ normative functions. This should be achieved within UN-HABITAT and within the participating countries and cities. Given its strategic value, more time and resources must be allocated to this work.
In countries where lower levels of governments do not enjoy autonomy, more emphasis should now be placed on working with and through national ministries to ensure national replication and adoption of appropriate national policies. In decentralised systems of government, the programmes must ensure stronger links with both executive and political bodies of decision-making to mobilise local interest and participation and increase the adoption and internalisation, of EPM in the city’s overall policies and operations.
Better use should be made of the positive experiences of the LA21 strategic structural planning approach by the elaboration of a practical guide contributing to the normative agenda of the local and national governments, based on the Urban Trialogues publication and the adoption of this planning methodology in future UN-HABITAT-UNEP policy options/guidelines for action.
The programmes’ link with local strategies to improve urban environment and urban poverty reduction should be made more explicit and visible. In that way, the programmes can be seen as readily contributing to implementing the MDGs.
Upscale and strategically use demonstration projects. Since demonstration projects have proven to be effective vehicles to apply and legitimise the EPM approach, they must continue to be part of the agenda for the remaining period. However, a more strategic perspective in selecting demo projects must be adopted taking into consideration the feasibility of national replication in order to influence national policies. More effort should also be made to link demonstration projects to follow up investment packages for the same reason.
Streamline programme implementation. Focus should be on consolidation of the achievements reached by the programmes in improving EPM application and policy implementation processes. This implies that no new activities should be undertaken in countries where the chances of sustainable replication and of influencing national policies are limited.
Selectively partner with Anchoring Institutions to strengthen capacity building. A more systematic process of identification of AIs in all regions still needs to be undertaken fully. In developing a sustainable network of AIs, the structural mandates of these AIs must be the starting point to ensure that the partnership is seen to be mutually beneficial. Structural financial support mechanisms should be recognised as the main driving force in ensuring sustainability. Using clearly defined success/outcome criteria, a critical review of already engaged AIs in capacity building strategies needs to be undertaken to assess where there is potential for continuation and further strengthening.
Intensify and expand collaboration with UNEP. The need to enhance the normative functions of the programmes and respond to emerging areas of concern demand a much more intensive and extensive relationship with UNEP. In line with institutionalisation and consolidation of programmes’ components, the poverty-environment nexus, localizing the MDGs and global issues such as climate change and coastal area pollution are all good themes for intensive areas of cooperation between UNEP and UN-HABITAT. This means building on the existing cooperation, bringing in all relevant units of both institutions and allocating significant additional financial and human resources.
Enhance programme management and coordination. The quality of programme management needs improvement at all levels. The roles of existing steering mechanisms and policy directions at the managerial levels of the programmes must be reviewed in order to achieve efficiency and better organisational performance and help achieve the programmes’ objectives.
On-going efforts to improve the horizontal and vertical co-ordination of the programmes with parallel programmes/units in UN-HABITAT and UN-HABITAT Senior Management must be sustained and strengthened . Sensible “win-win” agreements must be established between the programmes, the global campaigns and other relevant units (such as WSIB, TCBB, RTCD and GUO) and their implementation monitored through regular co-ordination meetings and follow-up by senior management.
Both internal and external operational management procedures of the core team need to be tightened up considerably. While strategically focusing on the normative functions, backstopping of field activities must be mainstreamed with the appropriate field units (e.g. regional offices. the Habitat Programme Managers, and ultimately AIs), whenever operationally viable. This recommendation will ease the burden on the management of the Core Team and allow it to focus on its normative role.
Next steps. A work plan for the completion of the 2nd phase based on the above recommendations needs to be prepared as soon as possible for discussion and approval by all programme partners.
Perspective beyond Completion of 2nd Phase
In line with the above-mentioned recommendations, a joint UN-HABITAT/UNEP urban environmental management policy/strategy/programme should be developed, building on the experiences of SCP/LA21 and other similar programmes. This will help develop and strengthen the normative functions of the SCP/LA 21 programmes in which some of the strategy elements can already be addressed during the completion of the second phase. It will provide an umbrella framework for engaging other programme partners in urban environmental management.
It is strongly recommended that the coming 2-3 years are also used to develop the scope of this new programme for external support by a consortium of funding partners to implement this strategy and to continue to support the joint development of the two agencies’ normative mandate in the thematic area of the urban environment. A programme concept note should be developed by the two agencies without delay for discussion with other partners (at PSAC or at a broader forum) during the forthcoming World Urban Forum.
Summary of Key Findings
I.Programme Concept and Design
1.1 Programmes Concept.Both the SCP and LA programme documents are consistent programme documents and cogently articulate the need for up-scaling the Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) approach, achieving investment follow-up and policy impact, as well as developing a permanent normative capacity to support these processes across the globe. The programmed activities during 2003-2005 by and large form logical elements in this progression.
1.2 SCP Programme Design. The rigidly defined quantitative targets in the SCP programme design limit its flexibility to implement the mix of identified activities to achieve objectives 1 and 2 in a more strategic manner that is responsive to local conditions, and recognizes the inherent operational institutional and financial limitations of local governments and the institutional planning processes that are mandatory/optional for them. The same applies to the pre-determination in the SCP programme document of demonstration projects and associated capacity building on Sustainable Urban Mobility (SUM) and Basic Urban Services (BUS) as given priority, to the predetermined assigning of specific tasks of capacity-building, SUM and BUS support to the three Dutch specialized institutions. This contradicts the, in principle, open-ended and demand-driven nature of the EPM-based prioritisation process.
1.3 Responsiveness of SCP/LA21. The SCP/LA21 programme design is consistent with and responsive to the two agencies’ overall work plans priorities (to UN-HABITAT more than to UNEP). The programmes’ design is also responsive to global development policies and priorities. This has been enhanced by the convergence of the 2 programmes
1.4Grant for Demonstrations. Although demonstration interventions are generally small and not always strategically embedded in other urban environmental (infrastructure) investment, they provide tangible results of participatory planning processes of the EPM and LA21 structure planning processes thus making it more relevant to cities.
II.Programme Implementation and Lessons Learnt
2.1Efficiency and Learning by Doing. Effectiveness and efficiency of programme implementation, and achievement of output and impacts has varied. There has been a great deal of learning-by-doing particularly in the documentation of lessons learnt, the capacity-building agenda development, and SUM development which proved to be expensive and time consuming.
2.2Capacity-buildingagendas. Two such national capacity-building agendas have been developed during 2004-5 (Sri Lanka and Nigeria) and none yet formally adopted. By the end of 2006 such capacity-building agendas are supposed to have been developed, adopted and be under implementation in six countries. Given the difficulties experienced to date and the protracted efforts required, the MTR team considers this ambitious.
The creation of “a cascade of capacity-building infrastructure to provide the foundations for long-term sustained EPM support” was envisaged. This has been accomplished in one country (Cuba) where a national centre has been established and a number of EPM-based training programmes have been developed. This has also been partially accomplished in Senegal.
2.3Demo Projects. The experience with demonstration projects has generally been positive as they provide some tangible outcomes of the EPM and LA21 structure planning based participatory planning process and the ability to improve environmental conditions on the ground. This has been validated in all the four countries visited. In the case of LA21 programme, the importance of demo projects have been enhanced by being closely connected to the spatial planning dimension.
Three BUS demos have been implemented to date (out of an anticipated end-of project output of 6) with IRC support, but their impacts and value added have varied. Only one SUM demo project (out of an anticipated 4) has been developed with IHE support and is about to be completed. Its demonstration value is unquestionable but it is not sure whether the lessons of this demo experiences with significant programme and local resource implications will be appropriately captured in operational guidelines for replication.
2.4Investment packages for up-scaling. The current situation is one of very partial achievement. Data available shows that about $ 3.3 million of SCP/LA 21 activity funds allocated during the period have levered a total of $ 12.5 million in resources from other sources in 23 programme countries. However, only a small part of these funds are for investments. Most are for counterpart funding and technical assistance. The incompleteness of the data provided also raises the question about the required attention that must be given to tracking this consistently in order to maintain an accurate monitoring of resources mobilisation.
2.5National replications/policy. The replication efforts of the programmes have been successful, but the policy impact has been quite limited to date with some success in only a few countries (Sri Lanka and Tanzania are cases in point). Under the LA21 programme, after positive results in one city, an interesting replication programme with potential policy impact is underway in three Cuban cities.
2.6Regional and national support functions. A strategy for anchoring EPM capacities in national and regional institutions has been developed by the Core Team and agreed with the partners. A number of Anchoring Institutions (AIs) have been identified and co-operation agreements and other contractual arrangements have been formalized. However, the process of engagement and negotiation has consumed significant time and effort, considering that most identified AIs also need to be capacitated first before they can take over the capacity building function from the Core Team and the country teams.