Developing National Urban Policies: Ways Forward to Green and Smart Cities [1st ed.] 9789811537370, 9789811537387

Citation preview

Debolina Kundu Remy Sietchiping Michael Kinyanjui   Editors

Developing National Urban Policies Ways Forward to Green and Smart Cities

Developing National Urban Policies

Debolina Kundu Remy Sietchiping Michael Kinyanjui •

•

Editors

Developing National Urban Policies Ways Forward to Green and Smart Cities

123

Editors Debolina Kundu India Habitat Centre National Institute of Urban Affairs New Delhi, Delhi, India

Remy Sietchiping United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) Nairobi, Kenya

Michael Kinyanjui United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) Nairobi, Kenya

ISBN 978-981-15-3737-0 ISBN 978-981-15-3738-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7

(eBook)

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Foreword

By 2007, over half the world’s population was living in an urban environment, signalling a major demographic shift from rural to urban. Since then, the world has become more and more urban. Countries across the globe increasingly acknowledge the positive impact of urbanisation, as a creator of value and a strong source of wealth and prosperity. In order to seize the opportunities of urbanisation, and as a tool to potentially mitigate its negative consequences, a clear and structured framework must be put in place. A national urban policy provides a framework to manage urbanisation, to guide countries to utilise smart and green principles. The transformative power of sustainable urbanisation has the potential to effectively support and contribute to the implementation of the New Urban Agenda, Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and its seventeen goals, particularly Goal 11, which aims to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Developing and implementing a national urban policy is a critical step towards properly planned and well-designed cities and human settlements. If national urban policies are developed with the concept of smart and green cities in mind, urbanisation can serve as a source of wealth, social and environmental sustainability. I therefore encourage countries to develop and implement national urban policies for smart and green cities, to address climate change, support participatory city-wide slum upgrading and enhance safe, inclusive and accessible public space for all. The series of examples and cases presented in this book illustrate how a national urban policy and smart cities’ approaches can serve as a framework to address urban challenges such as increasing disparity, unemployment, growth of slums, lack of basic services and spread of violence and crime. Many of these challenges have emerged precisely due to the absence of or ineffective urban policies. This book further demonstrates that good urbanisation does not happen by chance but through deliberate policy choices accompanied by proper implementation of integrated plans. If the potential opportunities and gains of urbanisation are to be well understood by governments, policymakers and other stakeholders, they must acknowledge that such growth will not necessarily correlate with productivity v

vi

Foreword

and prosperity in cities unless it is facilitated by a holistic urban policy. Using a smart city approach and technology to efficiently manage our cities, future positive development has a higher possibility of success. Local and national leaders must, therefore, formulate and implement national urban policies that have smart city strategies as essential tools. Through that, governments, in cooperation with other stakeholders, can maximise the positive outcomes of urbanisation, going beyond city boundaries to reduce territorial disparities through balanced spatial development. Such national urban policies should be able to create the conditions for planned urbanisation through appropriate legal frameworks, municipal financing, planning and design, and harmonising development through horizontal and vertical coordination. By presenting the valuable experiences of selected countries at various levels of urbanisation and development of national urban policies, this book will enrich the existing literature on national urban policies. It is particularly timely and in line with the New Urban Agenda, which explicitly notes the importance of national urban policies and smart cities in the overall development of countries and urban areas. I am confident that this book will serve as an essential guide for policymakers and make an important contribution towards the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.

Ms. Maimunah Mohd Sharif Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) Nairobi, Kenya

Contents

Part I 1

Supporting National Urban Policy with Smart and Green Urban Principles

Locating the Importance of NUP in the Context of Present Urban Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Debolina Kundu, Remy Sietchiping, and Michael Kinyanjui

3

2

World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Debolina Kundu and Arvind Kumar Pandey

13

3

National Urban Policy: Tool for Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Kinyanjui

51

Part II 4

Smarter and Greener National Urban Policies: Case Study Experiences in Select Countries

Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy Framework and Smart Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Debolina Kundu

89

5

Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Nasir Javed, Rahema Hasan, and Nadia N. Qureshi

6

Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan: Experiences and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Mathew French, Parul Agarwala, Humayoun Faiz, Ahmad Shoaib Azizi, Masood Hamza, Srinivas Popuri, and Jan Turkstra

7

The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving Sustainable, Resilient, Greener and Smarter Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Mario R. Delos Reyes, Mark Anthony M. Gamboa, and Ryan Randle B. Rivera

vii

viii

Contents

8

Overview of Urban Policies in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Debolina Kundu, Tania Debnath, and Baishali Lahiri

9

Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 Sara Habibi, Maysam Basirat, and Mohammad Hassan Razavi

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy, 2012 and Formulation of Sub-national Urban Policy and Smart City Strategy by Niger State Government, Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Mustapha Zubairu 11 Urban Policy in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 David Everatt and Zayd Ebrahim 12 Urbanisation and a Culture-Based Strategy: Crafting a New Type of Spatial Vision for Zanzibar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Muhammad Juma 13 Elaborating Policy Under a National Urban Policy-Habitat Country Programme Document (NUP-HCPD) Platform: The Case of African Lusophone Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Marcella Guarneri, Evandro Holz, and Thomaz Ramalho 14 Urban Development in Germany: Experiences in Framing the Urban Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 André Mueller 15 France National Urban Policies: Towards Sustainable, Inclusive and Innovative Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 Eric Huybrechts 16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377 Sara Stace 17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation . . . 407 Okju Jeong 18 Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies for a Citizen-Oriented Smart City Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 Fiona Chang and Diganta Das 19 Towards Sustainable and Greener Cities: Lessons Learnt Through NUPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 Debolina Kundu, Remy Sietchiping, and Michael Kinyanjui About the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

Editors and Contributors

About the Editors Debolina Kundu, Ph.D. is a Professor at the National Institute of Urban Affairs, India, and has over 25 years of professional experience in the field of development studies. She has been a doctoral fellow with the Indian Council of Social Science Research and holds a Ph.D. from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. She has worked as a consultant with various national and international agencies on issues of urban development, migration, poverty, governance and exclusion. She is currently the Country Principal Investigator for Global Challenge Research Fund project titled Sustainable, Healthy and Learning Cities and Neighbourhood support by United Kingdom Research and Innovation. She is also the HUDCO Chair and Editor-in-Chief of the journals Environment and Urbanization, Asia (SAGE) and Urban India (NIUA). She has authored many publications in peer reviewed journals and books. Remy Sietchiping, Ph.D. is Chief of Policy, Legislation and Governance Section within the Urban Practices Branch of the Global Solutions Division of UN-Habitat at its Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. He is currently working on national urban policies within spatial frameworks, legislation and governance, metropolitan development, urban corridor development and cluster, systems of connected cities and urban-rural linkages. He has over 25 years of experience and he coordinates global, regional, national and sub-national projects and programmes around the World. Michael Kinyanjui is an Urban Policy Specialist at the Policy, Legislation and Governance Section within the Urban Practices Branch of the Global Solutions Division of UN-Habitat at its Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. He offers technical advice to member states on formulation and review of national urban policies and regional and spatial planning frameworks. Previously worked as a Consultant with UN-Habitat’s Policy Analysis Branch in research and drafting of Global Reports on

ix

x

Editors and Contributors

Human Settlements. Current interest includes evaluation of national urban policies in implementation and monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals particularly SDG-11, and the New Urban Agenda and development of the Global State of National Urban Policies 2020 report. Michael has over 15 years international experience in urban development.

Contributors Parul Agarwala UN-Habitat, New Delhi, India Ahmad Shoaib Azizi UN-Habitat, Kabul, Afghanistan Maysam Basirat Assistant Professor, School of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran Fiona Chang Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Diganta Das Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore Tania Debnath National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India Mario R. Delos Reyes University of the Philippines School of Urban and Regional Planning (UP SURP), Quezon, Philippines Zayd Ebrahim School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa David Everatt School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Humayoun Faiz Ministry of Urban Development and Land, Kabul, Afghanistan Mathew French Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Clayton, Victoria, Australia Mark Anthony M. Gamboa University of the Philippines School of Urban and Regional Planning (UP SURP), Quezon, Philippines Marcella Guarneri UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya Sara Habibi Ph.D., National Urban Policy Officer and Project Manager, UN-Habitat, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran Masood Hamza UN-Habitat, Kabul, Afghanistan Rahema Hasan The Urban Unit, Lahore, Pakistan Evandro Holz UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya Eric Huybrechts Paris/Ile-de-France Regional Planning Agency, Paris, France Nasir Javed The Urban Unit, Lahore, Pakistan

Editors and Contributors

xi

Okju Jeong Urban Climate Change Resilience Trust Fund, Administered by the Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong, Philippines Muhammad Juma Department of Urban and Rural Planning, Government of Zanzibar, Zanzibar, Tanzania Michael Kinyanjui UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya Debolina Kundu National Institute of Urban Affairs, India Habitat Centres, New Delhi, India Baishali Lahiri National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India André Mueller Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR), Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning (BBR), Bonn, Germany Arvind Kumar Pandey National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India Srinivas Popuri UN-Habitat, Regional Office of Asia and the Pacific, Fukuoka, Japan Nadia N. Qureshi The Urban Unit, Lahore, Pakistan Thomaz Ramalho UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya Mohammad Hassan Razavi Ph.D. in Geography and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran Ryan Randle B. Rivera Centre for Neighbourhood Studies (CeNS), Quezon, Philippines Remy Sietchiping UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya Sara Stace Clovelly, Australia Jan Turkstra UN-Habitat, Kabul, Afghanistan Mustapha Zubairu Niger State Urban Support Programme, Minna, Nigeria

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABI ADEME AfDB AFINUA AMRUT ANAH BOD BRGM BRT CAA CCAM CDGK CDIAC CEREMA CFC CGET CLC CMP CNTPs COAG COP21 CSS DALY DPMA DRRM DTADD

Apply Beyond Innovation Agence de l’Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Énergie (French Environment and Energy Management Agency) African Development Bank Action Framework for the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation L’Agence nationale de l’habitat (National Housing Agency) Burden of Disease Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières Bus Rapid Transit Constitutional Amendment Act Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation City District Government Karachi Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center Center for Studies and Expertise on Risks, Environment, Mobility and Development Central Finance Commissions Commissariat général à l’égalité des territoires County-Level City Country Master Plan Comprehensive National Territorial Plans Council of Australian Governments Conference of the Parties, 21st Session Centrally Sponsored Scheme Disability-Adjusted Life Year Development Plans of Metropolitan Areas Disaster Risk reduction and Management Directive territoriale d’aménagement et de développement durables (Territorial Directive for Sustainable Planning and Development)

xiii

xiv

DURD ERP EU FCT FGN FYP GAA GCCSAs GDP GGGI GHG GIRoA GNP GOVTECH GoZ GSSA HCPD HMS HPEC HRS HUDCO HUL ICNUP ICT IDMC IHSDP INS INSEE JICA JNNURM JTC KRIHS LBOTPU LCGC LESCO LGUs LOTU LRMIS LWMC MUDA N/RPP NBS NDP NETS

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Department of Urban and Regional Development Electronic Road Pricing European Union Federal Capital Territory Federal Government of Nigeria Five-Year Plan General Appropriations Act Greater Capital City Statistical Areas Gross Domestic Product Global Green Growth Institute Greenhouse Gas Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Gross National Product Government Technology Agency, Singapore Government of Zanzibar Geological Survey of South Australia National Urban Policy—Habitat Country Programme Document Housing Master Plan High Powered Expert Committee Household Responsibility System Housing and Urban Development Corporation Historic Urban Landscapes International Conference on National Urban Policy Information and Communications Technology Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme National Institute of Statistics National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies Japan International Cooperation Agency Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission Jurong Town Corporation Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements Bases do Ordenamento do Território e Planeamento Urbanístico (Law of Bases of Land Use Planning and Urban Planning) Low-Carbon Green City Lahore Electric Supply Company Local Government Units Law of the Planning of the Territory and Urbanism Land Record Management and Information System Lahore Waste Management Company Ministry of Urban Development Affairs National/Regional Physical Plan National Bureau of Statistics of China National Development Plan Network for Electronic Transfers

Acronyms and Abbreviations

NGOs NNUP NSDS NSGG NSP NTU NUA NUDHF NUDP NUG NUP NUPP O&M OECD PCGSDP PLC PLU POOTN RATP RAY REOTN REPTUR RGEU RMB RNOTPU

SCoT SCP SDG SDRIF SEIFA SEM SMCs SNCF SNDGG SNTEDD SoAC SOP SPL SPV

xv

Non-governmental Organisations National New Urbanisation Plan National Spatial Development Strategy National Strategy for Green Growth National Spatial Plan Nanyang Technological University New Urban Agenda National Urban Development and Housing Framework National Urban Development Project National Unity Government National Urban Policy National Urban Policy Programme Operations and Maintenance Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Per Capita Gross State Domestic Product Prefecture-Level City Plan local d’urbanisme Principais Opções de Ordenamento do Território (Main Options for National Spatial Planning) Transports à Paris et en Ile-de-France Rajiv Awas Yojana Relatório do Estado do Ordenamento do Território Nacional (Report of the State of National Spatial Planning) General Regulation for Urban and Rural Territorial Plans General Regulation of Urban Buildings Renminbi Regulamento Nacional do Ordenamento do Território e Planeamento Urbanístico (National Regulations of Land Use Planning and Urban Planning) Schema de coherence territoriale (Territorial Coherence Scheme) Smart City Plan Sustainable Development Goal Schéma directeur de la région Île-de-France Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Société d'économie Mixte (Mix Economic Development Societies) Small and Medium-Sized Cities French National Railway Company Smart Nation and Digital Government Group Stratégie nationale de transition écologique vers un développement durable State of Afghan Cities Standard Operating Procedure (Law approving the Main Strategic Options) Société publique locale (Public Development Society) Special Purpose Vehicle

xvi

SRADDET SSB STCDA SUA SUP TVEs UA U-City UDHA UIDSSMT UIPT UK ULB UN DESA UN UNCHS UNDP UNEP UNESCAP UNESCO UNFCCC UN-Habitat UNPD U-NPP URN URP US USD WCD WEF ZansPlan

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Schéma régional d’aménagement, de développement durable et d’égalité des territoires Singapore Savings Bond Stone Town Conservation and Development Authority Significant Urban Area Sub-national Urban Policy Town and Village Enterprises Urban Agglomeration Ubiquitous City Urban Development and Housing Act Urban Infrastructure and Development Schemes for Small and Medium Towns Urban Immovable Property Tax United Kingdom Urban Local Body United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations United Nations Centre for Human Settlements United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United Nations Human Settlements Programme United Nations Procurement Division Urban National Priority Programme Urbanization Research Nigeria Urban and Rural Planning United States United States Dollar Women and Child Development World Economic Forum Zanzibar Master Plan

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 Table 2.4 Table 2.5 Table 2.6 Table 2.7 Table 2.8 Table Table Table Table

2.9 4.1 4.2 4.3

Table 4.4 Table 4.5 Table Table Table Table Table

5.1 5.2 7.1 7.2 7.3

Table 7.4 Table 8.1

World’s urban population by development groups, 1950–2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ten most urbanised countries in 2018 and 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . Ten least urbanised countries in 2018 and 2050 . . . . . . . . . . . Number of cities classified by size class of urban settlements, 1950–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage share of urban population in cities classified by size class of urban settlements, 1950–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . Growth rate of urban population in cities classified by size class of urban settlement, 1950–2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 largest urban agglomerations ranked by population size, 1950, 1975, 2000, 2015 and 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of select indicators to examine interlinkages between urbanisation and economic development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation coefficients’ matrix of select indicators . . . . . . . . . Number of cities and towns across size class: 1961–2011. . . . Percentage distribution of urban population: 1961–2011 . . . . . Core-periphery analysis of the metropolitan and non-metropolitan Class I cities: 2001 and 2011 . . . . . . . . Access to basic amenities in urban India: 2011 and 2001 (per cent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State of the finances of municipalities (all states, 2007–13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in poverty incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of ICT-based city solutions currently in place . . . . . Geographical–political units in the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of urban areas in the Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philippine urbanisation in relation to Southeast Asia, 1960–2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of NUDHF iterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Urbanisation dynamics in China, 1950–2050 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 27 28 30 33 36 40 43 46 95 95 96 103 114 135 142 171 172 178 190 210 xvii

xviii

List of Tables

Table Table Table Table

8.2 9.1 9.2 9.3

Table Table Table Table

9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7

Table 9.8 Table 10.1 Table Table Table Table Table Table

10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7

Table 11.1 Table 12.1 Table 14.1 Table 17.1 Table 17.2

Four phases of urbanisation in China (1949-present) . . . . . . Urbanisation in Iran over the time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key facts about urbanisation in Iran in 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes in the share of housing in the households’ income—percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iran’s CO2 emission (metric tons per capita) . . . . . . . . . . . . Hierarchy of planning system in Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some indicators of housing situation in Iran (2013) . . . . . . Iran’s position in IDI rankings compared to Korea (first in ranking in Asia and the Pacific), 2017 . . . . . . . . . . Comparing current urban plans in Iran with the goal of “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” . . Trend of total urban population (million) and level of urbanisation (%) in Nigeria (1950–2050) . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of urban settlements in Nigeria, 1960–2020 . . . . . Urban land cover estimates and projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fertility and child morality trends in Nigeria (1990–2013) . Key health indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rural–urban difference in some health indicators . . . . . . . . Percentage of population below poverty level (1908–1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Synoptic view of various socio-economic indicators in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total population of Zanzibar, Zanzibar town and the its urban metropolitan area from 1988 to 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . EU programmes supporting sustainable urban development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of CNTPs from 1972 to 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the planning guidelines for sustainable new cities/towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. .. ..

220 233 233

. . . .

. . . .

237 239 241 244

..

249

..

251

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

260 260 262 263 271 272

..

273

..

290

..

303

.. ..

350 410

..

418

Part I

Supporting National Urban Policy with Smart and Green Urban Principles

Chapter 1

Locating the Importance of NUP in the Context of Present Urban Challenges Debolina Kundu, Remy Sietchiping, and Michael Kinyanjui

1.1 Introduction Urbanisation is intrinsically linked to development. Globally, cities are considered as engines of growth. This optimism is reflected both in economic and demographic terms. In fact, urbanisation has become a significant global trend in the twenty-first century. Although urbanisation levels and rates vary across regions and also over time, it is increasingly becoming a global phenomenon, and affecting nations by posing challenges and opportunities—both of which, it is argued, can be managed by national governments, if they are competent and have a framework in place for its urban development. For urbanisation to play a transformative role in integrating the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, coherent policies must be put in place. These could help to address the contrasting growth and shrinkage challenges in developing and developed world, respectively. To achieve the desired outcomes, a National Urban Policy (NUP) is an important tool available to governments to manage urbanisation. It provides a vision for urban transformation and to harness opportunities while mitigating inevitable challenges. Due to its ability to structure and organise urbanisation and its value as a tool to capitalise on the opportunities, the NUP has been identified as one of the tools to support implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to implement the New Urban Agenda (NUA). It is further argued that in the absence of adequate National Urban Policies and associated frameworks, cities will continue to face multiple challenges that will aggravate urban inequalities and poverty. Building smarter D. Kundu (B) National Institute of Urban Affairs, Core 48, 1st Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India e-mail: [email protected] R. Sietchiping · M. Kinyanjui UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_1

3

4

D. Kundu et al.

and sustainable cities is a common agenda among policy makers and other stakeholders in the twenty-first century. In this respect, NUPs are an important tool for considering how smart and green principles can be incorporated into urban policies. The inaugural International Conference on National Urban Policy in 2015 echoed the importance of NUPs as a multi-sectorial process and tool to help achieve compact, integrated, connected and inclusive cities that are resilient to climate change. In fact, the rich literature on NUPs gathered at this conference and the interesting discourse on the subject led to the initiation of this book. The Second International Conference on National Urban Policy, 2017 offered the first opportunity following the Habitat III Conference and during the ongoing Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) process to consider, in a global forum, the role of National Urban Policy in implementing the global urban agenda. Furthermore, the Action Framework for Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (AFINUA), 2017 identified National Urban Policies as a strong foundational element for achieving sustainable urbanisation. In fact, successful NUPs dealing with rapid urbanisation can inform urban policy in other rapidly urbanising and developing countries. This book brings together NUP experiences of countries across the globe which are at different levels of urbanisation and economic development. It brings a collection of review of the National Urban Policies in 15 countries (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Philippines, Iran, Singapore, Korea, Nigeria, Zanzibar Islands, Lusophone Countries, South Africa, Australia, Germany and France). It has been divided into three main sections. The first section focuses to understand the current urbanisation trends and patterns and related challenges at the global level. A basic understanding of the need for NUP against this backdrop followed by a discussion on the importance of NUP as a tool to deal with urban challenges is also covered in this section. The second section tries to critically understand the efforts of the developing countries across various continents to plan and manage urbanisation. The last section is focused on the experiences of developed countries along with two case studies on the smart and green cities initiatives of two countries.

1.2 Overview of Global Urbanisation In Chap. 2, Kundu and Pandey discuss the current trends and pattern of urbanisation in different parts of the world, along with their major challenges. Since 1950s, the world has been experiencing very high growth of urban population. Currently 55.3% population live in urban areas (2018), the share of which is expected to rise to 68% by the middle of the twenty-first century, accounting to a population of 6 billion. However, projections indicate that the growth rate of urban population which started to decline in the eighties, will decline further to 1.13% by the middle of the twenty-first century (WUP 2018). The authors noted that most of the addition of the urban population that has been contributed by developing countries, especially, those of Asia and Africa, and the future global urban population will be concentrated mainly in these two continents. Urbanisation in the developing countries is mainly characterised by

1 Locating the Importance of NUP in the Context of Present …

5

rapid growth of mega cities, as in contrast with shrinking cities of the west. However, these cities of developing countries face several challenges related to overcrowding and lack of planning. Additionally, the challenges posed by climate change are likely to impact the entire globe, both the developed and developing countries. In this context, it is important to highlight that national urban policies in Asian and African countries, which are currently least equipped to deal the challenges of urbanisation, need to address these issues in a manner which will lead to sustainable development. Countries from these two continents need to build capacities to deal with the added challenges of globalisation, income and spatial disparities as well as rising demographic dividend. National urban policies could be instrumental in guiding these countries towards sustainable and resilient future encompassing the agendas discussed in “Sustainable Development Goals” and “New Urban Agenda”.

1.3 National Urban Policy: Tools for Development In Chap. 3, Kinyanjui argues that the geography of urbanisation is changing, affecting all countries but with greater magnitude in emerging and developing economies of the global South. Compared to urban transitions in developed economies, urbanisation in developing regions is largely driven by poverty, conflict and demographic change and to a lesser extent by industrialisation and employment growth (Turok and Parnell 2009). In contrast, recent international debate on urban shrinkage with considerable population loss in European, North America and some East Asian cities is rife and the phenomena will become more widespread (UNDESA 2018; Großmann et al. 2013). Discussion on how to address such urban decline through “urban regeneration” and “neighbourhood revitalisation” is gaining traction in national urbanisation policies for these countries. Referring UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance (2014), Kinyanjui argues that urbanisation that is supported with appropriate spatially integrated policies is a strong positive force for achieving national economic development, social transformation and environmental progress. He further notes that National Urban Policies are a key tool for achieving such desired outcomes. The policies not only foster entrepreneurial dynamism and creativity in urban areas, but also reduce transactional costs and facilitate competitiveness and business development. Countries that have national urban policies are generally most successful in the areas of human development, spatial integration and economic growth (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). He further argues that both SDGs and the NUA can reach their targets and full potential through well-conceived NUPs.

6

D. Kundu et al.

1.4 Urban Challenges and National Urban Policy: Experiences in Asia and Pacific Asia experienced rapid rate of urbanisation in the later part of twentieth century. Despite being one of the less urbanised regions of the world, it constitutes more than half of the world’s urban population. India and China constitute one-third of the total urban population of the world. Asian urbanisation is mostly concentrated in mega and metropolitan cities. Therefore, overcrowding and informality along with lack of basic services and infrastructure are important components of urbanisation in this part of the world, except for a few countries like Korea and Singapore. These imply the requirement of the massive policy initiations to manage the diseconomies of large cities and direct it towards a more sustainable future. Most of the countries in Asia and Pacific region, with the exception of Philippines, are either developing their NUP as is the case in India or has just completed their policy drafting as in Pakistan. In Chap. 4, Kundu discusses the Indian urbanisation scenario and the progress made by the country in the formulation of national urban policy. In this chapter, the author mentions that Indian urbanisation is characterised by low level and rate of urbanisation. She attributes the sluggish urban growth to slow down of rural– urban migration and exclusionary urbanisation. She adds that decentralisation in the country is yet to happen at the desired level. In the absence of a National Urban Policy, various programmes and missions for urban development run in silos. She further argues that in 1990s, the national five-year plans adopted an inclusive agenda and launched several programmes in mission mode with private sector participation. These programmes, however, demonstrated a “big-city bias”. The much-acclaimed Smart Cities Mission, for instance, mainly focuses on retrofitting parts of cities by engaging special purpose vehicles (SPVs), which are likely to further disempower the already weak ULBs. In the light of these transformations, this chapter evaluates India’s post-liberalisation urbanisation scenario; current urban development programmes and system of governance, as well as ULBs. It suggests that the National Urban Policy should take into consideration the challenges faced by urbanisation and prepare a roadmap for sustainable urbanisation in the future. Javed, Hasan and Qureshi in Chap. 5 encapsulates not only the challenges in urban Pakistan but also the arbitrariness in conceiving the “urban” which excludes a large chunk of suburban and rural population settled in the peripheries of large cities. Borrowing World Bank’s terminology, the authors describe urbanisation in Pakistan as “messy and hidden” and highlight a plethora of challenges in urban Pakistan. The authors also note that the past focus towards agriculture and feudal control over land have kept Pakistan’s policy discourse at a distance from urban epistemology. Vision 2025 of Pakistan, which is in line with the NUP, sets forth the agenda of economic as well as urban development of the country with the introduction of smart techniques and more people-centric approach. In Chap. 6, French et al. discuss Afghanistan’s experience of revival from wardevastated condition to regeneration of its cities and development of National

1 Locating the Importance of NUP in the Context of Present …

7

Urban Policy. The authors mention that the forty years since 1970s have witnessed widespread violence, destruction of settlements and disruption of urban forms which led to fleeing of over six million refugees, particularly to Pakistan and Iran. Afghans remain the single largest group of refugees in protracted exile globally. They also constitute a huge magnitude of internally displaced people, especially leading to urban expansion, characterised mostly by “shocks or waves of migration”. Driven mostly by push factor, one-fourth of the population reside in urban areas. Lack of reliable, disaggregated and up-to-date data on population and conditions within the municipal boundaries, makes planning effort more difficult. Serious gaps in the urban legislative and regulatory framework with policy paralysis add to the problem. Under the leadership of President Ghani (2014), the government identified urban development as a key to “Realising Self Reliance” (2015–2024) in Afghanistan. The existing National Priority Programme (NPP) was updated and Urban National Priority Programme (UNPP) endorsed in the national agenda. The UNPP was collaboratively drafted with assistance of UN to incorporate the priorities of National Unity Government (NUG) and with the overall objective of making Afghan cities hubs of economic growth with reduced inequality and increased power of local bodies. Reyes, Gamboa and Rivera in Chap. 7, outlines Philippines’ long experience with urban policies and its limited success in the implementation. A very high rate of unemployment and lack of economic opportunities have compelled out-migration, which substantially affected the population growth rate and availability of skilled workers in urban centres. Since 1987, Philippines had tried to build frameworks for urban development in its Constitution, followed by a series of policy attempts. It also adopted its National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF) in three separate phases. Its latest iteration (2009–2016), also adopted the smart and green technologies. In Chap. 8, Kundu, Debnath and Lahiri describe the emerging urban challenges in China and its journey towards the formulation of its New Type Urbanisation Planning (2014–2020) with a more people-centric approach. They argue that, over the past few decades, China has experienced rapid urbanisation and economic growth, both in terms of its massive scale and pace. However, this economic boom did not result in equitable growth, largely due to exclusive policy approaches of the government. It is noted that the housing registration (hukou) system since 1958, resulted in exclusion of migrant workers from social welfare systems in cities. To address the existing problems, the government initiated a “New Urbanisation Plan” (2014–2020) which aims to achieve a more people-oriented urbanisation process. It is noted that developing countries in Asia are trying very hard to tackle the urban challenges by adopting an integrated NUP framework. India and Pakistan have completed the formulation of NUP draft, whereas Afghanistan sought international help to deal with urban reconstructions along with the formulation of NUP. On the other hand, China and Philippines are dealing with the second generation NUP. The growth of urban sprawl resulting from rural–urban unplanned transformation is a quintessential feature of urbanisation in Iran. Water crisis in the country, escalating land prices and growing informal settlements and low energy efficiency have deepened the urban crisis. In Chap. 9, Habibi et al. highlight that limited finance

8

D. Kundu et al.

base and lack of accountability of the municipalities has made urban planning and implementation difficult. Considering the deteriorating and underutilised urban fabrics, the National Strategy Document on Revalitising, Upgrading, Renovating and Enabling Deteriorated and Underutilised Urban Fabric (NSDUUF), approved by the Iranian Cabinet in 2014 initiated the sustainable regeneration of urban areas and neighbourhoods by urban revitalisation, rehabilitation and renovation. This step was furthered through rolling of the National Urban Policy Programme and Smart Cities Strategies on a pilot basis in 2017. The drafting and implementation of NUP in Iran is in collaboration with UN-Habitat, Republic of Korea and Islamic Republic of Iran. It aims to foster synergy, coherence, capacity building, transfer of knowledge and global experiences on NUP.

1.5 Urban Challenges and Experiences in Formulating NUP: Africa Urbanisation of Africa is very different from rest of the world. The continent which was largely rural is changing towards urban at a very fast rate. The levels of urbanisation increased from 14% to 42.5% during 1950 and 2018, and it is estimated to rise rapidly in the future. But it is quite unique in the sense that African urbanisation has not been accompanied by corresponding economic growth. African cities have grown in unplanned planner and therefore are characterised by commensurate infrastructural development resulting in inadequate housing, water supply and sanitation services. In Chap. 10, Zubairu discusses the urban challenges in Nigeria and the country’s experience with developing NUP. Nigeria, situated in the western part of Africa, has high level of urbanisation (around 50%) along with high per capita income compared to other sub-Saharan African countries. However, the country is still struggling with definition of urban, and such fluid definition of “the urban” and lack of disaggregated data at the city level makes planning and management of its cities difficult. Against this backdrop, the National Urban Policy of 2012 was promulgated by the Federal Government to address the legislative gaps and provide impetus to catalyse other complementary policies and programmes. The NUP helps to foster development of shared understanding between different stakeholders and integrate various national policies for sustainable urban development. Everatt and Ebrahim in Chap. 11 outline South Africa’s urban policy against the backdrop of long Apartheid era and mention that four hundred years of slavery in South Africa took a toll on the country’s economic, demographic and social fabric. The racial discrimination that was implanted during the colonial period further strengthened during the rule of the National Party in 1948. While, South Africa became Republic in 1961, the legislation on apartheid continued until 1994, when it was abolished by the African National Congress under President Nelson Mandela.

1 Locating the Importance of NUP in the Context of Present …

9

The authors discuss in detail the evolution of urban policies in South Africa in post-Apartheid period, from the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) in 1994, Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) in 1997 and Urban Development Framework (UDF) of 1997 to the development of the National Spatial Development Perspective of 2003 and 2006. In Chap. 12, Juma has elaborated the unique experience of Zanzibar and formulation of NUP in the country. Zanzibar, a semi-autonomous region of Tanzania comprises of Zanzibar Archipelogo in the Indian Ocean. The natural beauty of Zanzibar and the historic importance of the old city of Stone Town, which has been included as the UNESCO World Heritage Site, draws huge tourists annually, making this industry the most vibrant in the economy of Zanzibar. Against this backdrop, the administration initiated the development of fifth Master Plan, “Zanzibar Structural Plan” (ZansPlan), deriving its framework from NUP and preserving of historic cities under the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) approach under UNESCO. Guarneri, Holz and Ramalho in Chap. 13 discuss the NUP in African Lusophone Countries. They highlight the diversity in perceiving urban and developing NUP in the six different African-Portugese speaking countries—Angola, Cabo Verde, GuineaBissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, tied together by common colonial history, linguistic identity and similar legal and institutional framework. The current policies in these countries are unable to address current urban issues. Therefore, these countries are at different stages of development with NUP either being formulated or under consideration for formulation. Probably, Africa is the most diverse continent at differential development levels starting from Lusophone countries at the lowest end to South Africa almost at par with developed countries. Inequality across cities is evident with concentration of economic activities, and amenities in few large cities. For most of the countries, NUP is only at the initial stage, probably being the first ever structured urban policy but expected to lead these countries towards more sustainable urban future.

1.6 Urban Experience of Developed Countries: Unique Challenges and NUP Having discussed the urban experience of various developing countries that differ in their social and historical process of evolution, the book aptly presents the case studies of two European countries and Australia, which picking momentum from industrial revolution have come a long way to become world leaders in advancing technology. With more than 74% of population being urban in Europe, the urban challenges are quite different from developing countries such as loss of population from their core, huge low density sprawl, degeneration of some urban neighbourhoods and rising social cohesion. Still these countries’ experiences are important lessons to be learnt. In Chap. 14, Muller outlines Germany’s urban policies. Though pre-dominantly an urban country, urbanisation in Germany is characterised by declining population

10

D. Kundu et al.

growth rate, increasing ageing population and polycentric urbanisation with 60% population concentrated in medium-sized towns and cities (termed as “mighty middle”). To effectively handle these challenges, Germany developed its National Urban Development Policy (NUDP) in 2007 based on the “Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities” (2007), the Urban Agenda of EU (2016) and New Urban Agenda (2016) of United Nations. The author concludes that Germany needs to foresee beyond national capabilities and forge supranational and transnational relations to support transformative re-designing of German cities. France, which is one of the highly urbanised nations of Western Europe, is discussed in Chap. 15. Huybrechts, the author, notes that the definition to identify “urban” is not inclusive enough to reflect upon the existing urban reality. To overcome this paradox, France has identified the areas in transition as “Aires urbaines” or “City Areas” that takes into consideration the dependent relation of the surrounding urban territories. The French government has recently adapted the National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) to promote sustainable development goals and New Urban Agenda and to link all the urban policies in a national framework involving diverse sectors. In Chap. 16, Stace discusses the Australian urbanisation experience and their advancement towards the formulation of smart-city strategy in 2016, after successful implementation of NUP in 2011. Australia is one of most urbanised countries in the world. But, there were limited comprehensive policy attempts until the beginning of the second decade of twenty-first century. In 2016, with a change of government, the National Urban Policy was replaced with the “Smart Cities Plan”, and the State of Australian Cities was replaced by the National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard as an interactive data source on a wide range of cities issues. From the policy experience of these three countries, it is noted that even if there is no NUP in these countries, the existing policies are very efficient and coherent. Continuous monitoring and institutional integration is responsible for the success of urban planning in these countries. These considerations must make room in any future urban policy, so as to contain its growth as one the leading nations of the world.

1.7 Smart and Green Cities—Case Studies of Korea and Singapore The Southeast and East Asian countries represents the fastest growing and developed economies in Asia. The last two case studies are on experiences of Korea and Singapore, which are global leaders of smart and innovative urbanisation. In Chap. 17, Jeong discussed that the Korean experience of territorial evolution into smart and green city involves a long history of developing a national and centralised planning system. The author mentioned that this rapidly urbanising country is presently in its 4th Plan (2000–2020) that proposed a long-term vision for Korea to be a global gateway to Northeast Asia with focus on territorial planning through

1 Locating the Importance of NUP in the Context of Present …

11

decentralisation and de-concentration policies. The author also mentions that the “Green New Deal” and the “National Strategy for Green Growth” (NSGG) will be the guiding principles until 2050, with the focus being on “Low Carbon Green Cities” (LCGC). Though Korea does not have a national urban policy, the “Creating Smart Cities and Promoting Industry” Act forms the guiding principle of smart urbanism. In their case study on Singapore smart and green cities, Chang and Das, in Chap. 18, interestingly introduce their paper with the debate on conceptualising “smart cities” and how it may vary depending upon the stage of development of a country. With respect to Singapore, the success of smart city has not only been the outcome of long history of adaptation of smart technology in urban solutions and smart initiatives to cater to the citizen’s needs but also in the unique geographical and policy scape.

1.8 Concluding Remarks This book brings together NUP experiences of countries across the globe which are at different levels of urbanisation and economic development. Urbanisation, in case of developing countries, is accompanied by unplanned growth giving rise to multifarious challenges of inadequacy of infrastructure and basic amenities. On the other hand, the developed countries, which are already highly urbanised, face challenges related to decreasing density in the core, loss of population in many large cities, ageing population and increasing suburbanisation resulting in sprawls. However, the challenges posed by climate change are likely to impact the entire globe, both the developed and developing countries. In this context, it is important to highlight that national urban policies in Asian and African countries, which are currently least equipped to deal the challenges of urbanisation, need to address these issues in a manner which will lead to sustainable development. Countries from these two continents need to build capacities to deal with the added challenges of globalisation, income and spatial disparities as well as rising demographic dividend. At the same time, NUPs in the developed countries could guide them in dealing with issues related to climate change, ageing population as well as shrinking cities. National urban policies could be instrumental in guiding the globe towards attaining sustainable and resilient future encompassing the agendas discussed in “Sustainable Development Goals” and “New Urban Agenda”.

12

D. Kundu et al.

References Großmann, K., Bontje, M., Haase, A., & Mykhnenko, V. (2013). Shrinking cities: Notes for the further research agenda. Cities, 35, 221–225. Turok, I., & Parnell, S. (2009). Reshaping cities, rebuilding nations: The role of national urban policies. Urban Forum, 20, 157–174. UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance. (2014). The evolution of national urban policies: A global overview. UN-Habitat Nairobi. Retrieved from https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/citiesalliance.org/files/ National%20Urban%20Policies.pdf. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2018). World urbanisation prospects: The 2018 revision, Online Edition. https://population.un.org/wup/ Publications/.

Chapter 2

World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns Debolina Kundu and Arvind Kumar Pandey

Abstract This chapter attempts to overview the trend and regional pattern of world urbanisation. It also analyses the spatial pattern of urban hierarchy of cities by size class of settlements. The results show that global urban population has grown significantly from 0.75 billion in 1950 to 4.22 billion in 2018. The projected estimates show that by mid-twenty-first century, 68% of the world’s population will live in urban areas. The growth trend of global population shows a consistent increase in urban population during 1950–2025, thereafter, a slowdown is projected during 2025– 2050. The spatial pattern of urbanisation shows that epicentre of the urbanisation has shifted from global north to global south. Cities in Asia and Africa are currently growing faster as compared to other regions, and future estimates show that African cities will take the lead globally during 2015–2050 with faster growth rate. The highest number of mega and large cities have increasingly mushroomed in Asia and Africa. Projections indicate that this trend is likely to continue. The concentration of small- and medium-sized cities in these two regions has also increased over time. Two Asian countries—China and India will be home of some of the world’s largest cities in twenty-first century. The future global urban population will be concentrated mainly in Asia and Africa. In contrast, several cities in Northern America and Europe are shrinking. The challenges posed by climate change are likely to impact the entire globe. With increasing level of urbanisation, cities of the global south are facing multiple challenges of food security, poverty, access to housing and basic amenities, especially with regard to the urban poor. In this context, it is important to highlight that national urban policies in Asian and African countries, which are currently least equipped to deal the challenges of urbanisation, need to address these issues in a manner which will lead to sustainable development. Countries from these two regions need to build capacities to deal with the added challenges of globalisation, income and spatial disparities as well as demographic dividend. National urban policies could be instrumental in guiding these countries towards sustainable and resilient future.

D. Kundu (B) · A. K. Pandey National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi 110003, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_2

13

14

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

Keywords Global urbanisation · Urban–rural growth differentials (URGDs) · Size class of urban settlements · Urban agglomerations · World urbanisation prospects-2018

2.1 Introduction The history of mankind has witnessed several socio-economic revolutions which have played a significant role in transforming the lives of human beings. Among these, the three major revolutions—the industrial revolution, the agrarian revolution and the transport and communication revolution—triggered another revolution, which is urban revolution. Chen et al. (2014) elaborate this fact by arguing that ‘if the transformation of human society since the industrial revolution were to be summarised in no more than three words, there would be few better alternatives than industrialisation, urbanisation and globalisation’. These processes are interlinked. The industrial revolution helped the developed world to achieve economic development which gave impetus to the process of urbanisation in developed countries. Before the second half of the twentieth century, the process of urbanisation was mainly limited to the developed world but in the latter half, the developing countries also witnessed spectacular growth in the urban population. The epicentre of urbanisation progressively shifted from ‘the predominantly northern latitudes of developed countries to the southern ones of developing countries’ and ‘the mean latitude of global urban population has been steadily moving towards south’ (Mohan and Dasgupta 2005). The world urbanisation is changing rapidly, and the rate of change in last three decades was unprecedented. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, it was matter of speculation among scholars that soon half of the world’s population would be living in urban areas (Bloom et al. 2008 as cited in Chen et al. 2014). This has become reality now, as the global urban population has surpassed to the global rural population in 2007 (UNDESA 2015). The urban population of the world was not more than 250 million in 1900, less than 15% of the total. A century later, the global urban population increased to 4.22 billion accounting for 55.29% of the total. For the first time in human history, more people are living in cities than countryside. It indicates that twenty-first century would be the ‘urban century’ (Mohan 2006). In this context, the present chapter attempts to provide an overview of the trends and patterns of global urbanisation since 1950 using the recent data on urbanisation in world urbanisation prospects-2018 provided by United Nations’ population division, Department of Economic and Social affairs (UNDESA). The chapter is divided into eight sections. Following the introduction (first section), the second and third sections provide the brief description of the overall and regional trends of global urban population. The fourth section of the chapter discusses the spatial pattern of urbanisation. The discussion on the city hierarchy elaborating on the trends and patterns of growth of cities across size classes are done in the fifth and sixth sections, respectively. The seventh section examines the interdependencies of urbanisation, urban–rural growth

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

15

differentials and indicators of access to basic amenities, economic development and poverty through a correlation analysis. The last section concludes the chapter.

2.2 Trends of World Urbanisation Cities owe their existence since pre-historic times. The cities of Memphis, Babylon, Thebes, Athens, Sparta, Mohen-ja-daro and Anuradhapura existed in antiquity (Mohan and Dasgupta 2005) and showed immense diversity across geographies and cultures (Haase et al. 2018). However, there is little evidence of widespread urbanisation in the early years of civilisation. The first settlement which reached one million people in first-century AD was Rome (Morley 1996 as cited in Donati 2015). It was only in 1800 AD, London became the second city to reach this population size (Mohan and Dasgupta 2005). The global urbanisation is largely a twentieth-century phenomenon as only 2% of the world’s population was urbanised in 1800, and by the year 1900, the population living in urban areas across the globe was 250 million accounting for only 15% of the total population (ibid). It is evident that the global urban population in 1900 was not even equivalent to the total urban population of India in 2001. In 1950, the global population living in urban area was 0.75 billion, half of the size of rural population (1.79 million). The rural as well as urban population increased between 1950 and 2000, but thereafter, the increment in the rural population was slow and the urban population increased sharply. The year 2007 was a landmark year in the history of mankind when the global urban population first time crossed the rural population. In 2018, a total of 4.22 billion people lived in urban areas. The projected estimates of World Urbanisation Prospects (WUP), 2018 show that in 2030, 5.17 billion people will live in urban areas as compared to 3.38 billion in rural areas, and by the year of 2050, the size of urban population will increase to become double of rural population globally (Fig. 2.1). Box 1: Milestones in World’s Total and Urban Populations The global population reached to one billion in 1804. However, the urban population took another century and a half to reach one billion (in 1959). The global population took almost one and quarter century to reach from one billion to two billion, while, the global urban population doubled only in 26 years. In 1985, 2 billion people lived in urban areas globally.

16

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey 7.00

6.68

6.00

PopulaƟon (in billion)

Rural

Urban

5.17

5.00 3.98

4.00

3.40

3.28 3.00

3.38

3.09

2.87 2.54

2.00

1.54

1.79 1.00

2050

2045

2040

2035

2030

2020

2025

2015

2010

2005

2000

1990

1995

1985

1980

1975

1970

1965

1960

1955

1950

0.75 0.00

Fig. 2.1 World’s rural and urban population (in billion), 1950–2050. Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

Total population

Urban population

Type of data

Population (in billions)

Year when reached

Estimates

1

1804

2

1927

123

3

1960

33

4

1974

14

5

1987

13

6

1998

11

7

2011

13 4

2016

14

8

2024

13

5

2029

13

9

2039

15

6

2045

16

Medium projection variant

Number of years it took to increase by one billion

Population (in billions)

Year when reached

Number of years it took to increase by one billion

1

1959

2

1985

26

3

2002

17

Source: UNDESA (2015) The urban population reached 3 billion in 2002 and it was projected in WUP-2014 that it will attain 4 billion in 2016, 5 billion in 2029 and 6 billion in 2045. The World Urbanisation Prospects, 2018 shows that the global urban population has reached 4 billion. It is evident from the table that number of

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

17

years taken to attain each successive billion after reaching 3 billion reduced substantially. By the year of 2039, the global population will attain 9 billion and at least two third of them will live in urban areas. The percentage distribution of the total population of world in rural and urban areas shows that in 1950, more than two-third (70.39%) population worldwide lived in rural areas. The share of rural population declined consistently thereafter and reached 44.71% in 2018. Correspondingly, the share of urban population increased to more than half of the world’s population. The projected estimates show that this trend will continue in the next three decades, and by the year of 2050, two-third (68.36%) population will live in urban areas indicating a reversal of the distribution of global rural-urban population of the mid-twentieth century (Fig. 2.2). This section also attempts to analyse the growth pattern of global population. The annual growth rate of global rural population shows a sharp decline. During 1950– 1975, it was 1.41%, and thereafter, declined sharply to 0.16% during first half of the twenty-first century. The growth rate of urban population also declined during same period, but in contrast to the growth rate of rural population, the decline in urban population was slow. The projected estimates show negative growth rate for rural population during 2025–2050. The urban population will also decline but the rate of decline will be much slower than rural, and therefore, the global population is expected to urbanise in future also, however, the pace of urbanisation is expected to slow down. The difference in the growth trend of urban and rural population is reflected in the urban–rural growth differentials (URGD). During 1950–1975, the URGD was 1.46 which has increased to 1.88 during 2000–2025. Although, the projected estimate shows a slight decline in the URGD during 2025–2050, but it is positive. This 100.00 Urban

Rural

80.00 68.36

70.39 62.28 60.00

53.32 46.68

40.00

55.29

44.71

58.33

41.67

37.72 31.64

29.61 20.00

0.00 1950

1975

2000

2018

2025

2050

Fig. 2.2 Percentage share of world’s urban and rural population in total, 1950–2050. Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

18

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

indicates that the growth rate of urban population will be higher than rural population in second quarter of twenty-first century. These trends in URGD are certain to have important implications for the global economy, for the quality of world’s environment and for the kinds of lives the world’s population will lead (UNDESA 2015) (Fig. 2.3). The United Nations’ Population Division classifies the world into two major regions—(1) More developed regions comprising Europe, Northern America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan and (2) Less developed regions comprising all countries of Africa, Asia (except Japan), Latin America and the Caribbean, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia (UNDESA 2018). In 1950, 0.45 billion people lived in the urban areas of more developed regions which was 59.43% of the total global urban population. The gap between more developed and less developed regions was low as total 0.30 billion people lived in urban areas in less developed regions. At the end of the twentieth century, there has been a reversal in the trend as more than two-thirds (1.98 billion) of the global urban population lived in less developed regions. A higher growth rate of urban population witnessed by less developed regions in the latter half of the twentieth century was main reason for this reversal. Although the growth rate of urban population in less developed regions shows a declining trend in the first half of the twenty-first century (between 2000–2025 and 2025–2050) but still it is much higher than more developed regions, and therefore, the share of urban population of less developed regions in global urban population is predicted to increase progressively. It has been projected that by the year of 2050, 83.17% global urban population are likely to be living in less developed regions (Table 2.1). Urban

Rural

URGD

3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50

2.87 2.49 2.14

1.00 0.50

1.92

2.04

1.88

1.47

1.41 1.46

1.74 1.34

0.23

0.16

2000-2018

2000-2025

1.02

-1.00

-0.39

2025-2050

-0.50

1975-2000

0.00 1950-1975

Annual ExponenƟal Growth Rate (in %)

3.50

Fig. 2.3 Growth rate (AEGR) of urban and rural global population and urban–rural growth differentials, 1950–2050. Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

19

Table 2.1 World’s urban population by development groups, 1950–2050 Development groups

1950

1975

2000

2018

2025

2050

Urban population (in billions) More developed regions

0.45

0.72

0.88

0.99

1.03

1.12

Less developed regions

0.30

0.82

1.98

3.23

3.75

5.56

World

0.75

1.54

2.87

4.22

4.77

6.68

Percentage distribution of urban population More developed regions

59.43

46.95

30.82

23.55

21.51

16.83

Less developed regions

40.57

53.05

69.18

76.45

78.49

83.17

2000–2018

2000–2025

2025–2050

Annual exponential growth rate (AEGR) (in %) 1950–1975

1975–2000

More developed regions

1.93

0.81

0.65

0.60

0.36

Less developed regions

3.94

3.55

2.70

2.54

1.57

World

2.87

2.49

2.14

2.04

1.34

Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

2.3 Regional Trends of Urban Population In 1950, the urban population was highest in Europe (0.28 billion) followed by Asia (0.25 billion), Northern America (0.11 billion), Latin America and the Caribbean (0.07 billion) and Africa (0.03 billion). It is evident from Fig. 2.4 that size of urban population across regions increased during 1950–2018 and projected estimates show a further increasing trend. Asia followed by Africa have experienced a high increment in the size of urban population during 1950–2018 and the projected estimates show that these regions will experience marked increase in the size of their urban populations. By mid-twenty-first century, Asia and Africa will be home to 3.48 and 1.49 billion urban dwellers, respectively, which is 14 times higher in Asia and 50 times higher in Africa as compared to their urban population size in 1950.

20

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

Urban population (in billions)

8.00 0.04

6.00

0.69 0.60

4.00 2.00

0.02 0.20 0.44 0.60 0.10

0.01 0.07 0.28 0.25 0.03

0.00 1950 Africa

Asia

1975 Europe

0.02 0.40 0.52

0.03 0.53 0.55 2.27

0.03 0.57 0.57

1.40 0.29

0.55

2000 2018 Latin America & the Caribbean

3.48

2.59

0.70

2025 Northern America

1.49

2050 Oceania

Fig. 2.4 Region-wise urban population (in billion), 1950–2050. Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

The size of urban population of Latin America and the Caribbean increased 9 times higher during 1950–2050. In contrast to the trend in these regions, the size of urban population has not increased slowly in Europe, Northern America and Oceania. The level of urbanisation, i.e., the percentage of urban population in total population, shows that in 1950, it was very high in Northern America (63.90%) followed by the Oceania (62.51), Europe (51.71%) and Latin America and the Caribbean (41.30%). However, in comparison to these regions, the level of urbanisation was very low in Asia and Africa which was less than 20%. In 2018, the level of urbanisation was still high in Northern America (82.17%) followed by Latin America and the Caribbean region (80.68%). Europe reached to the third place (74.45%). During this time, Asia and Africa experienced a remarkable increase in their level of urbanisation as almost half of the population in Asia and around 43% in Africa lived in urban areas. The projected estimates show that the level of urbanisation in these two regions will increase more as compared to Europe, Northern America and Europe, and therefore, the world’s future urban population will be concentrated mainly in Asia and Africa (Fig. 2.5). The distribution of global urban population across regions shows that in 1950, Europe (37.83%) and Asia (32.79%) were home to 70% global urban population. Oceania (1.05%) had the lowest share followed by Africa (4.35%), Latin America and the Caribbean (9.29%) and Northern America (14.69%). This pattern has changed during 1950–2018 as the share of Europe has declined sharply with a corresponding increase of the share of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. In 2018, Asia has become home of half of the world’s urban population. However, the developed world (Europe and Northern America) together have 20% share of the global urban population. The projected estimates for the first quarter and mid of the twenty-first century show that Asia will maintain its share with a slight decline in 2050. The share of other regions will decline in future except Africa. Africa will have the second highest share of global urban population in 2025 and 2050 after Asia. The cities of post-industrialized Western world mainly located in Europe and Northern America are experiencing ‘urban shrinkage’ because of interplay of financial, demographic, environmental and political factors (Rink and Kabisch 2009; Rink 2009; Haase et al.

0.00

63.9

75.5 80.7 82.4 87.8 61.0

65.5 71.1 74.5 76.1 83.7 41.3

37.5 17.5 25.0

24.7

40.00

51.7

49.9 54.0

58.9 35.0 42.5 45.9

60.00

20.00

66.2

80.00

14.3

Percentage of urban population in total population

100.00

62.5 70.9 68.3 68.2 68.5 72.1

21 73.8 79.1 82.2 83.6 89.0

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

Africa

Asia 1950

Europe 1975

2000

Latin America & Northern America the Caribbean 2018

2025

Oceania

2050

Fig. 2.5 Region-wise level of urbanisation (in %). Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

2012) which is reflected in the declining global share of urban population of these developed regions. In contrast, several cities in Asia and Africa are experiencing growth of urban population, and therefore, their share in global urban population is increasing over time (Fig. 2.6). The growth of urban population across regions declined during the selected periods, i.e., 1950–1975, 1975–2000 and 2000–2018. The projected estimates also show 100%

1.05

90%

14.69

0.99 11.64

9.29

12.89

80% 70% 60%

0.67 7.09

0.65 6.70

0.62 5.79

12.47

11.96

10.26

13.10

11.83

53.70

54.24

9.97

12.98

14.62

2000

2018

0.74 8.63 13.84

18.01 28.86

37.83

50%

52.08

40% 48.80

30% 20%

38.91 32.79

10% 0%

8.97

6.71

4.35 1950 Africa

1975 Asia

Europe

LaƟn America & the Caribbean

2025 Northern America

22.29 2050 Oceania

Fig. 2.6 Region-wise percentage distribution of global urban population, 1950–2050. Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

22

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

a declining trend in first quarter and mid of the twenty-first century. Despite a declining trend, Africa followed by Asia has highest growth rate among all the regions and Africa is expected to be the fastest urbanising region from 2000 to 2050. The growth rate in these two regions is higher than the world average at any given time period. In contrast to this trend, Latin America and Caribbean region has experienced a sharp decline in the growth rate of urban population. During 1950–1975, the growth rate of this region was second highest (4.18%) after Africa (4.60%). Thereafter, it declined sharply and reached to 1.56% during 2000–2018. The projected estimates show that by the mid of the twenty-first century, the urban population in this region will growth with the rate of 0.73% only. The growth trends of urban population of the Europe and Northern America follow the same pattern. As mentioned earlier, the European cities had started losing population due to significant fertility decline and out-migration particularly after 1990s (Haase 2013). The disintegration of economies based on manufacturing and heavy industries in some parts of Northern America and internal shift of population are the main reasons cited by scholars (Haase et al. 2018) for the shrinking urban population of Northern America (Fig. 2.7). The urban–rural growth differentials across regions shows that during 1950–75, the URGD in Latin America and the Caribbean region was highest followed by Europe, Africa, Northern America and Asia. It shows that the growth rate of urban population in this region was much higher than the rural population. Except Europe and Northern America, the URGD in other regions were higher than the world average in this period. In last quarter of the twentieth century (1975–2000), there was decline 5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

1950-1975

1975-2000

2000-2018

2000-2025

2025-2050

Africa

4.60

4.08

3.61

3.57

3.03

Asia

3.55

3.40

2.68

2.46

1.18

Europe

1.79

0.61

0.38

0.36

0.23

LaƟn America & the Caribbean

4.18

2.78

1.56

1.45

0.73

Northern America

1.94

1.29

1.05

1.02

0.76

Oceania

2.63

1.34

1.54

1.48

1.15

World

2.87

2.49

2.14

2.04

1.34

Fig. 2.7 Region-wise annual growth rate of urban population during 1950–2050 (in %). Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

23

3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -0.50 -1.00

1950-1975

1975-2000

2000-2018

2000-2025

2025-2050

Africa

2.71

1.98

1.77

1.82

2.10

Asia

1.80

2.35

2.80

2.67

2.05

Europe

2.30

1.02

0.95

1.04

1.90

LaƟn America & the Caribbean

3.19

2.72

1.68

1.67

1.74

Northern America

1.87

1.17

1.09

1.18

1.84

Oceania

1.52

-0.49

-0.03

0.03

0.69

World

1.46

1.47

1.92

1.88

1.74

Fig. 2.8 Urban-rural growth differentials (in %), 1950–2050. Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

in the URGD in all regions except Asia. It shows that in this duration, the growth rates of urban population of Asian countries were higher than their rural counterparts. Despite a declining trend, the URGD in Latin America and the Caribbean region was still high in this period. Europe, Northern America and Africa had a declining trend of URGD which indicates that the tempo of urbanisation in these regions came down during 1975–2000. In first quarter of twenty-first century (2000–2025), the URGD in Asia is highest. URGDs in other regions such as Africa, Europe, Northern America, Latin America and the Caribbean are lower than the world average indicating a significant contribution of Asia in global urban population. The projected estimates during 2025–2050 show a reversal in the declining trend of the URGD. In this duration, all regions except Asia will experience a slight increase in URGD as compared to 2000–2025. The URGD in African region will be highest which support the earlier discussion that Africa is expected to be the fastest urbanising region of the world during 2025–2050, and Africa and Asia together will significantly contribute in the global urban population (Fig. 2.8).

2.4 Spatial Pattern of Global Urbanisation In mid of the twentieth century, only one-third of the world population lived in urban areas. The countries with higher percentage of urban population were located in Western Europe, South America, Northern America, Australia and New Zealand.

24

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

Belgium, Germany, Luxemburg, Switzerland and France in Western Europe; UK, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway in Northern Europe; Uruguay, Argentina, French Guiana, Chile, Venezuela in South America; USA and Canada in Northern America were some of the countries which had higher level of urbanisation. In contrast, most of the countries in Africa and Asia had very low level of urbanisation. Gradually, the pattern of global urbanisation has changed. The level of urbanisation contributed to be very high in Northern America, Australia and New Zealand as more than 80% population in these regions live in urban areas in 2018 (Fig. 2.9). In Latin America and Caribbean region, countries in South America region such as Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, French Guiana and Venezuela have very high level of urbanisation as more than 80% population of these countries live in urban areas. Some countries in Central America such as Costa Rica and El Salvador also have high levels of urbanisation with more than 70% population living in urban areas. The Caribbean region has mix urbanisation as some islands such as Anguilla, Cayman Islands, St. Martin, United States Virgin Islands have very high level of urbanisation with 95–100% population living in urban areas. However, some islands in this region such as Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Grenada, Montserrat, etc., have low level of urbanisation. The European countries, especially countries in Western and Northern European region also have high percentage of urban population as three-fourth population in most of these countries live in urban areas. In comparison to Europe, Northern America and Latin America and Caribbean regions, the level of urbanisation in most of the countries in Africa and Asia is low but this part of the word is urbanising faster than those with an already higher share of urban population (Dahiya 2012). Asia and Africa will be home of future urban population. In Asia, East Asian countries, especially Japan, Korea, and China (including Hong Kong SAR, Macro SAR, and Taiwan province) and countries in Western Asia such as Kuwait, Qatar, Israel, Jordon, Bahrain, and United Arab Emirates have level of urbanisation similar to European and Northern America regions. In contrast, South Asian countries such as Nepal and Sri Lanka still have less than 20% population in urban areas. The projected estimates show that by the year of 2050, at least a total of 75% population in Northern America, Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean countries will live in urban areas (with few exceptions such as Liechtenstein, Serbia, Slovenia in Europe; Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Guatemala, Belize in Latin America and the Caribbean regions). The countries in Asia and Africa will have at least half of the population living in urban areas. Only few countries in Asia such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, Afghanistan (all in South Asia) and Cambodia, Myanmar, Timor-Leste will have comparatively less percentage (less than 50%) of urban population. Despite improvement in the level of urbanisation in Africa, many countries in this region such as Chad (in Middle Africa); Burundi, Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, South Sudan, Zimbabwe (in Eastern Africa); Lesotho (in Southern Africa) and Niger (in Western Africa) will have lower level of urbanisation. As discussed earlier, a total of 4.22 billion people lived in urban areas in 2018. Onethird of which live only in two countries China and India. In 2018, China has largest urban population with 837 million urban dwellers accounting 20% of the global

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

25

Fig. 2.9 Global pattern of changes in level of urbanisation, 1950–2050. Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

urban population. India has the second largest urban population with 461 million urban dwellers accounting for 11% of the global urban population. USA, Brazil and Indonesia were also in the list of top five countries which had largest urban population and highest share in global population as compared to other countries. Half of the global urban population was contributed by seven countries—China,

26

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

India, USA, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan and Russian Federation in 2018. Apart from the USA, Japan, Russian Federation, Germany and UK, all other countries in the list of top fifteen are from developing regions (see Fig. 2.10). The future growth of global urban population is also expected to be concentrated in a handful of countries. The projected estimates show an increase of nearly 2.46 billion people in the urban population between 2018 and 2050. Only three countries—India, China and Nigeria together—will account for 35% of the total increment in this period, and just the top eight countries together are expected to contribute half of the total increment. Among the top 15 countries, which will have highest contribution in the total increment of global urban population between 2018 and 2050, all are from Asia and Africa except USA and Mexico. This analysis confers that Africa and Asia will be the home of the new global urban population (Fig. 2.11). China India United States of America Brazil Indonesia Japan Russian FederaƟon Mexico Nigeria Pakistan Germany Turkey Iran (Islamic Republic of) Bangladesh United Kingdom All other countries

Fig. 2.10 Distribution of urban population across countries, 2018. Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018) India China Nigeria DemocraƟc Republic of the Congo Pakistan Indonesia United States of America Bangladesh United Republic of Tanzania Ethiopia Philippines Egypt Angola Mexico All other countries

Fig. 2.11 Contribution of top 15 countries in the increment in urban population during 2018–2050. Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

27

Table 2.2 Ten most urbanised countries in 2018 and 2050a Rank

Country

Percentage urban in 2018

1

China, Hong Kong SAR

100

2

China, Macao SAR

3

Rank

Country

Percentage urban in 2050

1

China, Hong Kong SAR

100

100

2

China, Macao SAR

100

Singapore

100

3

Singapore

100

4

Kuwait

100

4

Kuwait

100

5

Qatar

99.14

5

Qatar

99.70

6

Guadeloupe

98.47

6

Guadeloupe

99.03

7

Belgium

98.00

7

Belgium

98.89

8

United States Virgin Islands

95.72

8

Uruguay

97.40

9

Uruguay

95.33

9

Netherlands

96.63

10

Malta

94.61

10

Malta

96.59

Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018) a Only countries with 90,000 and above inhabitants in 2018 are included in table

Among the small countries (with 90,000 or more inhabitants), Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore and Kuwait were the most urbanised with 100% population living in urban areas in 2018. These four countries are followed by Qatar (99% urban) and Guadeloupe, Belgium (each 98% urban). United States Virgin Islands, Uruguay and Malta are the other countries in the list of top ten most urbanised countries in 2018. The projected estimates show that the top seven most urbanised countries will retain their respective rank in 2050 also (Table 2.2). The estimates from Table 2.3 show that in 2018, the ten least urbanised countries were all from Asia and Africa with less than 25% urban population. Burundi followed by Papua New Guinea and Niger were the top three least urbanised countries in 2018. The projected estimates for 2050 show that these countries will remain in the list of top three least urbanised countries with an interchange in rank of Burundi and Papua New Guinea. The projected estimates also indicate that nine of the ten least urbanised countries will have urban population more than 25% in 2050.

28

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

Table 2.3 Ten least urbanised countries in 2018 and 2050a Rank

Country

Percentage urban in 2018

1

Burundi

13.03

2

Papua New Guinea

3

Rank

Country

Percentage urban in 2050

1

Papua New Guinea

23.97

13.17

2

Burundi

27.88

Niger

16.43

3

Niger

28.43

4

Malawi

16.94

4

Rwanda

29.62

5

Rwanda

17.21

5

Sri Lanka

31.62

6

Sri Lanka

18.48

6

Malawi

32.04

7

South Sudan

19.61

7

Swaziland

33.78

8

Nepal

19.74

8

Vanuatu

34.35

9

Ethiopia

20.76

9

Guyana

35.95

10

Chad

23.06

10

South Sudan

36.00

Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018) a Only countries with 90,000 and above inhabitants in 2018 are included in table

2.5 Urban Hierarchy: Trend of Size-Class Distribution of Global Urban Population The United Nations’ population division classifies cities into six classes based on the population size—(1) Megacities with 10 million and above population, (2) large cities with 5–10 million population, (3) medium-sized cities with 1–5 million population, (4) cities with 500,000–1 million population, (5) cities with 300,000–500,000 population and (6) cities with less than 300,000 population. One of the noticeable features of world’s urbanisation from the latter half of the twentieth century is emergence of cities with population more than 10 million. These cities are known as megacities. In 1950, there were 2 megacities only, one in Asia (Tokyo in Japan) and other in Northern America (New York in USA). In next twenty-five years (1975), two more megacities were added to the list and the total number of megacities reached 4, among which 2 were in Asia (Tokyo and Osaka in Japan), one in Northern America (New York in USA), and one in Latin America and the Caribbean region (Mexico city in Mexico). The number of megacities further increased four times in 2000, and among these megacities (total 16), 8 were in Asia, 4 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2 in Northern America and one each in Africa and Europe. In 2015, there were 29 megacities among which 18 were in Asia alone. The number of megacities remained the same in Northern America and Latin America and the Caribbean region during 2000–2015. However, two megacities in Africa and one in Europe were added in the same period. The projected estimates show that there will be 43 megacities in world by the year of 2030 among which 60% (total 27) will be located in Asia alone. The locational pattern of number of

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

29

megacities clearly shows that Asia is the place of highest number of megacities at any given time period between 1950 and 2030. The classification of cities according to the size class of urban settlements shows that the number of cities increases with decreasing size classes. There were only 5 large cities (5–10 million) in 1950 among which 3 were in Europe and one each was in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean. In 2015, the number of large cities increased to 45, nine times higher than the large cities in mid of the twentieth century. Out of 45 large cities, Asia alone had 27 followed by Northern America (7). However, only one city was added in the list of large cities in Europe during 1950–2015. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean region had 3 and 4 large cities, respectively, in 2015. The projected estimates show that in 2030, there will be 66 large cities among which nearly half of the cities will be in Asia and 13 cities will be in Africa. The numbers of small cities (cities with 300,000–500,000 population and 500,000–1 million population) and medium-sized cities are highest in all categories across regions. Between 1950 and 2015, the number of cities in small and medium categories increased rapidly. Worldwide, in 1950, there were 69 medium-sized and 230 small-sized cities which increased to 439 and 1261, respectively, in 2015. The projected estimates show that a total of 158 medium-sized and 276 small-sized cities will be added in the list of cities by the year of 2030. In 1950, the small- and mediumsized cities were mainly concentrated in Europe, Asia and Northern America. However, by the year of 2000, this pattern changed, and the medium- and small-sized cities mushroomed in every part of the world except Oceania with the dominance of Asia. In 2015, the highest number of medium-sized cities was in Asia followed by Latin America and the Caribbean region, Europe and Africa. The concentration of small-sized cities was also high in Asia followed by Europe, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean and Northern America. The projected estimates show that the dominance of Asia will continue in small and medium categories in the future also. Africa will be the new place for the small and medium cities as it will have the second highest number of small and medium cities after Asia. The number of cities in Europe, Northern America and Latin America and the Caribbean region will also increase slightly between 2015 and 2030 (Table 2.4). The distribution of world’s urban population in different size classes of cities shows that in 1950, the smallest cities (cities with less than 300,000 population) had highest share of global urban population followed by medium-sized cities. The share of megacities and large cities on the other hand was lowest. The size-class distribution of urban population in different regions shows that in 1950, more than 60% population of each region lived in smallest cities. Only Northern America and Oceania were exception to this trend where the percentage share of population in smallest cities was slightly lower (less than 50%). The second highest share of urban population across regions was in medium-sized cities. The percentage share in this category was highest in Oceania followed Northern America. However, Northern America was the only region where the share of urban population was relatively higher in megacities. Only Northern America and Asia had megacities in 1950.

30

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

Table 2.4 Number of cities classified by size class of urban settlements, 1950–2030 Size classes

World

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

Northern America

Oceania

1950 Megacities (≥10 million)

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

Large cities (5–10 million)

5

0

1

3

1

0

0

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

69

2

25

20

7

13

2

Cities of 500,000–1 million

101

5

29

46

4

17

0

Cities of 300,000–500,000

129

5

35

57

11

17

4

Total

306

12

91

126

23

48

6

Megacities (≥10 million)

4

0

2

0

1

1

0

Large cities (5–10 million)

14

1

5

3

3

2

0

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

145

8

54

35

17

28

3

Cities of 500,000–1 million

223

18

77

73

24

28

3

Cities of 300,000–500,000

258

22

96

87

30

22

1

Total

644

49

234

198

75

81

7

Megacities (≥10 million)

16

1

8

1

4

2

0

Large cities (5–10 million)

30

2

20

3

3

2

0

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

325

37

152

49

44

37

6

Cities of 500,000–1 million

396

35

191

78

53

39

0

Cities of 300,000–500,000

524

48

267

115

48

41

5

1291

123

638

246

152

121

11

1975

2000

Total

(continued)

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

31

Table 2.4 (continued) Size classes

World

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

Northern America

Oceania

Megacities (≥10 million)

29

3

18

2

4

2

0

Large cities (5–10 million)

45

3

27

4

4

7

0

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

439

51

229

51

60

42

6

Cities of 500,000–1 million

554

60

308

87

56

42

1

Cities of 300,000–500,000

707

90

354

115

78

63

7

1774

207

936

259

202

156

14

Megacities (≥10 million)

43

5

27

3

6

2

0

Large cities (5–10 million)

66

13

34

3

5

9

2

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

597

81

330

55

77

50

4

Cities of 500,000–1 million

710

111

387

94

60

55

3

Cities of 300,000–500,000

827

117

429

115

101

59

6

2243

327

1207

270

249

175

15

2015

Total 2030

Total

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

In 1975, this pattern changed slightly as the share of smallest cities in global urban population declined with a corresponding increase in the share of small cities with 500,000–1 million population, medium-sized cities, large cities and megacities. This pattern was same across regions as the share of smallest cities in each region declined with an increment in the share of small, medium and large cities. The share of megacities increased in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean region, but it declined in Northern America. The pattern remained same in 2000 with a further decline in the share of smallest cities and a corresponding increase, especially in medium-sized cities and megacities. Because of the emergence of megacities in every part of the world (except Oceania), the share of megacities in the urban population of each region increased in 2000

32

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

as compared to 1975. The percentage share of large cities in Asia doubled during 1975–2000 but in Latin America and the Caribbean region declined sharply which could be because of the upward shift of large cities into megacities (Table 2.5). In 2015, the share of smallest cities in global urban population declined slightly as compared to 2000 with a corresponding increase in the share of megacities mainly, but it was still highest among all size classes. The second highest percentage share was in medium-sized cities with a slight decline during 2000–2015. The cities in Asia and Africa followed the same pattern. However, in Europe, the share of medium, small and smallest cities declined in the same period with a corresponding increase in the share of large and megacities. In Latin America and the Caribbean region, the share of smallest cities and megacities declined, but there was an increment in the share of medium-sized cities and large cities. However, in Northern America, the share of population in all size classes of cities declined except large cities and cities with 300,000–500,000 population. The projected estimates show that the pattern of city distribution in 2015 will remain same in 2030 also with more decline in the share of smallest cities and higher increase in the share of medium, large and megacities. In each region, the highest urban population will be in smallest cities followed by medium-sized cities. The share of smallest cities and medium-sized cities in total urban population of each region will decline during 2015–2030 with a corresponding increase in the share of large and megacities. In Asia, the share of urban population will increase in medium-sized and megacities during this period. Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean regions will follow the same trend as Asia. The trend in Northern America will be different with a decline in the share of megacities and increased in the share of medium, large and cities with 500,000–1 million population. In Oceania, the share of medium-sized cities will decline with a corresponding increase in the share of large cities. It is evident from the above discussion that share of urban population in megacities, large cities and medium-sized cities has increased significantly over time. Despite a consistent decline, the smallest cities across regions still report the highest share of urban population. The second highest population is in medium-sized cities at any given point of time. However, the large and medium cities are emerging faster across regions with increasing share in each successive selected period in present study. In Oceania, the share of urban population was high in only two size classes of cities— small and medium. However, the future estimates show the emergence of large cities in this region. The growth rate of global urban population across size classes show that with few exceptions, the growth rate of urban population in each size class declined in each successive selected periods of the present study, i.e. 1950–1975, 1975–2000, 2000– 2015. The projected estimates (2015–2030) also show the similar trends. During 1950–1975, the growth rate of urban population across size classes was very high. The cities in Asia, Africa, the Latin America and the Caribbean region were growing at a faster rate as compared to Europe, Northern America and Oceania. In next twenty-five years (1975–2000), the growth rates of different size classes of towns except megacities and cities with 300,000–500,000 declined. In Africa, the growth rate of urban population was mainly in large and medium-sized cities.

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

33

Table 2.5 Percentage share of urban population in cities classified by size class of urban settlements, 1950–2030 Size classes

World

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

Northern America

Oceania

Megacities (≥10 million)

3.14

0.00

4.58

0.00

0.00

11.19

0.00

Large cities (5–10 million)

4.28

0.00

2.85

7.04

7.41

0.00

0.00

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

16.98

10.81

17.58

12.54

19.30

25.90

38.22

Cities of 500,000–1 million

8.99

9.85

7.97

10.67

3.64

10.68

0.00

Cities of 300,000–500,000

6.64

6.50

5.27

7.77

6.26

6.19

18.98

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

59.97

72.84

61.76

61.98

63.39

46.05

42.79

Megacities (≥10 million)

4.52

0.00

7.17

0.00

5.41

8.87

0.00

Large cities (5–10 million)

7.02

6.25

5.95

5.25

13.35

8.98

0.00

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

19.15

12.37

20.47

15.05

15.98

30.10

45.16

Cities of 500,000–1 million

10.11

12.92

8.81

11.57

8.56

10.39

16.27

Cities of 300,000–500,000

6.42

8.15

6.11

7.57

5.79

4.70

2.06

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

52.79

60.30

51.50

60.56

50.91

36.96

36.51

Megacities (≥10 million)

8.56

4.76

9.49

1.94

14.93

11.97

0.00

Large cities (5–10 million)

7.45

4.69

10.40

4.26

4.86

5.44

0.00

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

21.82

23.93

20.63

16.30

21.90

34.39

58.09

1950

1975

2000

(continued)

34

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

Table 2.5 (continued) Size classes

World

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

Northern America

Oceania

Cities of 500,000–1 million

9.38

8.22

9.28

9.96

9.28

11.04

0.00

Cities of 300,000–500,000

6.96

6.52

7.33

8.39

4.60

6.04

8.51

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

45.83

51.87

42.87

59.16

44.43

31.12

33.40

Megacities (≥10 million)

11.62

8.68

13.99

4.16

13.82

10.66

0.00

Large cities (5–10 million)

7.79

3.51

9.11

4.63

6.29

14.67

0.00

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

21.73

23.23

20.60

15.45

24.76

30.50

58.77

Cities of 500,000–1 million

9.60

8.60

10.00

10.43

8.04

10.29

2.35

Cities of 300,000–500,000

6.78

7.04

6.41

7.87

5.85

8.22

9.76

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

42.48

48.94

39.89

57.45

41.23

25.67

29.12

Megacities (≥10 million)

14.55

11.04

17.47

6.06

17.22

9.91

0.00

Large cities (5–10 million)

8.67

9.78

8.78

3.20

5.09

18.18

34.43

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

22.89

20.27

23.23

16.43

26.35

31.12

25.24

Cities of 500,000–1 million

9.55

9.29

9.79

10.77

6.81

11.42

5.53

Cities of 300,000–500,000

6.19

5.45

5.98

7.58

6.45

6.81

7.53

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

38.15

44.16

34.74

55.95

38.08

22.56

27.28

2015

2030

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

35

However, in Asia and Europe, the growth rate declined across size classes and it was negative in large European cities. In Latin America and the Caribbean region, the growth rate was mainly in megacities and medium-sized cities, and cities in other size classes were reporting a declining growth rate. In Northern American region, the growth rate of cities across size classes declined except megacities and smallest cities where a slight increment was found during 1975–2000. In Oceania, the cities with 300,000–500,000 population were growing with a faster rate as compared to others. In spite of declining trends in most of the size classes, the growth rates of cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean region were higher than Europe and the Northern American cities (Table 2.6). As compared to the last quarter of twentieth century, the growth rate of urban population across size classes during 2000–2015 declined marginally. The regional growth pattern of urban population in different size class cities shows that in Africa, Asia and Europe the urban growth was mainly in megacities and cities in other size classes showed a declining trend. In Northern and Latin America and the Caribbean region, the urban growth was mainly in large cities and cities with 300,000–500,000 population. The cities in Oceania region showed a declining trend. The growth rate of European cities across size classes was lowest among all regions. The projected estimates show that during 2015–2030, the urban growth rate across size classes of cities will decline. The growth rate of Asian and African cities will be relatively higher than the cities in other regions. In Africa, the large cities will grow at a higher rate in this period, and apart from large cities, megacities and cities with 500,000–1 million will also grow at a faster rate. However, the growth rate in Asian cities will be lower than the African cities, and only megacities and mediumsized cities will grow significantly. Megacities in Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean regions and large cities in Northern America region will growth with a moderate pace. The cities of other size classes in these regions will grow with very slow pace and some of them will have negative growth rate. In Oceania, the cities with 500,000–1 million will grow and cities with other size classes will shrink with negative growth rates. It is evident from the above analysis that cities across regions grew with a faster rate in the second half of the twentieth century. Despite a declining trend in growth rate of urban population across size classes, cities in Asia and Africa, especially megacities, are growing faster as compared to other regions. The future estimates show that African cities will take the lead globally during 2015–2050 with relatively faster growth rates.

2.6 Spatial Pattern of Cities by Size Class of Urban Settlements, 1950, 2015 and 2050 The attribute data related to the population size of cities across globe is visualized in a GIS map (Fig. 2.12). The distribution of cities across size classes at three time

36

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

Table 2.6 Growth rate of urban population in cities classified by size class of urban settlement, 1950–2030 Size classes

World

Africa

Asia

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

Northern America

Oceania

Megacities (≥10 million)

4.32

NA

5.35

NA

NA

1.01

NA

Large cities (5–10 million)

4.84

NA

6.51

0.61

6.54

NA

NA

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

3.35

5.14

4.16

2.51

3.42

2.54

3.30

Cities of 500,000–1 million

3.34

5.69

3.95

2.11

7.60

1.83

NA

Cities of 300,000–500,000

2.74

5.51

4.15

1.68

3.87

0.84

−6.26

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

2.36

3.85

2.83

1.69

3.30

1.06

1.99

Megacities (≥10 million)

5.04

NA

4.52

NA

Large cities (5–10 million)

2.73

2.93

5.63

−0.23

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

3.01

6.72

3.43

Cities of 500,000–1 million

2.19

2.27

Cities of 300,000–500,000

2.81

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

1.93

1950–1975

1975–2000 6.84

2.49

NA

−1.27

−0.71

NA

0.93

4.04

1.83

2.35

3.61

0.01

3.10

1.54

NA

3.18

4.13

1.02

1.85

2.29

7.02

3.47

2.66

0.51

2.23

0.61

0.99

2000–2015 Megacities (≥10 million)

4.23

7.61

5.35

5.49

1.10

0.30

NA

Large cities (5–10 million)

2.48

1.68

1.88

0.94

3.34

7.68

NA

Medium sized cities (1–5 million)

2.16

3.41

2.76

0.02

2.42

0.27

1.63

(continued)

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

37

Table 2.6 (continued) Size classes

World

Africa

Asia

Europe

Cities of 500,000–1 million

Latin America and the Caribbean

Northern America

Oceania

2.34

3.91

3.26

0.69

0.66

0.60

NA

Cities of 300,000–500,000

2.01

4.12

1.87

−0.04

3.22

3.13

2.47

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

1.68

3.22

2.29

0.19

1.11

−0.21

0.64

Megacities (≥10 million)

3.24

5.05

3.35

2.81

2.61

0.45

NA

Large cities (5–10 million)

2.45

10.27

1.62

−2.15

−0.26

2.38

NA

Medium-sized cities (1–5 million)

2.09

2.54

2.66

0.72

1.56

1.08

−4.32

Cities of 500,000–1 million

1.70

3.96

1.72

0.52

0.04

1.64

7.02

Cities of 300,000–500,000

1.14

1.73

1.39

0.05

1.79

−0.31

Urban areas with fewer than 300,000

1.02

2.76

0.94

0.13

0.62

0.08

2015–2030

−0.41 0.88

Source: Calculated from United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

periods, 1950, 2015 and 2050, shows a substantial increase in the number of cities in all size classes. The worlds’ population has become more urbanised today and projected estimates show further urbanisation of the globe. In middle of the twentieth century, there were only two megacities, one in Asia (Tokyo in Japan) and the other in Northern America (New York in USA). The number of medium-sized cities and cities with 500,000–1 million was highest in Europe followed by Asia and Northern America. However, Asia was dominated by small- and medium-sized cities located mainly in coastal areas. There were few medium-sized cities in the eastern and western coasts of the Latin America and the Caribbean region, and the south east coast of Australia apart from which all other cities in these regions were mainly small cities with 300,000–500,000 population. Africa was largely rural. It is evident from Fig. 2.12 that a large part of Asia, Africa and the Latin America and the Caribbean region was rural in 1950. In 2015, global urban scenario changed with a high growth in the number of cities across size classes, especially in medium, large and megacities categories. There were

38

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

Fig. 2.12 Spatial pattern of cities by size class of settlements, 1950, 2015 and 2030. Note Cities with 300,000 or more inhabitants in 2018 are included in this analysis, and their respective population is plotted for 1950, 2015 and 2030. Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

30 megacities in 2015 out of which 18 were located in Asia only, and among these, ten were located only in two countries—China and India. These two countries had the highest number of cities ranging from small to megacities, and correspondingly, the highest number of cities in any size classes were located in Asia in 2015. There was an increment in the number of medium, and small cities with 500,000– 1 million population in Africa and the Latin America and the Caribbean region

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

39

also as compared to 1950. The concentration of small- and medium-sized cities increased sharply in Europe and Northern America in this duration. However, few medium-sized cities emerged in parts of the Oceania region. The projected estimates show that there will be nearly 43 megacities in the year of 2030. Among them, 27 will be located in Asia only. The trend in the growth of number of cities across size classes will remain same with highest concentration of cities in any size classes in Asia. China and India will be home of a range of cities from small to megacities. Urbanisation in Africa will continue at a fast pace with large increment in the number of small, medium and large cities. There will be five megacities in Africa-Cairo, Kinshasa, Lagos, Luanda and Dar-es-Salaam by the year of 2030. Most of the cities in Africa will be located in the western and eastern region. There will be six megacities in Latin America and the Caribbean region— Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Bogota and Lima. Apart from these six, the concentration of small and medium sized cities will increase in Southeastern and North-western region of Central and South America. The pattern of cities in Europe and Northern America as evident in 2015 will remain continue with high concentration of small and medium cities. There will not be major change in the Oceania region as it will have only two large cities—Sydney and Melbourne—by the year of 2030. Apart from these two large cities, this region will have cities with small and medium size. The spatial distribution of the cities across size classes (Fig. 2.12) clearly indicates a major change during 1950–2015 with emergence of mega and large cities mainly in Asia, Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean regions, and increasing concentration of small and medium cities mainly in Asia and Africa. Future projections also corroborate emergence of large number of cities in Asia and Africa. This is true for all size classes. Table 2.7 shows that in 1950, there were only two UAs globally with population more than 10 million which increased to 4 and 16 in 1975 and 2000, respectively. In 2015, the number of UAs further increased to 29 and the projected estimates show that by the year of 2030, all top 30 cities will be UAs. It is evident from Table 2.7 that in the latter half of the twentieth century, the number of UAs increased eight times higher and reached to 16 in 2000, while in next fifteen years (in 2015), it nearly doubled which indicates the growing population size of the cities, especially in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean regions. Tokyo retains its primacy in the list of UAs since 1975 with highest population. However, the projected estimates show that the population of Delhi will exceed Tokyo by the year of 2030, and it will be the largest UA in 2030. In 2015, there were 6 UAs in China and 4 in India. The list of UAs in 2030 shows that the worlds’ largest UAs will be located in Asia, Africa and the Latin America among which Asia will dominate with 20 out of 30 largest UAs located in these regions. The highest number of UAs will be from two countries only—India and China (6 in each country). The pattern of worlds’ largest UAs clearly indicates that India and China will be the epicentre of world’s largest cities in twenty-first century.

UAs

12.34

11.27

UAs

New York

Tokyo

16.30

15.88

10.73

New York

Mexico City

26.61

Population (in millions)

Osaka

Tokyo

1975

Population (in millions)

1950

13.10 12.50 11.80 11.31 10.29 10.28

Buenos Aires Los Angeles Rio de Janeiro Beijing Dhaka

13.63

Al-Qahirah (Cairo) Kolkata

15.69 14.25

16.15

Mumbai Shanghai

17.01

São Paulo

Delhi

17.81

18.46

18.66

34.45

Population (in millions)

New York

Mexico City

Osaka

Tokyo

UAs

2000

Istanbul

Karachi

Kolkata

Buenos Aires

Dhaka

Beijing

New York

Al-Qahirah (Cairo)

Osaka

Mumbai

São Paulo

Mexico City

Shanghai

Delhi

Tokyo

UAs

2015

Table 2.7 30 largest urban agglomerations ranked by population size, 1950, 1975, 2000, 2015 and 2030

14.13

14.29

14.42

14.71

17.60

18.42

18.65

18.82

19.30

19.32

20.88

21.34

23.48

25.87

37.26

Population (in millions)

Osaka

Chongqing

New York-Newark

Karachi

Lagos

Kinshasa

São Paulo

Mexico City

Beijing

Mumbai

Al-Qahirah (Cairo)

Dhaka

Shanghai

Tokyo

Delhi

UAs

2030

(continued)

18.66

19.65

19.96

20.43

20.60

21.91

23.82

24.11

24.28

24.57

25.52

28.08

32.87

36.57

38.94

Population (in millions)

40 D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

UAs

Population (in millions)

Population (in millions) 10.00

UAs Moskva (Moscow)

2000

12.52 12.35 12.24 12.05 11.69 11.60 11.28 10.73 10.37 10.17 10.14

Lagos Moskva (Moscow) Guangzhou Kinshasa Shenzhen Paris Lahore Jakarta Bangalore

12.86

Manila Los Angeles

12.94

Rio de Janeiro Tianjin

13.37

Population (in millions)

Chongqing

UAs

2015

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2018)

1975

UAs

Population (in millions)

1950

Table 2.7 (continued)

12.71 12.69

Jakarta

12.80

13.21

13.81

14.41

14.54

15.75

16.02

16.23

16.46

16.84

16.88

17.12

17.58

Population (in millions)

Hyderabad

Moskva (Moscow)

Los Angeles

Chennai

Rio de Janeiro

Shenzhen

Tianjin

Guangzhou

Bangalore

Buenos Aires

Manila

Lahore

Istanbul

Kolkata

UAs

2030

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns 41

42

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

2.7 Interlinkages Between Urbanisation and Economic Development: Implications for Future In this section, an attempt has been made to examine the interlinkages between urbanisation and economic development through a correlation analysis of the indicators of urbanisation with those of economic development. A set of 27 indicators is constructed for 201 countries using the data from World Urbanisation Prospects, 2018 and statistical tables of World Development Indicators.1 The first eight indicators pertain to urbanisation and urban growth. The next four indicators are on the access of basic services by urban population such as improved water, improved sanitation, electricity, clean fuels and technologies for cooking. The remaining indicators are related to different aspects of economic development including poverty, inequality, unemployment and carbon emissions. The list of indicators used for correlation analysis is presented in Table 2.8, while the matrix of correlation coefficients is provided in appendix Table 2.9. The correlation coefficients show that URGDs of specific time periods are positively correlated with URGDs of successive periods. This trend is more significant after 1990. It could be because of the structural transformations in the economies of many countries especially in Asia and Africa during 1980s and 1990s which have made a major impact on the urban growth trajectories of the countries in these two regions. The future growth scenario will correspond partially with the pattern of URGDs during the second half of the twentieth century but more strongly with the immediate past, i.e. 2005–2018 for 2018–2030 and 2018–2030 for 2030–2050. There is negative relationship between level of urbanisation in 2018 and growth rate of urban population during 2010–2018. It reveals the fact that despite the slowdown of the urban population in several countries, the level of urbanisation has increased mainly in the countries of Asia and Africa. The interrelationship between level of urbanisation and access to basic services shows that countries with higher level of urbanisation also report higher access to basic services to the urban population. The results are more significant for access to improved sanitation, access to clean fuel and cooking technologies. The correlation between level of urbanisation and per capita GDP shows that the countries with higher level of urbanisation have higher per capita GDP and vice versa. In this process, the service sector is playing an important role because the value added by service sector in GDP is significantly correlated with the level of urbanisation and per capita GDP. The growth in GDP during 2000–2017 is strongly related to the growth in value added of services in the same period, but it exhibits negative relationship with unemployment, poverty and inequality. Kundu and Kundu (2010) argue that the growth in the GDP would be high even in the countries with low urban base because of their linkages with global capital markets and few large projects, but these factors will not lead to the improvement in the level of unemployment, poverty and inequality. 1 Indicators

are selected from the statistical tables of World Development Indicators. Available at http://wdi.worldbank.org/tables.

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

43

Table 2.8 List of select indicators to examine interlinkages between urbanisation and economic development Variable

Variable description

Year/period

X1

URGD

1950–70

X2

URGD

1970–90

X3

URGD

1990–2005

X4

URGD

2005–2018

X5

URGD

2018–2030

X6

URGD

2030–2050

X7

Percentage of urban population

2018

X8

Growth rate of urban population

2010–2018

X9

Urban population (%) with access to improved water

2015

X10

Urban population (%) with access to improved sanitation

2015

X11

Urban population (%) with access to electricity

2016

X12

Urban population (%) with access to clean fuels and technologies for cooking

2016

X13

Average annual percentage growth of GDP

1990–2000

X14

Average annual percentage growth of GDP

2000–2017

X15

GDP per capita (constant 2010 US$)

2017

X16

Industry, value added (% of GDP)

2017

X17

Services, value added (% of GDP)

2017

X18

Growth in value added of industry (in %)

2000–2017

X19

Growth in value added of services (in %)

2000–2017

X20

Unemployment as percentage of male labour force

2016

X21

Unemployment as percentage of female labour force

2016

X22

Population below national poverty lines (urban in %)

Latest

X23

Gini index (World Bank estimate)

Latest

X24

Foreign direct investment, net inflows (% of GDP)

2017

X25

Exports of goods and services (% of GDP)

2010

X26

Exports of goods and services (% of GDP)

2017

X27

Carbon dioxide emissions (per capita metric ton)

2014

Further, the correlations of per capita GDP with access to basic amenities, export of goods and services (percentage of GDP) and carbon emissions (per capita metric ton) are significant, but none of these are strongly related to the present or future URGD. These results substantiate the arguments that the global urbanisation in future would not be led by relatively developed and urbanised countries (ibid). The URGDs of 2018–2030 and 2030–2050 are significantly correlated to the growth in value added of industry and services. It indicates that countries in which industries and services are playing a major role in GDP such as China and India, respectively, would be at the forefront of global urbanisation in future. Unfortunately, the URGD and urban

44

D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

growth exhibit negative correlation with access to basic services including access to improved water, sanitation, and clean fuel and technologies for cooking fuel. It shows that although the small and less developed countries are experiencing urban growth, but they are not able to make investment in the basic amenities, except in their global cities (ibid). The correlations between male unemployment and poverty with URGD of 1990– 2005 and 2005–2018 are negative, but not significant. There is no change in the correlations between male unemployment and URGD of 2018–2030 and 2030–2050. However, the poverty and URGD in these periods are positively correlated. Both the results are statistically insignificant. These empirical evidences suggest that current and future urban growth, despite being linked with the growth in industries and service sector, would not be able to make much difference in the level of unemployment and poverty. This calls for the investment in the social sectors, especially in the countries of global south. This would help these countries to upgrade their workforce and engage them in a meaningful way to improve their socio-economic wellbeing. This will pave the way for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), 2030.

2.8 Conclusion The world is more urban now than any time in the history of mankind, and the projected estimates show that the process of urbanisation is likely to continue for next few decades. Projections indicate that by the year of 2050, nearly 70% world population will live in urban areas. The epicentre of global urbanisation has shifted from western world to Asia and Africa. Moreover, a larger share of the future urban population in these two regions is likely to live either in medium-sized towns in Asia and Africa, or in megacities mostly located in Asia. This will directly change the nature of global landscape. Studies (Seto et al. 2011; Angel et al. 2011) indicate that the global urban land cover (builtup area) will increase dramatically. This urban expansion will create a huge pressure on the natural resources. Food security is still a major issue for Asian and African cities, especially for urban poor, and with the shrinking agricultural land and changing environment, it will become a major challenge for these two regions. The cities in Asia and Africa are already facing challenges to provide safe drinking water, housing, sanitation, health care and education mainly to the urban poor. With increasing level of urbanisation, the inequality in the access to basic amenities among city dwellers is likely to increase in these two regions. This part of the world is also vulnerable to the climate change as it is ill prepared to deal with both natural and manmade disasters. Therefore, building resilience to the disasters is also a major challenge for African and Asian cities. In contrast to these two regions, the challenges of shrinking cities in the developed world, especially in some part of USA, Europe and Russia, are likely to aggravate along with the challenges of ageing population and declining share of workforce. Nations across the globe need to address the challenges associated with urbanisation. This realisation has led to the several initiatives being adopted by United

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

45

Nations and other international agencies along with national governments. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (2030), the New Urban Agenda (NUA) (2016), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030) and emphasis on the formulation of National Urban Policy Framework (NUP) by UN-Habitat are some of the initiatives taken by global community in this direction. However, their implementation in the cities of Africa and Asia is itself a major challenge for many of the countries as they do not have adequate institutional, financial and human resources. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Dr. Biswajit Mondal, Research Associate (GIS) and Dr. Tania Debnath, Research Associate, National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, for supporting cartographical analysis and proofreading of the text.

Appendix See Table 2.9.

0.050

0.319**

1

1

0.319**

0.282**

0.292**

0.069

0.236**

0.244**

−0.241**

−0.303**

−0.163*

−0.171*

0.118

−0.080

−0.112

0.022

−0.112

0.436**

0.050

0.165*

0.165*

0.087

0.145*

0.209**

−0.212**

−0.249**

−0.151*

−0.191**

0.038

−0.048

−0.092

0.112

−0.202**

0.027

0.075

0.092

0.135

0.101

0.074

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X10

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

X17

X18

X19

X20

X21

X22

X23

0.033

−0.028

−0.148

0.071

0.117

−0.031

0.209*

0.015

−0.052

−0.058

−0.109

0.039

0.165*

0.176*

0.166*

0.114

0.148

0.137

−0.204**

0.196**

0.201**

−0.229**

0.007

−0.042

0.209**

0.212**

0.290**

0.197**

−0.148*

−0.096

−0.212**

−0.199**

0.562**

−0.199**

−0.073

−0.221**

−0.255**

0.423**

0.244**

0.334**

0.225**

0.177*

0.898**

1

0.696**

0.282**

0.165*

X4

0.602**

0.696**

X3

X2

0.436**

X1

1

X1

−0.306**

0.015

0.040

0.071

−0.062

0.561**

−0.383**

−0.065 −0.032

−0.037

0.061

0.125

0.167

−0.096

−0.254**

0.405**

0.058

−0.517**

−0.351**

0.171*

−0.345**

0.509**

0.157*

−0.646**

−0.525**

−0.702**

0.453**

0.130

0.570**

0.093

−0.048

−0.120

0.509**

0.441**

0.261**

−0.576**

0.197**

0.117

−0.392**

−0.334**

0.035

−0.057 0.450**

0.649**

0.419**

0.511**

−0.568**

−0.480**

−0.553**

−0.537**

−0.633**

1

1

−0.495** 0.454**

−0.306**

1 0.593**

0.593**

−0.495**

0.562**

0.423**

0.244**

0.209**

X8

0.078

0.244**

0.177*

0.236**

0.145*

X7

0.624**

0.561**

0.334**

0.225**

0.069

0.087

X6

−0.306**

0.174*

−0.087

0.238**

0.129

−0.255**

−0.209**

−0.318**

−0.300**

0.624**

0.078

0.561**

1

0.898**

0.602**

0.292**

0.165*

X5

Table 2.9 Correlation coefficients’ matrix of select indicators

−0.303** −0.221** −0.212** −0.318**

−0.241** −0.255** −0.199** −0.300**

−0.116

−0.316**

0.052

0.096

−0.368**

−0.373**

−0.161

−0.430**

0.109

0.148

−0.404**

−0.366**

0.494**

0.077

−0.006 0.517**

0.454**

−0.298**

0.010

0.850**

0.756**

1

0.775**

−0.702**

0.511**

0.430**

−0.354**

−0.065

0.720**

0.740**

0.775**

1

−0.633**

0.454**

−0.553**

−0.249**

−0.212**

−0.537**

X10

X9

−0.060

−0.367**

0.068

0.070

−0.232**

−0.273**

0.402**

0.173*

0.340**

−0.190**

0.049

0.736**

1

0.756**

0.740**

−0.525**

0.419**

−0.480**

−0.209**

−0.096

−0.073

−0.163*

−0.151*

X11

−0.052

−0.328**

0.194*

0.203**

−0.468**

−0.437**

0.552**

0.122

0.547**

−0.341**

−0.068

1

0.736**

0.850**

0.720**

−0.646**

0.649**

−0.568**

−0.255**

−0.148*

−0.199**

−0.171*

−0.191**

X12

0.127

−0.059

0.121

0.047

0.018

−0.019

0.029

0.117

0.042

0.068

1

−0.068

0.049

0.010

−0.065

0.157*

0.035

−0.057

0.129

0.212**

0.290**

0.118

0.038

X13

(continued)

−0.033

−0.251*

−0.239**

−0.290**

0.878**

0.813**

−0.427**

0.257**

−0.354**

1

0.068

−0.341**

−0.190**

−0.298**

−0.354**

0.509**

−0.334**

0.450**

0.238**

0.209**

0.197**

−0.080

−0.048

X14

46 D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

0.148

0.114

−0.075

0.044

−0.229**

−0.204**

−0.517**

0.517**

0.022

−0.075

−0.102

X16

0.112

0.022

0.201**

0.196**

0.174*

0.117

0.130

0.171*

−0.006

0.077

0.173*

0.122

0.117

0.257**

−0.078

−0.095

0.061

X15

−0.092

−0.112

−0.042

0.007

−0.087

−0.392**

0.570**

−0.345**

0.430**

0.454**

0.340**

0.547**

0.042

−0.354**

1

0.014

X26

X27

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

X10

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

X17

X18

X4

0.069

0.010

−0.277**

1

−0.420**

1

0.137

−0.323**

−0.420**

−0.532**

0.486** 0.635**

−0.425**

0.198*

0.137

−0.532**

0.014

1

0.018

−0.019 −0.460**

−0.468**

−0.437** 0.878**

−0.232**

−0.273**

−0.323**

−0.404**

−0.366**

0.813**

−0.368**

−0.373**

0.486**

0.561**

0.405**

−0.383**

−0.351**

X7

−0.324**

0.178*

−0.072

−0.025

−0.290**

0.047

0.203**

0.070

0.148

0.096

−0.254**

0.058

−0.120

−0.062

−0.058

X8

−0.289**

0.090

0.026

−0.128

−0.239**

0.121

0.194*

0.068

0.109

0.052

−0.096

0.061

−0.048

0.071

0.033

X9

0.452**

0.287**

0.240**

0.016

−0.097

−0.124

−0.065

−0.291**

−0.251*

−0.059

−0.328**

−0.367**

−0.430**

−0.316**

0.167

−0.065

0.093

0.040

−0.052

−0.148

−0.031

0.101

X22

−0.186**

−0.274**

−0.155*

−0.024

−0.028

0.117

0.135

X21

0.490**

0.296**

0.322**

−0.002

−0.109

0.039

0.092

X20

−0.351**

−0.292**

0.509**

0.261**

0.165*

0.176*

0.166*

0.075

X19

−0.052

−0.093

X6 −0.034

0.441**

0.197**

0.137

0.027

X18

0.032

−0.039

X5 0.065

−0.427**

0.029

0.552**

0.402**

0.494**

0.453**

−0.576**

−0.306**

−0.112

−0.202**

X17

0.085

0.053

X25

X3

0.008

X2

0.029

X1

−0.094

X24

Table 2.9 (continued) X10

−0.059

−0.051

0.091

−0.043

−0.033

0.127

−0.052

−0.060

−0.161

−0.116

0.125

−0.032

−0.037

0.015

0.015

0.071

0.209*

0.074

X23

0.542**

0.322**

0.309**

−0.005

0.340**

0.212**

0.192**

0.009

0.139

−0.150*

0.016

−0.007

0.020

0.005

−0.020

−0.005

0.016

−0.024

−0.002

−0.034

0.065

0.053

0.008

0.029

−0.094

X24

X11 −0.020

0.523**

0.379**

0.368**

−0.170*

0.200*

0.194*

0.406**

−0.149*

0.137

0.368**

0.192**

0.309**

0.240**

−0.155*

0.322**

−0.277**

0.010

0.069

0.085

0.022

−0.078

X25

X12 0.005

X13

−0.178*

0.246**

0.065

0.471**

−0.160*

0.091

0.379**

0.212**

0.322**

0.287**

−0.274**

0.296**

−0.292**

−0.093

−0.039

−0.075

−0.075

−0.095

X26

0.024

0.091

0.137

0.020

X14

(continued)

−0.154*

0.221**

0.306**

0.569**

−0.059

0.024

0.523**

0.340**

0.542**

0.452**

−0.186**

0.490**

−0.351**

−0.052

0.032

0.044

−0.102

0.061

X27

−0.059

−0.160*

−0.149*

−0.007

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns 47

−0.051

0.139

−0.072

0.026

−0.065

0.091

−0.150*

0.194*

0.065

0.306**

−0.025

−0.128

−0.291**

−0.043

0.016

0.406**

0.471**

0.569**

X20

X21

X22

X23

X24

X25

X26

X27

−0.031 −0.125 −0.235** −0.279**

−0.170*

−0.178*

−0.154*

−0.044

−0.068

−0.153

−0.264**

1

X19

0.009

−0.059

−0.097

−0.289**

−0.324**

0.635**

X18

−0.077

0.041

−0.021

0.155*

0.114

0.148

0.825**

1

−0.264**

X20

−0.058

−0.067

−0.039

0.092

0.107

0.096

1

0.825**

−0.153

X21

−0.271**

−0.113

−0.156

0.098

−0.056

1

0.096

0.148

−0.068

X22

−0.003

0.043

−0.001

−0.051

1

−0.056

0.107

0.114

−0.044

X23

−0.030

0.274**

0.226**

1

−0.051

0.098

0.092

0.155*

−0.031

X24

0.381**

0.688**

1

0.226**

−0.001

−0.156

−0.039

−0.021

−0.125

X25

0.347**

1

0.688**

0.274**

0.043

−0.113

−0.067

0.041

−0.235**

X26

1

0.347**

0.381**

−0.030

−0.003

−0.271**

−0.058

−0.077

−0.279**

X27

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N = 201 Countries. To counter the issue of missing values, the valid pairs of data (pairwise deletion of missing data) are used in the correlation analysis

0.221**

0.246**

0.200*

−0.124

0.090

0.178*

−0.425**

0.198*

X17

X16

X15

−0.460**

X19

Table 2.9 (continued)

48 D. Kundu and A. K. Pandey

2 World Urbanisation: Trends and Patterns

49

References Angel, S., Parent, J., Civco, D. L., Blei, A., & Potere, D. (2011). The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Progress in Planning, 75(2), 53–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2011.04.001. Chen, M., Zhang, H., Liu, W., & Zhang, W. (2014). The global pattern of urbanization and economic growth: Evidence from the last three decades. PLoS ONE, 9(8), 1–15. e103799. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0103799. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10. 1371/journal.pone.0103799. Dahiya, B. (2012). Cities in Asia, 2012: Demographics, economics, poverty, environment and governance. Cities, 29(2), S44–S61. Donati, J. C. (2015). The city in the Greek and Roman world. In C. Marconi (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Greek and Roman art and architecture. New York: Oxford University Press. Haase D. (2013). Shrinking cities, biodiversity and ecosystem services. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, B. Guneralp, et al. (Eds.), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 253–274). Dordrecht: Springer. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/ content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-007-7088-1.pdf. Haase, D., Guneralp, B., Dahiya, B., Bai, X., & Elmqvist, T. (2018). Global urbanisation: Perspectives and trends. In T. Elmqvist, X. Bai, N. Frantzeskaki, C. Griffith, D. Maddox, T. McPhearson, et al. (Eds.), Urban planet: Knowledge towards sustainable cities (pp. 19–44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324896938_ Global_Urbanization_Perspectives_and_Trends. Haase, D., Haase, A., Kabisch, N., Kabisch, S., & Rink, D. (2012). Actors and factors in landuse simulation: The challenge of urban shrinkage. Environmental Modelling and Software, 35, 92–103. Kundu, A., & Kundu, D. (2010). Globalization and exclusionary urban growth in Asian countries. Working Paper No. 2010/70. Finland: UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER). Mohan, R. (2006). Asia’s urban century: Emerging trends. Keynote address at the Conference on Land Policies and Urban Development, organized by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, Massachusetts on June, 5, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.rakeshmohan.com/docs/ RBIBulletinJuly2006-2.pdf. Mohan, R., & Dasgupta, S. (2005). The 21st century: Asia becomes urban. Economic & Political Weekly, 40(3), 213–223. Rink, D. (2009). Wilderness: The nature of urban shrinkage? The debate on urban restructuring and restoration in Eastern Germany. Nature and Culture, 3(1), 275–292. Rink, D., & Kabisch, S. (2009). Introduction: The ecology of shrinkage. Nature and Culture, 4(3), 223–230. Seto, K. C., Fragkias, M., Güneralp, B., & Reilly, M. K. (2011). A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion. PLoS ONE, 6(8), 1–9. e23777. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777. Retrieved form https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023777. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (UNDESA). (2015). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/366). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (UNDESA). (2018). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, Online Edition. Retrieved from https:// population.un.org/wup/Publications/.

Chapter 3

National Urban Policy: Tool for Development Michael Kinyanjui

Abstract Urbanisation is a significant global trend in the twenty-first century. However, for it to play a transformative role in integrating the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, coherent policies must be put in place to address significant growth and shrinkage challenges in developing and developed world, respectively. To achieve the desired outcomes, a National Urban Policy (NUP) is an important tool available to governments to aid in coordinating management of urbanisation. It provides a vision for urban transformation and harness opportunities while mitigating inevitable challenges. Due to its ability to structure and organise urbanisation and its value as a tool to capitalise on the opportunities, the National Urban Policy has been identified as one of the tools to support implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to implement the New Urban Agenda (NUA). The historical evolution and the renewed interest in National Urban Policies are clear evidence of their value in national urbanisation processes. Without adequate National Urban Policies, world cities will continue to face multiple challenges that will aggravate urban inequalities and poverty. Building smarter and sustainable cities is a common agenda among stakeholders including policymakers in the twenty-first century. In this respect, National Urban Policies are an important tool for considering how smart and green principles can be incorporated into urban policies. The inaugural International Conference on National Urban Policy echoed the importance of National Urban Policies as a multi-sectoral process and tool to help achieve compact, integrated, connected and inclusive cities that are resilient to climate change. Furthermore, the Action Framework for Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (AFINUA) identifies National Urban Policies as strong foundational element for achieving sustainable urbanisation. Keywords Smart cities · Green growth · Green economy · National Urban Policy · New Urban Agenda · Climate change

M. Kinyanjui (B) United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), P. O. Box 14887, Nairobi 00100, Kenya e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_3

51

52

M. Kinyanjui

3.1 Introduction Cities, which are thought to be the engines of economic growth and social change, are growing at an unprecedented rate, especially in Global South. Evidence and interest to steer urban growth through coordinated actions exist. If such growth is to be sustainable, coordinating policies that guide and support the cities to manage future urbanisation patterns are needed. Governments must be well prepared and have well-defined frameworks for urban development in place. Yet, many countries are still faced with dilemma and lack of clear supporting policies and frameworks that can leverage urbanisation for increased development gains and guide it towards sustainable patterns. Furthermore, realising global commitments and agenda such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) requires coherent and self-reinforcing policy programme that tackles the immediate problems of contemporary urban development and delivers compact, connected and coordinated cities. Such policies would not only support sustained economic development and enhance the productivity but would also reduce their ecological footprints (Rode et al. 2017). National governments, through the National Urban Policy (NUP), provide an opportunity to ensure rapid urbanisation processes result in well-functioning and environmentally sustainable cities. NUP aligns national programmes with global priorities and sets out principles from which urban policy interventions are formulated and implementation is conceived. National Urban Policy framework is thus a useful means to achieve greater policy integration and an integral component of UN-Habitat’s strategy for sustainable urbanisation and to address the urbanisation needs across the human settlements continuum. In many countries, it has emerged as an instrument through which central governments align policy, address economic growth and pursue international policy targets. Largely drawing from many years of UN-Habitat’s engagement on NUP, including experiences on support to national governments; review of literature, tools and frameworks on formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of such policies; and deliberations and outcomes of international conferences and workshops on National Urban Policy, this chapter discusses the evolution of National Urban Policies and their potential in addressing global urbanisation challenges. In the context of a globalising world, the chapter highlights the links and instrumental role of the National Urban Policies in achieving the global development agenda including SDGs, New Urban Agenda (NUA), Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. The chapter has also discussed in detail the importance of the new-generation National Urban Policies and emphasised their potential in achieving sustainable urbanisation and smart and green cities in particular. Technical support role of UN-Habitat in supporting national governments in formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of National Urban Policies has been highlighted.

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

53

3.2 A Global Overview of Urbanisation Urbanisation is one of the most significant global trends in the twenty-first century (Banji and Kaushalesh 2017) and a key driving force for accelerating development. Globally, more people live in urban than rural areas, comprising 55% of the world population in 2018 and projected to reach 68% in 2050 (UNDESA 2018) and further expected to rise to about 85% by year 2100 (UN-Habitat and OECD 2018). The world urban population has grown rapidly from 751 million in 1950 to 4.2 billion in 2018, with Asia being home to 53% of the world urban population followed by Europe and Africa at 13% each (UNDESA 2018). Equally, world cities are growing in both size and numbers. Close to half of the world’s urban dwellers reside in settlements with fewer than 500,000 inhabitants (UNDESA 2018). In their work, “Monitoring the Quantity and Quality of Global Urban Expansion”, Shlomo et al. (2015) identified 4245 such cities of 100,000 people or more which were home to 70% of the 3.6 billion world’s urban population in 2010. But the irony is that three quarters of these cities were found to be in developing countries only. The geography of urbanisation is also changing. It is affecting all countries but with greater magnitude in emerging and developing economies in the Global South. Of the world’s 31 megacities (above 10 million inhabitants) in 2016, 24 were located in the Global South (UNDESA 2016). By 2030, the numbers of such megacities are projected to rise to 43, with developing regions hosting the majority as indicated in Fig. 3.1 (UNDESA 2018). With increased urbanisation, many countries, especially developing countries, face challenges in meeting needs of the fast-growing urban population. Compared to urban transitions in developed economies, urbanisation in developing regions is largely driven by poverty, conflict and demographic change and to a lesser extent by industrialisation and employment growth (Turok and Parnell 2009). The benefits of urbanisation are not equally shared with some cities, mostly

Fig. 3.1 World urban and urban agglomerations in 2018. Source UNDESA (2018)

54

M. Kinyanjui

located in Global South, having high slum population, a characteristic of unplanned growth, poor policies or their implementation to benefits of all. Such development and governance challenges in the regions are opportunities for more effective policy response towards sustainable urbanisation. Conversely, recent international debate on urban shrinkage with considerable population loss in European, North America and some East Asian cities is rife and the phenomena will become more widespread (UNDESA 2018; Großmann et al. 2013). Discussion on how to address such urban decline through “urban regeneration” and “neighbourhood revitalisation” is gaining traction in national urbanisation policies for these countries. Research and evidence prove that well-planned urbanisation is strongly correlated with economic development, infrastructural development and job creation as has been in the recent cases of emerging economies of Korea and Singapore to mention a few. Evidence of cities as engines of economic growth when their capacity and power to innovate, generate wealth and enhance quality of life are well harnessed also exists. However, cities are global consumers of primary energy and leading emitter of greenhouse gas (GHG). With the increasing role of information and communications technologies (ICTs) in networked urbanisation through digital platforms and knowledge networks that enhance cities’ functionality, smart city approaches are becoming important elements not only in improving quality of life, but also in promoting economic growth and protecting them from environment degradation (UN 2017). Furthermore, urban systems that are compact and well planned are important in achieving green growth and sustainable settlements (UN-Habitat 2012a). The role of national governments in formulation and implementation of urban policies to accelerate and coordinate development of such cities cannot be overemphasised, with National Urban Policy (NUP) becoming important tool to implement country’s urban development as well as to monitor global development agenda. Furthermore, as postulated by New et al. (2017), long-term success of cities largely depends on whether national governments support their development. Thus, development and governance challenges facing cities offer clear opportunities for effective policy response to achieve sustainable urbanisation. Many countries have identified the strength of NUP in addressing the challenges and managing urbanisation. A review of the Report on the Global State of National Urban Policies indicates that over 150 countries have already developed National Urban Policies, 76 explicit and 74 partial NUPs as instruments to leverage dynamics of sustainable urbanisation (UN-Habitat and OECD 2018). With emergence of smart city approaches, NUP provides a unifying framework and foundation upon which they would be built. Realising its potential, UN-Habitat has been supporting NUP development at global, regional and national levels with over 41 countries already supported as indicated in Fig. 3.2. This chapter elaborates on the role of National Urban Policy as a tool for governments in addressing challenges and harnessing opportunities to sustainable urban development. It takes a historical look at the evolution of National Urban Policies and considers the revival of interest in NUP in the past decade. Drawing from the literature, evidence presented at the inaugural International Conference on National Urban Policy (ICNUP in 2015, Incheon, Korea), it discusses the NUP as a multi-sectoral

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

55

Fig. 3.2 Countries supported by UN-Habitat with NUP development

process and a tool to achieving compact, integrated, connected and inclusive cities that are resilient to climate change. It finally considers NUP in the global context, exploring trends and linkages with the broader global development agenda including implementation of Agenda 2030 and the New Urban Agenda among other global processes such as the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030.

3.2.1 Urbanisation Challenge and Opportunities With rapid urbanisation, challenges and opportunities in equal measure are evident in developed and developing world. Plight of economic prosperity in some cities and decline, in others and urban social exclusion in both prospering and declining cities is more apparent (Atkinson 2001). In this process, governments need to be more sensitive to possible threats and opportunities posed by the rapid urban growth and ensure integrated and coordinated approaches in planning and managing cities towards improving urban and rural lives (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014; UNDESA 2018). Such approaches need to be guided by strong urban policies tailored to address the rapid demographic changes. Cities worldwide are important drivers and fulcrums for sustainable development. They concentrate financial, wealth creation and economic growth, and hence are national economic powerhouses. Their contribution to GDP is undisputable generating about 82% of global GDP (Maimunah and Steiner 2018; UN-Habitat and UNESCAP 2015). Their capacity to concentrate population and contribute to progress in human development is undeniable, with a strong correlation between national urbanisation and human development already being observed (AfDB et al.

56

M. Kinyanjui

2016). To capitalise on this process for national growth, most governments are already linking urbanisation to their national development strategies (UN-Habitat and UNESCAP 2015). However, rapid and unplanned urbanisation threatens sustainable development particularly when good policies are not developed and implemented to reap and equally share emerging benefits. Neglect, entrenched poverty, human vulnerability and environmental degradation attributed to combination of unresponsiveness, shortsightedness and political denial on the part of national elites are typical characteristics of many cities in developing countries (Turok 2015). Haphazard and unregulated urban development has not only compromised environmental systems—damaged water catchment, food supply among other natural systems—but severe gridlocks and failure of networked infrastructure have increased risks of environmental pollution among other externalities undermining viability of sustainable cities (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). This is clearly reflected at global level, with cities using 80% of the world’s energy, accounting for 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions and generating over 1 billion tonnes of waste per year (Maimunah and Steiner 2018). How well nations adjust and respond to these challenges will impact millions of people living in them. This can only be realised by foresight, planning and investments in infrastructure (Kelly 2013) and cities and national governments that are committed to participation governance, urban innovation in solving development challenges and using integrated approaches to urban and territorial development by implementing policy strategies and capacity development actions. With the growing innovations and scientific revolution, smart cities have also emerged. Putting in place urban policies that harness technological opportunities as part of the response and solutions, these challenges are inevitable. This is clearly evident in emerging nations such as Singapore where smart city schemes have been used to achieve a Smart Nation Initiative. This is supported by New et al. (2017) arguing that smart city success as innovations to support urbanisation will depend on how national governments coordinate and enact policies and standards that increase their effectiveness. As an urban development tool, the National Urban Policies do this by coordination and management of interdependencies across different actors and levels of government, while ensuring policy coherence, creating incentives for more sustainable practices and providing a basis for better allocation of resources (UN-Habitat and OECD 2018). It integrates national sectoral policies and coherently addresses complex and interconnected urban challenges while engaging all the relevant actors and stakeholders. As of 2018, 150 countries had realised the opportunity and were at different stages of developing and implementing National Urban Policies to support sustainable urbanisation at the country level, Fig. 3.3 (UN-Habitat and OECD 2018).

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

57

Fig. 3.3 Global progress in development and implementation of National Urban Policies. Source UN-Habitat and OECD (2018)

3.2.2 Responding to Urban Development Challenges Rapid urbanisation that is supported with appropriate spatially integrated policies is a strong positive force for achieving national economic development, social transformation and environmental progress (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014; Banji and Kaushalesh 2017; Turok and Parnell 2009). The agglomeration economies offered by cities match distinctive business requirement; share infrastructure services and facilities; and learn functions through superior flow of information and ideas promoting creativity, innovation and productivity (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014; Banji and Kaushalesh 2017). To effectively harness opportunities offered by the agglomeration economies and achieve development, national governments have a strong role to play in strengthening financial, technical and organisational capacities of city authorities to plan and manage urban growth. National Urban Policies are a key tool for achieving such desired urban outcomes. The policies not only foster entrepreneurial dynamism and creativity in urban areas, but also reduce transactional costs and facilitate competitiveness and business development. Countries that have National Urban Policies are generally most successful in the areas of human development, spatial integration and economic growth (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). However, as indicated in Fig. 3.4, evidence has it that if not well harnessed, agglomeration economies might lead to urban challenges. National governments need to recognise that NUP as opposed to piecemeal and reactive efforts provides a better coordinated framework for dealing with the urbanisation issues (Atkinson 2001; Kelly 2013). Understood as integrated policy frameworks for aligning national and local policies that affect cities, NUP can help governments “get cities right” through the development of much broader, cross-cutting vision of urban policy (OECD 2014). With such opportunities, developing and emerging countries where urbanisation is taking place have an unprecedented opportunity to shape their urban futures and ensure sustainable urbanisation. Beyond developing a set of goals, objectives and an action plan, such frameworks could help governments set targets and indicators for performance of the cities.

58

M. Kinyanjui

Fig. 3.4 Relationship between agglomeration economies and urban challenges. Source OECD (2016)

3.3 History of National Urban Policies 3.3.1 National Urban Policies in the Twentieth Century Cities are complex entities, with multiple “personalities”, different faces, constantly evolving and impacting lives differently. The origination of conscious urban policies, though not structured in nature, dates back to medieval period. In some countries, principles for consciously structuring, organising, designing, regulating and managing use of space can be traced back to towns and cities in ancient and medieval period (Pounds 2005; UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014), with evidence uncovered in Middle East and North Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Sub-Saharan Africa and cities in Greece and Italy in Western Europe (UN-Habitat 2009). But it is since

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

59

the dawn of twentieth century, when many European countries and cities of North America started adopting structured urban policies. Urban Policies 1900–1940s Efforts to use urban policies to understand, plan, engage and define urban and its related challenges with their formulation in some countries such as the USA traced back in the 1930s (Warren 1990). With the long and chequered history spanning through the last century, urban policy is complex and contested with its institutional dynamics, historical path and different contextual meanings, with no single model or approach guaranteed to deliver it (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). At the USA, for example, federal urban policies included programmes not only targeted to cities, but also non-targeted with benefits to cities and other areas, with initial public housing policies in the 1930s and urban renewal in the 1940s (Lawrence et al. 2010). However, in their development, a powerful influence on urban policy by land use planning with key objective to separate incompatible uses, ensure harmonious communities and make structural arrangements of the city more efficient is notable (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). Along with USA, early urban policies can be found for some European countries as well. Also notable in the latter part the nineteenth century is modernist structuring of settlements to deal with industrialisation and urbanisation externalities leading to emergence of some of the most influential planning forms of the time including the Garden City by Ebenezer Howard, the ideal of the “modernist” city in the 1920s and 1930s by Le Corbusier in France and the early twentieth-century visions of the ideal city in the USA (UN-Habitat 2009). Thus, origins of contemporary urban policy are linked to the rapid growth of European cities and attempts to manage them during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). They have evolved over time from sectoral programmes, special initiatives and time-limited projects towards more enduring collaborative and integrative approaches. However, these urban policies were context specific with no common approach to address urban issues. Urban Policies in the 1940s–1970s In the post-World War II period, urbanised nations had challenges of reconstruction and recovering from economic depression caused by the war. This saw many countries develop urban policies, and most of them were welfare-oriented state programmes and services (Dodson 2011; Gales 2007). Policies concerned with responding to social and environmental problems were also quite evident. However, most of them were acting as separate mainstream policies, aimed at compensation for economic weaknesses and market failures, hence palliative and designed to ameliorate poor housing and social conditions as opposed to catalysts for socio-economic transformation and development (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). In countries like Australia, with overwhelming urban character, serious urban federal interest in cities was discernible through the 1942 Commonwealth Housing Commission established to advise on mix of policies to improve the country’s urban planning and housing, efforts that led to federal government intervention in housing and urban affairs, and

60

M. Kinyanjui

national interests in metropolitan planning (Dodson 2011). Similarly, urban policies in the Netherlands emerged through ambitious housing programmes, while “Centro Storico” became key goals of urban policy to protect historic urban centres in Italy and while in Britain it was about land planning regulations and construction of New Towns (Gales 2007). During the post-war boom period 1950s and 1960s as postulated by Scott (2008), large metropolitan regions in North America and Western Europe functioned as hubs of mass production economy with elaborate policy measures aimed to maintain prosperity and social well-being. The Keynesian welfare-statist policy system directed to urban areas, he argues, was supervised and controlled by central governments and put into effect by the municipal agencies with urban renewal, housing programmes, intraurban expressway construction, suburban expansion and diverse welfare schemes performed as functions of maintaining economic growth and keeping the urban foci of the boom operating in a reasonably efficient and socially manageable way. During the period, urbanisation in most of the OECD countries was driven only by market forces and not public policies, with few exceptions of countries with specific urbanisation targets such as France, who had four main public policies including regional policies targeting medium-sized cities as opposed to concentrating development in Paris, strong housing policies for medium-sized and large cities and massive redistribution policies. Such indirect policies impacted urbanisation outcomes in the region (OECD and CDRF 2009). Urban Policies Between the 1970s and 1990s This phase noted the beginning of the change in perspective, from market-driven approach to introduction of social dimensions. In the 1970s, the social dimension of new urban policies in favour of social redistribution towards rising poor population in cities but still aimed at promoting market disciplines, competition and private sector investments became central in countries like the UK (Gales 2007). Alternative models of economic organisation and development also started appearing in the 1980s, with strategies for coping with and reversing shrinkage in old industrial cities in Western Europe and USA gaining much attention (Scott 2008; Großmann et al. 2013), and most governments became more concerned with the role of cities in economic development (Gales 2007). During the period, urban policies also shifted towards attracting private investment and supporting market forces giving more explicit attention to economic origins of many urban problems. In Australia, the Commonwealth Urban Policy as applied by a new Department of Urban and Regional Development (DURD) of the Federal Government of Australia focused on spatial development strategy to address incremental urban sprawl created by postwar urban development (Dodson 2011). Additionally, federal urban policies during the 1990s also focused on empowerment/enterprise zone programme and renewal community initiatives. New market and low-income housing tax credits though both not targeted to cities provided benefits to urban areas (Lawrence et al. 2010).

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

61

Similarly, France’s Politique de la Ville launched in 1988 was aimed to tackle problems of deprived neighbourhoods and social fragmentation by transforming the governance of cities, which were seen as the main source of social exclusion (Friendly 2016). Urban Policies in the 1990s–2000 Since the 1990s, it has been harder to detect a dominant approach to urban policy, but there has been proliferation of different models in different contexts (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014), with no consensus on purpose, most appropriate tools and techniques of urban policy. During the period, most of the urban policies aimed at tackling economic inequalities within the urban areas. Within the European Union, for example, interest in National Urban Policies was largely monitored after recognition of cities as concentration of development challenges and economic opportunities (Friendly 2016). In the UK in the 1980s, urban policy mainly focused on neighbourhood renewal, and later in 1991–1996 on the city challenge with emphasis on disadvantaged groups and leveraging on public and private sector investments to transform deprived areas through physical investments. Netherland’s urban policies in the 1990s were focused on preventing increased economic recession witnessed in large cities in the 1970s and 1980s, as expressed by two Dutch government policy initiatives, i.e. Social Renewal in the early 1990s and the Large Cities Policy from 1995. Similar initiatives with focus on social cohesion, sustainable development and urban regeneration were evident through Belgium’s Big Cities Policy (Politique des Grandes Villes/Grootstedenbelaid) launched in the late 1990s. Similarly, federal system of Australia’s “Better Cities Programme” focused on improving urban development process, particularly the quality of urban life, neighbourhood renewal, public transport improvement and the redevelopment of underutilised urban land. South Africa developed its new urban policies in 1994, the beginning of postApartheid era. Tackling inequalities inherited from Apartheid in South Africa’s space economy and developing more sustainable cities were key focuses of urban policies in the second half of the 1990s (Turok and Parnell 2009). The country’s Urban Development Framework (UDF) was among first policy statements explicitly concerned with urban issues in the country. In most other countries, development and implementation of explicit urban policies during this period were a challenge due to vast urban problems and amorphous collection of physical and social conditions in modern society posing difficulties in policy development, but also due to the need to define policy spatially and functionally (Lawrence et al. 2010).

3.3.2 Resurgent Interest in National Urban Policies (2000 and Beyond) Contemporary urban policies in European context are more directly linked to the sustained growth of cities and challenges related to their coordination in the nineteenth

62

M. Kinyanjui

and twentieth centuries. The lack of coherent National Urban Policy in many countries, e.g. Sweden, meant that elements of urban policies were covered in different sector policies such as housing, labour market, regional, transport and environmental policies (Nilsson 2007). Such urban policies moved between ministries, and their focus changed with time and often did achieve results diametrically opposed to stated aims of cities. In Korea, for example, the World Bank recognises that policies that denied concentration and focused on decentralising population to suburban areas were unsuitable in solving urban problems. In developed countries, such policies have induced urban sprawl by creating car-oriented urban environments wasting much energy and resources in achieving the policy goals (Scruggs 2017). Similarly, plans with rigid economic frameworks, e.g. 1982 Zanzibar Master Plan, as discussed later in book led to weak urban–rural integration causing sprawl and poor coordination of urban development actors. The twenty-first century has seen resurgence of cities and city regions magnified by deepening trends of globalisation, coming to the fore as important functional components of the world system and also struggling to consolidate competitive advantages (Scott 2008). The globalisation pressures need to address associated challenges and to assert the positive role of urbanisation in national development and provide an overarching coordinating framework led to renewed international interest in National Urban Policies and aimed to maximise on benefits of urbanisation and mitigate inequalities and potential adverse externalities (Friendly 2016; UN-Habitat 2014). The resurgent motivation stemmed from increased recognition that most national interests are shaped and influenced by urban conditions, hence urgent need to manage them. Comparatively, the new-generation National Urban Policies differ from the previous period policies in intent and delivery (Dodson 2011). They are more aware of the gravity of urban issues, more ambitious in scope and more integrated into approach (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). They take cognizance of cities not only as engines of national economies, but as places concentrated with urban poverty and socio-spatial polarisation, where economic and social issues play out, hence offering best lens for national governments to develop their policy agenda (Friendly 2016). Furthermore, they provide a framework for urban growth in ways that deal with emerging urban challenges, while still improving governance, productivity, shared prosperity, well-being, livability and ecological sustainability (Turok 2015; Kelly 2013; Ludlam 2013). Thus, they are an essential framework for all governments to help establish connection between demographic changes, urbanisation and the national development process (OECD 2014). The policies tend to promote more compact, socially inclusive, better connected and integrated cities and territories that foster sustainable urban development and are resilient to climate change (UN-Habitat 2014) and provide opportunity for greater level of coordination to deliver cities’ objectives (Kelly 2013) while ensuring public and private investment decisions are complementary, carefully sequenced and connected in space. In analysing their importance, UN-Habitat and OECD (2018) indicate that a successful NUP leads to transformations including:

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

63

• Increasing coherence of national and local policies for urban development; • Empowering local authorities by building capacity, rebalancing fiscal systems and building legal and political mandate; • Empowering communities and civil society organisations by providing tools for participatory policymaking, budgeting; monitoring and evaluating; • Improving investment in cities; • Fostering cooperation and collaboration across jurisdictions by overcoming metropolitan fragmentation and discouraging unnecessary competitions that could compromise revenue enhancement; • Achieving the ultimate aim of improving quality of life and well-being. Despite contextual variation and ways countries are applying it, NUP’s transformative nature and capacity are evident throughout the world. In Asia Pacific, majority of countries are using NUP as a technical transformative tool for managing urbanisation pressures and to achieve national development goals across a range of sectors (UN-Habitat 2015a). In Africa, few countries have developed NUP, but larger number perceived it as instrument for managing urbanisation and human settlements and as a key component of structural transformation (UN-Habitat 2017a). A large number of African countries are receiving technical support from UN-Habitat to formulate NUP. Furthermore, the need to tap transformative force of urbanisation and its vital opportunities is echoed in Africa’s Agenda 2063, which highlights opportunities offered by urbanisation, technology and trade as a springboard to ensure its transformation and renaissance to meet the people’s aspirations (AU 2015). Despite being affected by war and recurring civic conflicts, NUP in Arab states has recently became a motivation and an integral part of broader national development strategies to diversify economies and take advantage of opportunities offered by access to Eurozone (UN-Habitat 2017b). The Latin America and the Caribbean region are supported by diverse and innovative range of institutional, policy, regulatory and fiscal instruments to ensure their implementation, with particular interest on objectives such as social housing, curbing urban sprawl and addressing rural–urban linkages. Notable, however, is the transition from sectoral focus to more comprehensive and integrated National Urban Policies as reflected in institutional arrangements of most of countries (UN-Habitat 2017c).

64

M. Kinyanjui

3.4 National Urban Policy in the Global Context Globalisation, knowledge economy and urbanisation are transforming the world and are placing cities at the core of development agenda. New urban hierarchies are emerging at national and international levels, presenting major challenges to traditional forms of territorial policies (spatial and regional development) (OECD 2017). Cities need to adequately respond to these changes and therefore require strong frameworks for developing NUP. They need to be more global and human as well. Their competitiveness and capacity to deliver services need to be enhanced by effectively designing and implementing the right urban policies that could help respond to a more global world and its emerging urban challenges including population growth, energy transition, climate change, migration and enhancement of their attractiveness to encourage economic growth. Cities are important in linking economic globalisation to human development (UN-Habitat 2011). They possess huge potential for wealth, innovation and social change for it only within them that we have critical mass of people, ideas, skills and flexibility necessary for production. Cities are centres of trade, commerce, advanced culture and technology. They articulate economic relations of their surrounding fields into the global economy. Through their links to national, regional and global economy, they have the potential to improve well-being of societies. However, rather than being at the mercy of global capital, cities need to take advantage of their unique qualities to seek and attract investment. Recognising the economic importance of cities and appreciating that they have been penetrated by supranational forces, international institutions and decisions adding to challenges facing city leaders, nation states have become more involved in promoting their urban assets. In such cases, the role of national governments through the National Urban Policies becomes significant in integrating fragmented and sectoral interests within the city and in aligning the city economy with the global forces. Cities are better placed to analyse forces shaping national territory and think strategically about long-term possibilities and risks inherent in development patterns and uniquely positioned to lead in articulating shared vision for a country (Turok and Parnell 2009). On the flip side, nation states will likely need to act globally through their major city regions (Dodson 2011). This calls for the need for national governments to harmonise their respective policies and actions with those of city regions, and to design and implement them in partnership and closer consultation, and cooperation with city and municipal governments among other key actors. Internationally, National Urban Policies must deal with and coordinate response to complex urban and social challenges and opportunities emanating from globalisation. They have been recognised tools for the implementation and monitoring of global urban agendas, such as the New Urban Agenda and city-related Sustainable Development Goals,1 Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework. Its selection as one of ten thematic Policy Units, in preparation for the Third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III), is demonstrative 1 http://www.oecd.org/gov/national-urban-policies.htm.

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

65

of the NUP recognition and relevance at the international stage. Thus, NUP offers key opportunities to establish connection between dynamics of urbanisation and processes of national and international development for the next decades.

3.4.1 National Urban Policy (NUP) and Implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is a global development agenda that lays out 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be achieved by 2030. The SDGs address key sustainability issues such as poverty, climate change, inequality, economic development and ecosystem protection. Considering the world is increasingly becoming urban, achieving sustainable urban development will be a key in achieving the global SDGs. Due to its ability to provide structure and organisation to the process of urbanisation and its value as a tool to capitalise on the opportunities of urbanisation, the National Urban Policy has been identified as a key tool to support the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs. The adoption of SDGs with the “cities goal” (SDG 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable) is a clear international recognition of the need for sustainable urban growth. NUP is relevant to this goal and other SDGs that have an urban dimension including six on sanitation and eight on economic development, among others as shown in Fig. 3.5. Quoting a study by Prof. Misselwitz, Cities Alliance (2015), argues that up to 65% of the SDG targets are at risk of not getting achieved should local urban stakeholders not get assigned a clear mandate and role in the implementation process. Further, digital technologies under the smart city initiative give an opportunity to develop intelligent and inclusive urban systems which would drive success to many SDGs

Fig. 3.5 Highlight of SDGs that can be achieved through NUP (UN-Habitat)

66

M. Kinyanjui

including SDG 11. Transition to such cities requires coordination and collaboration through NUP. In some countries such as Iran, integration of SDG 11 targets into the National Urban Policy and planning mechanisms has been done, while the Department of Urban and Regional Planning (DoURP) in Zanzibar intends to make NUP an umbrella of urban development and exploit its formulation and implementation to strongly anchor SDG targets and the NUA in development of the Island.

3.4.2 Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) Adopted during Habitat III in Quito in October 2016, the NUA is universal in scope, participatory and people-centred and protects the planet, with long-term vision, priorities and actions at global, regional, national, subnational and local levels for government and other stakeholders to adopt based on their needs. NUP has been highlighted as the most relevant part of the NUA2 and recognised as an essential tool for governments and other stakeholders to help achieve sustainable urbanisation. Its vertical and horizontal linkages create an enabling institutional environment, help mobilise stakeholders, assess and build their capacities and define a clear urban vision for a country. Thus, to achieve national NUA targets, national governments need commitment towards developing and implementing National Urban Policies. NUP participatory nature encourages validation by governments and stakeholders making it inclusive and sustainable. Equally undeniable is the significant role of ICTs in urbanisation. This offers key opportunities through smart approaches to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, sustainable and important aspects for effective NUA implementation. The UN-Habitat’s Action Framework for Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (AFINUA) sets out the essential ingredients for implementation of the agenda and also underlines the forgotten role of national governments as determinants of quality of urbanisation in many aspects of the theory of urbanisation. The Action Framework has thirty-five key elements grouped into five thematic categories including: National Urban Policies (NUPs); urban legislation, rules and regulations; urban planning and design; urban economy and municipal finance; and local implementation, Fig. 3.6. Across all elements are the principles of participation and governance. National Urban Policies link strongly with at least two other categories in the AFINUA, i.e. (i) urban legislation, rules and regulations without which NUPs cannot be implemented and (ii) local implementation, which relies on the integration of policies and plans at all then levels that NUPs can provide.

2 Dr.

Joan Clos, Former Executive Director of UN-Habitat and Secretary General of the Habitat III Conference.

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

67

Fig. 3.6 Action framework for implementation of New Urban Agenda. Source UN-Habitat et al. (2018)

3.4.3 National Urban Policy and Implementation of the Paris Agreement Climate change provides great challenges for environmental sustainability, structure of economies, patterns of settlements, livelihoods and employment. The Paris Agreement adopted at the United National Climate Change Conference (COP21) builds upon the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and brings countries to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effect, with an aim to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change and strengthening the ability of countries to deal with its impacts. With increasing majority of populations living in cities, they then must be the centre of actions to tackle climate change and key decisive places for reducing carbon emissions to sustainable levels. Though no accurate statements about scale of urban emissions available, as there are no globally accepted methods to determine their magnitude (UN-Habitat 2011), cities consume about 78% of world’s energy and produce between 60 and 70% of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions (UN-Habitat 2011, 2016a). They also bear the brunt of climate-related disaster risks. Thus, they must be decisive places where carbon emission to sustainable levels must be achieved. However, it also worth noting

68

M. Kinyanjui

that smart cities will be centres of excellence for sustainability to help countries achieve their targets and avert climate change as indicated in Korea case study where “Low-Carbon Green City (LCGC)” has become a central element for sustainable urban development for the nation. With COP21 mandate on urban areas, NUP is an important instrument to coordinate and align mechanisms across different levels of government (national and local) in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating climate policies for the implementation of the Paris Agreement. It is an important tool for government to support cities in adaptation and mitigation efforts to enhance livability and resilience to impacts of climate change among other environmental threats. UN-Habitat’s policy guide tool on important linkages between NUP and climate change offers a normative guidance to decision-makers on how to incorporate climate change in such policies (UN-Habitat 2016a).

3.4.4 Implementation of Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 outlines clear targets and priorities for action to prevent new and reduce existing disaster risks. With an aim of increasing the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies, enabling guiding and coordinating the role of national and federal state governments and empowering local authorities and communities to reduce disaster risks, the National Urban Policy would be an important tool in conducting urban vulnerability assessments and making residents aware of their environment by among others recognising the social capital inherent in the city and regions and that cover socio-economic physical and environmental factors, hence enhancing holistic disaster management at all levels (UN-Habitat 2016a). Successive chapters discussed in this book indicate importance of promotion of the principles of global frameworks (Habitat III, SDG and COP 21) as related to national urbanisation policies. Experiences from Germany with integrated economic, ecological and social aspects are part of the 2030 Agenda helping implement the SDGs. This is also evident from the Germany’s National Climate Initiative (NCI), which since 2009 has provided advice and financial incentives to municipalities towards promoting multilevel governance, strengthening vertical and horizontal policy coordination and sharing of good practices on climate change adaptation and mitigation measures among municipalities (UNESCAP et al. 2015). In most of the chapters, the role of NUP towards development of smart and green cities has been discussed. In Korea case study discussed later in the book, “the National Strategy for Low-Carbon Green Growth (NSLCGG)”, which will be the guiding policies up until 2050, has threefold objectives to mitigate climate change and promote energy independence; create new engines for economic growth; and improve the quality of life; and enhance Korea’s international standard. Recognising

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

69

the critical role of cities in achieving green growth goals, the national government also set sectoral strategies and priorities relevant to green city development with green growth policy agenda that includes green buildings, green transport and green urban planning as key urban components. Though in development process, the culturebased strategy at the basis of Zanzibar NUP adopts and fully embraces ideas of green and smart city. On the other hand, a strong commitment of France in NUP development has had key impacts in promoting principles of global urban agenda and its impacts in promoting sustainable and inclusive urbanisation through the use of smart and green urbanisation principles.

3.5 Harnessing Urbanisation: The New-Generation National Urban Policies (NUPs) 3.5.1 New-Generation National Urban Policies Rapid urbanisation, albeit not sufficient by itself, creates opportunities for countries resulting in prosperous national economies. Clearly, well-planned urbanisation is correlated with job and wealth creation, infrastructure development and services provision, and economic benefits that go beyond cities to contribute to aggregated growth at both regional and national levels (UN 2016). Further, it presents a major opportunity for industrialisation through raising demands and shifting the patterns of consumption (UNECA 2017). However, urbanisation benefits can only be harnessed and externalities mitigated when coordinated approach and clear urban policy and planning that embraces scope beyond the boundaries of the city core are put in place (UN-Habitat 2015b; AU 2015). Given its broader approach to planning and policy and its higher level of vertical and horizontal coordination, the National Urban Policy is a tool that national governments can use to direct, control and coordinate nationwide urbanisation (UN-Habitat 2015b, 2016b); see Box 3.1. Such nationwide approach and framework do not replace local urban policies but complement them to create the necessary condition for sustainable urban development. Furthermore, institutional arrangements in NUP framework ensure coherence of sectors and also develop creative partnerships to tackle complex urban challenges in a more coordinated way towards achieving desired outcomes (UN-Habitat 2016b). Box 3.1. Reasons Why National Urban Policies (NUPs) Matter UN-Habitat defines NUP as “A coherent set of decisions derived through a deliberate government-led process of coordinating and rallying various actors for a common vision and goal that promote more transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban development for the long term”. It is a government

70

M. Kinyanjui

tool to manage and direct rapid urbanisation and tap its positive effects. Some important arguments on why NUP matters include: 1. Is a development tool that helps address key urban development questions; 2. Defines a common vision for urbanisation in a country; 3. Is pro-people process focused on increasing opportunities for all, equity and freedom of choice; 4. Can be used by central government to provide guidance for a transforming society with cities as engine of growth; 5. Triggers harmonisation and coordination of the urbanisation process; 6. Can be the basis for national legislation related to emerging towns, cities and metropolitan areas; 7. Is a proactive policy with potential to shape the good and desired patterns of urbanisation; 8. Provides a framework for effective collaboration between national and subnational governments; 9. Supports the implementation of the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals; 10. Provides overarching coordinating framework to address urban challenges; 11. Strengthens the link between urbanisation and socio-economic development and environmental sustainability; 12. Is better placed to provide an effective management framework to build legal foundations, institutional capacities, administrative procedures and financial instruments for sustainable urbanisation; 13. Can manage the peripheral expansion of cities in the interests of encouraging higher density and more integrated urban development; 14. Provides countries with required framework to understand urban growth pressures and to prevent dysfunctional physical form; 15. Can strengthen connectivity and cooperation between cities and towns. Source Adapted from UN-Habitat (2018b)

Phases of the New-Generation National Urban Policy Process The value of the new-generation NUP not only is in the policy product, but also lies in the process. The process is flexible enough to be adapted to specific country needs and contexts. UN-Habitat (2015b) recommends that a comprehensive NUP should go through all five phases: feasibility, diagnosis, formulation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation, Fig. 3.7. Notable, however, is the fact that policy development is often fluid and nonlinear; thus, the five phases are not absolute in practice but their functions overlap, thus important to never consider a phase as finished or complete but imperative to consider all phases throughout the process. Feasibility Phase: The phase is essential to make the case for NUP and determine its viability. It offers the opportunity to highlight value addition and build political

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

71

Fig. 3.7 National Urban Policy process

goodwill and stakeholder support for the NUP. This is important in setting the vision for a NUP. Diagnosis Phase: Diagnostic phase helps understand the country context, policy problems, challenges and opportunities, clarifies the policy goals and maps the existing stakeholders. Diagnostic phase helps to ensure policy decisions made in the formulation phase are informed and based on research and evidence. Formulation Phase: This is the phase where NUP proposals are drafted. It is the phase where evaluation of policy options is made and decisions regarding the way in which the policy goals will be achieved undertaken. Furthermore, an assessment of human, financial and institutional capacity based on the policy proposal is undertaken. Implementation Phase: NUP implementation phase involves translating policy proposals and plans developed through the diagnostic and formulation phases into action. Success of the phase is dependent on clear understanding of the legislative and administrative landscape, a clear implementation plan with delegation of roles and responsibilities and decentralisation and devolution of financial and governance power to lower tiers to aid in implementation. Monitoring and Evaluation Phase: NUP monitoring and evaluation phase should not be considered the “last” phase in the policy process. Monitoring should be periodically throughout the policy’s lifecycle. Evaluation of both the process and outcome is important to ensure institutional learning for future policymaking processes. Key Pillars of New National Urban Policy Additional to the five phases, UN-Habitat NUP process is based on three key pillars: participation, acupuncture projects and capacity development, whose use and implementation should be considered throughout all the phases if sustainability and effectiveness of the policy are to be achieved.

72

M. Kinyanjui

1. Participation: Integrating inclusive public participation throughout the policy formulation process is one of the key pillars of UN-Habitat’s approach to NUP. Such inclusive participatory practices not only increase public inputs to programmes and policies, but continuously involve community in coproducing processes, policies and programmes for defining and addressing public issues (UN-Habitat 2015d). 2. Acupuncture Projects: Grounding policy through acupuncture projects is the third pillar of UN-Habitat’s NUP process. Acupuncture projects ensure that policy action is being translated into direct action and that policy directives are relevant and implementable. Through the relevant small-scale interventions, urban acupuncture can produce catalytic change in the urban planning and policy spheres. 3. Capacity Development: Integrating capacity development at all levels of government is necessary for building sustainable policy. According to UN-Habitat (2015d) to develop sustainable and implementable policy, capacity development must be integrated into the NUP process and not viewed not as just an add-on or an afterthought. UN-Habitat advocates integration of capacity development in the NUP process not only to promote the development of sustainable policy, but also in order to promote the sustainability of the capacity development process itself through institutionalisation. However, to be effective, capacity development needs to be linked with urban development objectives. Thematic Enablers of New National Urban Policy To establish the connection between the dynamics of urbanisation and the overall process of national development, and in order to support positive urbanisation patterns that can help attain productivity, competitiveness and prosperity in cities, the new-generation National Urban Policies focus on three key thematic operational enablers—urban legislation, urban economy and urban planning (UN-Habitat 2016b). The operational enablers are themes that, if considered through the urbanisation process, will play key roles in promoting more sustainable, prosperous and productive urbanisation. Due to this intrinsic role that each of the enablers plays, they form the backbone of any new-generation NUP. Intrinsically, to implement new-generation NUP, clear and coherent policy and legislative frameworks upon which urban laws are anchored are required. In countries where weak governance frameworks exist, regulatory reforms are needed for effective implementation of NUP; otherwise, it would be a major impediment to effective design and implementation of urban policies across the different policy planning levels. Cities are not only drivers of economic growth, but a lack of adequate financial resources at the national and subnational levels hinders the potential for enhanced management of urbanisation (UN 2016) resulting in weak economic development and related urban poverty. Thus, sustainable flow of resources is a necessary condition to unlock endogenous financial resources to achieve sustainable urbanisation. Furthermore, how such resources are raised and allocated can also compromise the

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

73

efficacy of urban policies. The new-generation NUP addresses city financing through promoting mechanisms of private and public financing while also addressing imbalances caused by various economic and social conditions. By organising laws and institutions based on productivity and ensuring that urban investments are effectively made and managed, NUP will ensure improved city performance shaping the competitiveness of a country (UN-Habitat 2012b). Further, they create strong connection between economic development policies and other urban policies and apply strategies that promote local economic development and effective municipal finance systems. Rapid and uncontrolled urban growth puts pressure on land and natural resources and also increases negative environmental impact (UN-Habitat 2016b). This results from mismatch of local needs, urban designs and plans and the national urban planning frameworks. New-generation NUP would promote policies that stimulate development of planned compact cities that support green economy towards achieving sustainable settlements (UN-Habitat 2012a). They would emphasise the need for and empower local governments to ensure efficient land use planning and management, while also creating attractive and functional urban environments through integrated long-term urban planning and designs that extends beyond given political cycles (UN 2016). Addressing Selected Urbanisation Challenges New-generation urban policies have the capacity to foster inclusion in cities mainly by addressing spatial dimension of inequality within and among cities, and mainly by involving all sectors and actors across the urban divide. Urbanisation, particularly in developing countries, is characterised by growth in urban informal sector economies as well as informal housing. To promote sustainable and inclusive urban settlements, legislative frameworks must encompass informality, offering protection to those whose homes and livelihoods are informal. The new-generation National Urban Policy supports the development of national and city-wide slum upgrading strategies. This promotes positive mindset towards slum dwellers and sets an inclusive and “pro-poor” tone for subsequent legislation, regulation and planning frameworks. Furthermore, it offers a coordinating tool to support and strengthen the institutional set-up required for successful national and city-wide slum upgrading strategies, Box 3.2. It creates strategic entry points for improving all urban lives including slum dwellers in an environment that is more integrated and functional (UN-Habitat 2015c). Box 3.2: Quick Guide for Participatory, City-Wide Slum Upgrading: Supporting National and City-Wide Slum Upgrading and Prevention Through National Urban Policy This quick guide provides urban decision-makers with the key messages and actions as to why a National Urban Policy is an important process and outcome to support improvements to the lives of slum dwellers. The guide outlines

74

M. Kinyanjui

how a National Urban Policy supports the development of national and citywide slum upgrading strategies. A National Urban Policy can help promote a positive mindset towards slum dwellers and thus set an inclusive and “propoor” tone for subsequent legislation, regulation and planning frameworks. The guide notes that both National Urban Policy and the development of city-wide slum upgrading strategies should be mutually enforcing processes. Both are important institutional developments that help foster the necessary institutional arrangements, platforms and forums to engage all key stakeholders, all of which work to improve the lives of slum dwellers. Source UN-Habitat (2015c) As more people and assets concentrate in cities, there are increasing opportunities for development and growth not to mention the complex array of shocks and stresses, influencing their resilience. Consumption of land and world’s energy resources and resultant production of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions have negative consequences on the environment. Achieving sustainable urban development requires access by governments and stakeholders to tools that empower them to understand and coordinate the “urban system”. The new-generation National Urban Policies play important roles within adaptation and mitigation strategies and can raise or lower the costs of urban climate change efforts; see Box 3.3 on UN-Habitat’s Policy Guide for Low-Carbon and Climate-Resilient Urban Development. Box 3.3: Addressing Climate Change in National Urban Policy: A Policy Guide for Low-Carbon and Climate-Resilient Urban Development Addressing climate change in cities and human settlements represents one of the most pressing challenges facing urban policy-makers today. The policy guide is addressed primarily to decision-makers and stakeholders engaged in the formulation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of National Urban Policy. It contains action-oriented recommendations that can assist all National Urban Policy stakeholders to better understand the intersection between National Urban Policy and climate change and recommends how to mainstream such considerations into National Urban Policy, thus helping to empower national governments, local governments and other stakeholders to effectively address climate change. Source UN-Habitat (2016a) On the other hand, public space generates equality, including streets and open spaces which are also means to cities’ prosperity. As a common public good, it is of paramount importance that government defend and maintain public space. To this end, a new-generation National Urban Policy provides a framework for the provision and protection of public space for all (Box 3.4).

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

75

As discussed earlier in the chapter, the importance and relevance of the newgeneration NUP in national development are further articulated by the Global Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11.a. anticipates development of National Urban Policies that are connected to local actions if member states are to achieve more transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban development, as well as meet globally agreed responsibilities such as the New Urban Agenda (NUA). Box 3.4: Mainstreaming Public Space in National Urban Policy: A Quick Thematic Guide for Mainstreaming Safe, Inclusive and Accessible Public Spaces for All Public spaces are a vital ingredient for successful cities. They help build a sense of community, civic identity and culture. They facilitate social capital, economic development and community revitalisation. The guide is addressed primarily to policymakers and stakeholders involved in formulating, implementing, monitoring and evaluating National Urban Policy (NUP) at national city and local levels and offers guidance on how public space should be mainstreamed into National Urban Policies. The guide contains action-oriented recommendations that can assist policymakers better address challenges related to management of public spaces. Source UN-Habitat (2018c)

3.5.2 Explicit Versus Partial National Urban Policies While urban policies can be context specific, distinction is made between “explicit” and “partial” National Urban Policies. According to UN-Habitat and OECD (2018), explicit National Urban Policies are observed where a policy has a title of “National Urban Policy” or a variant such as “National Urbanisation Policy” or “National Urban Strategy” or “National Urban Development Strategy”. Explicit NUP has all its elements directed to cities. On the other hand, partial NUPs refer to a policy in which many of the NUP elements exist but are not brought together as a formal, or “explicit”, NUP. Some partial NUPs have potential to achieve outcomes of explicit NUP; clearly formulated NUPs achieve larger degree of coherence of different urban policies undertaken at the national level. A combination of explicit spatial policies and competent institutions can help rally support for urban growth, secure resources through creating a more predictable environment for investors and help prevent careless and haphazard development that generates negative externalities (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). On the other hand, partial policies—housing policy, transport policy among other—have rare consideration on spatial planning policy and have not formed a comprehensive policy targeted explicitly on cities

76

M. Kinyanjui

(Friendly 2016). According to UN-Habitat (2009), such sectoral policies need to be more flexible and adaptable to realities of cities and towns. Despite the benefits in national development, most countries have tackled urban issues with a complete mix of policies. Within the European Union, for example, some countries like the UK, France and Netherlands have developed “explicit” urban policy while others have tackled urban problems through adaptation of mainstream programmes at the local level (e.g. Denmark) and while others (like Spain, Portugal and Italy) have neither (Atkinson 2001). Those with explicit policy appear to have been determined by the extent and political visibility of urban economic decline and its related effects in urban development. In the UK, for example, explicit National Urban Policies have existed since the 1960s to respond to growing concentration of disadvantaged groups within the city (Atkinson 2001; Friendly 2016). In some countries such as Denmark and Portugal, a mix of partial and explicit urban policies exists. According to Richardson (1987), this can be resolved through coordinating ministries and actors involved in their implementation or by institutional reorganisation at the central government to take urban policy away from narrow sectoral ministry to a “key decision” agency and integrate it into the whole development planning process, and improving awareness of the partial spatial impacts of “non-urban” policies. In an analysis of urban policies in African countries, Turok and Parnell (2009) and Turok (2015) note that despite rapid urbanisation beyond capacities of local authorities in the continent, most governments have for long found it difficult to introduce explicit policies to deal with intra-urban development challenges and potential due to political, institutional and technical reasons and partly due to policy neglect, rooted in a perverse sense of anti-urban bias, and confusion about the difference between urbanisation and urban policies. Until recently, South Africa, for example, faced tensions and dilemmas in introduction of explicit NUP owing to robust local authorities in the country (Smit and Pieterse 2014). However, to build prosperous countries that are based on productivity, accord across sectors, direct the efforts of actors and offer leadership in addressing pressing issues (Friendly 2016), development of explicit urban policies is needed. With an increasing global awareness on the need to sustainably manage urbanisation process, adoption of explicit policies is gradually growing. Recent global analysis of 150 NUPs indicated a rise in explicit NUPs as compared to the traditional practices of managing urban development through partial policies. The analysis identified evenly divided forms of NUPs with 51% being explicit as compared to 49% partial NUPs; see Fig. 3.8. Substantial variation was observed in their regional distribution with Arab states having the highest rate (58%) as compared to Europe and North America with lowest rate, 30% of explicit NUPs. This largely corresponds with the varied urbanisation rates in the regions. Majority (51%) of the explicit NUPs are still in the early policy stages—feasibility, diagnostic and formulation—as compared to 74% of partial NUPs already in implementation, monitoring and evaluation stages (UN-Habitat 2018a).

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

77

Fig. 3.8 Different forms of NUP at regional scale. Source UN-Habitat and OECD (2018)

3.5.3 National Urban Policy for Smart and Green Cities

Conceptualising Smart Cities There has been no consensus on the definition of a “smart city” as the discourse is still evolving. Attempts to define the concept have focused on the smartness provided by advances in information technology in managing various city functions, and lately the scope has widened to include the outcome of the smart city such as sustainability, quality of life and services to the citizens (Arkalgud et al. 2017). UNHabitat (2019) defines smart city as a compact, connected, socially inclusive and resilient city that leverages the power of technology, data and innovation to improve the quality of life of residents and to coordinate and integrate urban management. In most of the definitions however, the innovative use of technology which has been on the increase in the twenty-first century to enhance effectiveness of urban systems is underscored, with most approaches aimed to integrate urban planning, physical infrastructure, urban facilities, service provision and ICT infrastructure into management and provision of critical public utilities and services. They have been keen on spatial management in the context of rapid urbanisation, promotion of growth and protecting environment from degradation. According to UN (2017), smart cities have been viewed more as a process rather than as a static outcome, through which citizen engagement, hard infrastructure, social capital and digital technologies “make cities more livable and resilient and, hence, able to respond quickly to new challenges”. Thus, where applied, smart city approaches have had a significant impact on the growth and competitiveness of cities and national economies. National Urban Policies for Smart Cities Smart and sustainable cities need to be planned, designed, implemented and managed effectively. In an effort to realise smart city approaches, local and national leaders attempt to establish tangible smart city strategies. Such strategies should be embedded in the overall urban vision and especially incorporated into National Urban Policy. A National Urban Policy is an important tool for considering how smart city principles can be incorporated into urban policies and that is available for governments that seek

78

M. Kinyanjui

to manage and direct rapid urbanisation, and to turn it into a positive effect while accommodating its inevitable challenges. Ideally, the strategy for smart city should be intertwined in core urban initiatives. In most cities where smart city policies have been implemented successfully, the frameworks of smart city are shared with those of NUP. In recent years, smart city has been discussed actively, especially in governments of rapidly developing countries as an intelligent way of governance. Thus, in creation of smart cities, diversity and inclusiveness are emphasised as is a requirement in the participation pillar of the NUP process. Participatory processes that consider citizens’ needs and the priorities at the diagnosis of urban problems and use of inclusive smart city frameworks and technologies provide inclusion opportunities for all including underprivileged groups in the urban areas, hence ensuring their sustained and consistent participation and support. Such inclusion helps eliminate digital divide evident in many countries. Furthermore, there is a need to enhance awareness on how to make use of such technologies and how to transform their lives. To ensure co-designed smart city solutions respond to citizen needs, preliminary pilot acupuncture projects rather than a full-sized and radical application may be needed whose implementation and evaluation would enable adjustment of the countries’ smart city strategy to enhance its effectiveness in the long run. Integrated smart city solutions make extensive use of data that need to be collected, processed and shared in real time and that should be accessible to all citizens. The presence or absence of legitimate and robust data at national and local levels, as well as the degree and quality of monitoring and evaluating of such information, can either advance or hinder urbanisation. Availability of such data presents new opportunities for urban leaders. Conversely, NUPs are essential to realising the potential of “smart city” initiatives and to improve urban performance through the right balance between data accessibility (allowing for “open data”) and privacy, as well as encouraging the use of smart solutions to promote economic and social inclusion as well as efficiency and sustainability. NUP not only would help in protecting, controlling and assessing the quality of data but would be important in redefining its governance and management. Creation of security safeguards to protect against the abuse of personal data including its possible use to discriminate individuals or populations would be ensured during NUP formulation. Assessing and providing necessary capacity development for NUP, particularly related to the integration of smart city into the policy, is one of the most integral components of the policy development process. In this regard, capacity development of all stakeholders for effective smart city strategy is a key requirement. This includes awareness on use and how smart city technologies affect urban life of different stakeholders and the successful development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the smart city strategy by all the necessary stakeholders. In many countries, public sector organisations take lead on most smart city projects but get constrained budgets, siloed agencies and teams—with their own data, technology assets and missions often struggling to work efficiently and holistically in pursuit of a common goal (Ricci 2018). In support of such initiatives where public sector organisations need to partner with enterprises from key industries to support

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

79

smart city initiatives, the new generation of urban policy reaches beyond the traditional boundaries of the city and fosters stronger linkages and creative partnerships outside of the public sector to tackle such complex urban problems in a coordinated way. Furthermore, engaging in such partnerships increases the visibility of the smart city strategy through the urban policy and therefore increases the number of potential partnerships which could bring additional resources (UN-Habitat 2015d) on the table to realise the strategy. Analysis of urban policies in countries such as Australia indicates they have already revised their NUP to integrate smart city agenda to enhance productivity, sustainability and liveability. Their Smart Cities Plan informs planning and investment in the country’s large cities through three key pillars of smart investment, smart policy and smart technology (OECD 2017). Similarly, drawing from Singapore case study, discussed later in this book, it is evident that smart cities cannot be achieved without concomitant improvement to governance and how policies are implemented if such strategies have to have improvement in society and the local economy. National Urban Policies for Green Cities Many countries in the world are striving for economic growth and transformation. Such growth can and should be green by ensuring natural assets continue to provide services on which human well-being depends on and strengthen resilience of the economy to environmental stresses (Brahmbhatt et al. 2017). However, in many cities, ineffective production and consumption patterns and practices linked to economic growth pose serious problems by imposing different demands on natural assets and the environment. In responding to these challenges, countries’ urbanisation pattern is very important to be restructured with more compact, well-connected cities with good public transit systems being more energy efficient and competitive than sprawling and poorly planned cities. Key challenge to most governments is how to develop and implement policies that advance economic transformation and green growth at the same time. In addressing some of these challenges, Brahmbhatt et al. (2017) highlight key green policies among them strengthening market incentives to preserve natural capital across the whole economy; expanding green infrastructure; increasing infrastructure efficiency; and adopting green urban policies. To enhance green growth, NUP would guide cities that are planned to operate in collaboration with nature and their growth achieves appropriate densities reducing impacts on ecosystem by slowing urban expansion onto ecologically sensitive land and can reduce citizens’ demand for scarce resources. Such cities have efficient urban forms that are more compact, better connected, boost energy efficiency and curb pollution. Furthermore, such policies would optimise provision of infrastructural services, such as energy, water and waste treatment, and demonstrate how infrastructure investments catalyse urban sustainability and how city regions can be optimally planned to achieve economic objectives without waste of local resources (UN-Habitat 2012a, b, c, d). Further, Gouldson et al. (2015) postulate that adopting more compact, connected and efficient forms of urban development would not only stimulate economic activity, attract investment and improve air quality and public

80

M. Kinyanjui

health but also enhance safety, help to reduce poverty and avoid all the substantial costs associated with sprawl—all while making a significant contribution to global climate change mitigation.

3.5.4 Strengthening Capacities for Effective National Urban Policies Preparing and implementing NUP are a complex policy undertaking with a range of challenges arising from feasibility of monitoring and evaluation stages. It represents both a technical and a political process, and combining technical strength with political commitment and support from stakeholders is necessary if the process is to be transformative. The process places emphasis on stakeholder consultation and participation. Managing such expectations and ensuring effective participation at the different stages are equally a daunting task. The lead national agency responsible for NUP has to have required capability and needs to be adequately resourced and financed, to coordinate NUP among different planning sectors. However, as evident in case studies discussed in the publication, many governments face technical capacity challenges in urban policy formulation and their implementation. Inadequate skills, financial resources and institutional capacities in national and subnational government levels have been highlighted as among the key challenges to developing and successfully implementing NUP. This has further compounded coordinated governance between national and subnational levels and between ministries with urban responsibilities. Thorough capacity assessment and development to ensure NUP can be successfully developed, implemented, and monitored and evaluated by all levels of government are always advocated for if they have to successfully implement National Urban Policies. UN-Habitat, Cities Alliance and OECD, through the National Urban Policy Programme (NUPP), have been offering specialised skills and guidance to governments to be able to successfully undertake the NUP process. As indicated in Fig. 3.9, the National Urban Policy Programme works to bridge capacity gaps and also endeavours to solve problem of lack of data, knowledge and tools by providing a forum for knowledge creation, exchange and management, hence building a foundation of knowledge and evidence on urban policy and planning. Furthermore, the programme provides technical assistance and advisory services on the design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of NUP and its associated processes. UN-Habitat has further developed an Urban Policy Platform where menu of tool, services and experiences on formulation of National Urban Policies among other information on planning support can be accessed as indicated in Box 3.5.

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

Fig. 3.9 National Urban Policy Programme (NUPP). Source UN-Habitat and OECD (2018)

Box 3.5: Urban Policy Platform The Urban Policy Platform is facilitated by UN-Habitat and provides tools and services to support national governments, regional and metropolitan authorities in areas of expertise such as National Urban Policies, Urban and Territorial Planning and Regional and Metropolitan Planning. The platform contains UN-Habitat’s tools and services towards National Urban Policy Development, National Urban Policy Global and Regional reports and the UN-Habitat National Urban Policy Database that provides a global overview of the state of urban policy at the national level.

81

82

M. Kinyanjui

Urban Policy Platform is accessible through: Source http://urbanpolicyplatform.org/national-urban-policy/ Despite the fact that no urbanisation policy fits it all, the programme provides a platform for governments and relevant stakeholders to network and engage among themselves and to learn from experiences of the different countries regarding the processes of developing and implementing NUP. Furthermore, in-country and transnational peer-to-peer learning within and across governments and other stakeholders, and partnership opportunities with relevant institutions including academic, private sectors, NGOs, civil society organisations, among others, can enhance knowledge sharing and promote capacity-building.

3.6 Conclusion Cities worldwide are important drivers and fulcrums for sustainable development. However, in most economies, capacity to attract and retain such benefits is largely weakened and undermined by rising and related urbanisation externalities. Further, such situations are made lack of sustainable urban policies to reap and equally share such benefits. The above analysis of new-generation NUP, their evolution, challenges, opportunities and their contribution to smart and green cities clearly indicates the importance and powerful role of NUP in shaping national urbanisation processes and its contribution to development of productive and prosperous cities. Thus to address the challenges and harness on existing opportunities, a raft of new-generation urban policies to promote economic growth and competitiveness, improve social cohesion and promote sustainable development and quality of life in cities is more critical than ever before. Additionally, new-generation NUP is an essential tool to build management systems on how smart city principles can be incorporated into urban policies, to realise the potential initiatives and improve urban performance as well as use of smart solutions to promote social inclusion, economic efficiency and environmental sustainability. With remarkably different contexts these policies differ from one country to the other, all the policies have developed over time with an aim of getting the city right. They focus on delivering cities that are more compact, socially inclusive, better connected and integrated, and that foster sustainable urban development. As indicated and discussed in the fourteen (14) case studies (Afghanistan, China, France, Germany, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Lusophone countries, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and Zanzibar) later in this publication, governments across the globe recognise that National Urban Policies (NUPs) as opposed to piecemeal and reactive efforts provide a better coordinated framework

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

83

for dealing with the emerging urbanisation challenges and opportunities faced in these countries. Given that most city authorities are weak, fragmented and poorly resourced, the role of national governments in the urban policy formulation cannot be overemphasised, nor the NUP’s transformative nature underrated. Global awareness on their importance to help national and city governments coordinate response and deal with international challenges emanating from globalisation, and implement and monitor global urban agendas and frameworks has seen the rise in adoption of explicit National Urban Policies. The effective implementation of the New Urban Agenda, for example, rests on the quality of National Urban Policies, strategies or plans of action, which should be integrated into national development strategies and that require actions from cities and support from national and in some cases regional governments. However, if they have to be effective to address urban challenges, National Urban Policies have to anticipate and manage rapid urban growth and climate change and must be developed and implemented in a transparent and inclusive manner.

References AfDB, OECD, & UNDP. (2016). Sustainable cities and structural transformation. African Economic Outlook. OECD Publishing. Africa Union. (2015). Agenda 2063: The Africa we want: A shared strategic framework for inclusive growth and sustainable development. Addis Ababa: Africa Union Commission. Arkalgud, R., Sánchez-Ortiz, A., & Syn, T. (2017). A unified definition of a smart city. Berlin: Springer. Atkinson, R. (2001). The emerging ‘urban agenda’ and the European spatial development perspective: Towards an EU urban policy? European Planning Studies, 9(3), 385–406. Banji, O., & Kaushalesh, L. (2017). Structural transformation and economic development: Cross regional analysis of industrialization and urbanization. USA: Taylor Francis Inc. Brahmbhatt, M., Haddaoui, C., & Page, J. (2017). Green industrialisation and entrepreneurship in Africa. Contributing paper for African Economic Outlook 2017: Entrepreneurship and Industrialisation. London and Washington, DC: New Climate Economy. Available at: http:// newclimateeconomy.report/misc/working-papers. Cities Alliance. (2015). Sustainable development goals and Habitat III: Opportunities for a successful New Urban Agenda. Cities Alliance Discussion Paper—N° 3. Brussels: Cities Alliance. Dodson, J. (2011). Federal policy for Australia’s cities: The 2011 National Urban Policy in historical and comparative perspective. Australia: Urban Research Program, Griffith University. Friendly, A. (2016). National Urban Policy: A roadmap for Canadian cities. IMFG Perspectives Paper 14. Toronto, Canada: Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance. Gales, P. L. (2007). Governing globalizing cities, reshaping urban policies. Paper Presented in OECD International Conference: “What Policies for Globalising Cities? Rethinking the Urban Policy Agenda”, 29–30 March 2007, Madrid, Spain. Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., Godfrey, N., Millward-Hopkins, J., Fang, W., & Zhao, X. (2015). Accelerating low-carbon development in the world’s cities. Contributing paper for Seizing the Global Opportunity: Partnerships for Better Growth and a Better Climate. London and Washington, DC: New Climate Economy. Available at: http://newclimateeconomy.report/ misc/working-papers.

84

M. Kinyanjui

Großmann, K., Bontje, M., Haase, A., & Mykhnenko, V. (2013). Shrinking cities: Notes for the further research agenda. Cities, 35, 221–225. Kelly, K. (2013). National Urban Policy: Opinion piece. Urban Policy and Research, 31(3), 257–259. Lawrence, E., Socker, R., & Wolman, H. (2010). Crafting urban policy: The conditions of public support for urban policy initiatives. Urban Affairs Review, 45(3), 412–430. Ludlam, S. (2013). Whether or Not Australia Needs a National Urban Policy. Urban Policy and Research, 31(3), 261–261. Maimunah, M. S., & Steiner, A. (2018). New York, with 8.5 million people, among cities heading for a sustainable future. Inter Press Service News Agency. http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/07/newyork-8-5-million-people-among-cities-heading-sustainable-future. New, J., Daniel, C., & Matt, B. (2017). How national governments can help smart cities succeed. Washington, DC: Center for Data Innovation. Nilsson, J. (2007). Sweden the emergence of a National Urban Policy. In L. van der Berg, E. Braun, & J. van der Meer (Eds.), National policy responses to urban challenges in Europe. London: Ashgate Publishing. OECD. (2014). OECD regional outlook 2014. Regions and cities: Where policies and people meet. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2016). Building successful cities: A national urban uolicy framework. Available online at: https://www.slideshare.net/OECD-GOV/oecd-national-urban-policy-framework. Accessed April 15, 2020. OECD. (2017). The state of National Urban Policy in Australia. National Urban Policy in OECD countries. https://www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/national-urban-policy-Australia.pdf. OECD, & CDRF. (2009). Trends in urbanisation and urban policies in OECD countries: What lessons for China? https://www.oecd.org/urban/roundtable/45159707.pdf. Pounds, N. (2005). The medieval city. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Ricci, D. (2018). To be or not to be a smart city. Article in Cities Today, 22nd October 2018. Available online at: https://cities-today.com/industry/to-be-or-not-to-be-a-smart-city/? doing_wp_cron=1540282996.9243569374084472656250. Accessed December 28, 2018. Richardson, H. W. (1987). Whither National Urban Policy in developing countries? Urban Studies, 24, 227–244. Rode, P., Heeckt, C., Ahrend, R., Huerta Melchor, O., Robert, A., Badstuber, N., et al. (2017). Integrating national policies to deliver compact, connected cities: An overview of transport and housing. London and Washington, DC: Coalition for Urban Transitions. Available at: http:// newclimateeconomy.net/content/cities-working-papers. Scott, A. J. (2008). Resurgent metropolis: Economy, society and urbanization in an interconnected world. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(3), 548–564. Scruggs, G. (2017). Since Habitat III, an uptick in interest around national urban policies. Article published by Citiscope. Shlomo, A., Blei, A. M., Civco, D. L., Sanchez, N. G., Lamson-Hall, P., Madrid, M., et al. (2015). Monitoring the quantity and quality of global urban expansion. Working Paper No. 24, September 2015. New York: Marron Institute of Urban Mangement. Smit, W., & Pieterse E. (2014). Decentralization and institutional reconfiguration in urban Africa. In S. Parnell & E. Pieterse (Eds.), Africa’s Urban Revolution. London: Zed Books. Turok, I. (2015). Turning the tide? The emergence of national urban policies in Africa. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 33(3), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589001.2015. 1107288. Turok, I., & Parnell, S. (2009). Reshaping cities, rebuilding nations: The role of national urban policies. Urban Forum, 20, 157–174. UNDESA. (2018). World urbanization prospects: 2018 revision of world urbanization prospects, highlights. UNESCAP, UNEP, & UN-Habitat. (2015). Mainstreaming climate change in national urban policies. Background Paper to an Expert Group Meeting on at United Nations Conference Centre, Bangkok, Thailand, 17–18 March 2015.

3 National Urban Policy: Tool for Development

85

UN-Habitat. (2009). Planning sustainable cities: Global report on human settlements 2009. London: Earthscan. UN-Habitat. (2011). Cities and climate change: Global report on human settlements 2011. London: Earthscan. UN-Habitat. (2012a). Urban patterns for a green economy: Leveraging density. Nairobi: UNHabitat. UN-Habitat. (2012b). Urban patterns for a greener economy: Clustering for competitiveness. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2012c). Urban patterns for a greener economy: Working with nature. Nairobi: UNHabitat. UN-Habitat. (2012d). Urban patterns for a greener economy: Optimizing infrastructure. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN Habitat. (2014). New generation of national urban policies. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2015a). National Urban Policy: The Asia and Pacific report. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2015b). UN-Habitat’s support to the development of National Urban Policy. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2015c). Supporting national and city-wide slum upgrading and prevention through National Urban Policy: A quick guide for participatory, city-wide slum upgrading. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2015d). National Urban Policy: A guiding framework. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN Habitat. (2016a). Addressing climate change in National Urban Policy: A policy guide for lowcarbon and climate-resilient urban development. Policy Note No. 4. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2016b). National Urban Policy: A guiding framework. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2017a). National Urban Policy: Sub Saharan Africa report. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2017b). State of national urban policies report in the Arab states. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2017c). State of National Urban Policy report: Latin America and the Caribbean. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2018a). National Urban Policy feasibility guide. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2018b). 20+ reasons why National Urban Policy matters. Nairobi, Kenya: UNHabitat. UN-Habitat. (2018c). Mainstreaming public space in National Urban Policy: A quick thematic guide for mainstreaming safe, inclusive and accessible public spaces for all. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2019). Quick guide for smart city strategy in National Urban Policy. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat, & Cities Alliance. (2014). The evolution of national urban policies: A global overview. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat Cities Alliance, & The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Government of Liberia. (2018). A National Urban Policy for Liberia: Policy note. Nairobi: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat, & OECD. (2018). Global state of National Urban Policy. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat, & UNESCAP. (2015). The state of Asian and Pacific cities 2015: Urban transformations shifting from quantity to quality. London, UK: PFD Media Group. United Nations. (2016). Policy paper 3 on National Urban Policy. Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) Third Session, Surabaya, Indonesia, 25–27 July 2016. United Nations. (2017). ‘Smart Cities’ Issue Papers by the United Nations Task Team to Habitat III, New York. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2016). The world cities in 2016: Data booklet. New York: UNDESA. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. (2017). Urbanization and industrialization for Africa’s transformation. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: UNECA. Warren, R. (1990). National urban policies and the local state: Paradoxes of meaning, action and consequences. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 25, 541–561.

Part II

Smarter and Greener National Urban Policies: Case Study Experiences in Select Countries

Chapter 4

Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy Framework and Smart Cities Debolina Kundu

Abstract India is characterised by low level and rate of urbanisation. In the past decade, rural–urban reclassification was a major factor contributing to urbanisation. Indian urban structure is top heavy, with almost three-fourths of the urban population concentrated in the metropolitan and Class I cities and UAs. The metropolitan and Class I cities are better endowed in terms of amenities and services as compared to the small towns. Through the 74th Amendment (1992), urban local bodies were sought to be provided with greater responsibilities and funds for urban development. However, this decentralisation is yet to happen at the desired level. In the absence of a National Urban Policy, various programmes and missions for urban development functioned in silos. In the 1990s, the national five-year plans launched several programmes with private sector participation as ‘missions’—with clearly defined objectives, scopes, timelines, milestones, as well as measurable outcomes and service levels. These programmes, however, demonstrated a ‘big-city bias’. The much-acclaimed Smart Cities Mission, for instance, mainly focuses on retrofitting parts of cities by engaging special purpose vehicles (SPVs). A National Urban Development Framework (NUDF) has also been drafted to guide the process of urbanisation. In the light of these transformations, this chapter overviews India’s post-liberalisation urbanisation scenario; current urban development programmes and system of governance. It also overviews the basic tenets of the NUDF in light of meeting the sustainable agenda. Keywords Urbanisation · Top-heavy structure · Urban challenges · NUP

4.1 Introduction Globally, cities are regarded as the most important and the most visible manifestation of economies of scale, especially in the neoliberal regime. Cities play a central role in economic growth of a nation by facilitating geographical proximity. By bringing together a varied pool of entrepreneurs with similar economic interests, cities D. Kundu (B) National Institute of Urban Affairs, India Habitat Centres, Core 4B, 1st Floor, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_4

89

90

D. Kundu

facilitate both the creation of new ideas and their translation into production. Cities enable cost savings and efficiency by creating big markets for labour and capital, and for intermediate and final goods. Economists call these effects as ‘agglomeration economies’. The ability to go beyond industry-specific sharing, matching and learning (localisation economies) to citywide processes (urbanisation economies) requires additional mechanisms of cumulative causation, inter-penetration of production and trade across industries, gains from the cross-fertilisation of ideas and the concentration of workers and suppliers leading to a concentration of consumer demands (Fujita et al. 1999). There is ample evidence around the globe, both in developed and developing nations through cross-country empirical studies about the positive effects of inter-linkages of cities, the urban concentration and the resultant agglomeration economies formed during the process of economic growth. Jacob (1984), in her book, Cities and the Wealth of Nations, provides evidence from across the globe to argue that cities are the real growth engines and generators of national wealth. Henderson (2000) has reported a correlation coefficient of 0.85 between GDP per capita and the level of urbanisation in a cross section of developing countries. In India too, one finds urbanisation and economic growth to be mutually reinforcing phenomena. The links between urbanisation and per capita income have grown stronger in the Indian economy (the fitted trend line for the level of urbanisation and PCGSDP for 2001 and 2011 are upward sloping, with R2 , or the explanatory power, being 0.549 and 0.614, respectively), indicating that urbanisation is gradually aligning itself with economic growth in the country. However, the interlinkage effects are still quite low by international standards. For the countries in the Asian continent, the explanatory power R2 between these two variables can be calculated to be 0.748 in 2011. The impact of economic growth on cities in India is thus not yet strong enough; and the impact of agglomeration economies on urbanisation is far from being saturated. Thus for a developing country like India, the next few decades present great challenges but even greater opportunities, because only the successful exploitation and harnessing of the growth potential of the agglomeration and urbanisation economies can catapult it to a high growth path and help sustain the growth momentum thereafter. In terms of absolute population, urban India is home to a large population. India’s urban population accounts for 11% of the world’s total urban population. Projections indicate that India’s share in world urban population will rise to 13% by the year 2030. In addition, an estimated 180 million rural people live next to India’s 70 largest urban centres, a number that is projected to increase to about 210 million by 2030 (McKinsey Global Institute 2010). However, India’s pace of urban population growth is moderate. The demographic growth offers both an opportunity as well as a challenge for mobilisation of resources and capacity to manage the urban areas which are highly heterogeneous and unplanned.

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

91

In India, urban development is a state subject. The urban policies and programmes existing in the states were largely an extension of those outlined in the erstwhile Five-Year Plans and other policies and of the central government. Currently, with the Niti Aayog replacing the Planning Commission, several programmes have been launched in a mission mode. The centre can, at the most, ‘issue directives, provide advisory services, set up model legislations and fund programmes which the states can follow at will’ (Batra 2009). Moreover, there is no established urban policy in the country, although various programmes of the government do reflect policies and intent of the government. The launch of the Smart Cities Mission is an example in this regard. This mission, launched in 2015, is a manifestation of the policy discourse of retrofitting or redeveloping existing cities or greenfield development of new cities that can provide core infrastructure and give a decent quality of life to its citizens, a clean and sustainable environment through application of ‘Smart’ solutions. In view of the above, the present chapter overviews the trends and pattern of urbanisation in the country: the coverage of urban population in terms of basic services; urban development programmes; system of governance and financing of cities and the development of NUP for inclusive urbanisation.

4.2 Urbanisation in India: Trends and Patterns An analysis of Census data shows that urban India witnessed a deceleration in the growth of population during the last three decades, dismissing the spectre of ‘overurbanisation’ or an urban explosion. This made policymakers at the national and state levels concerned about the slow pace of urban growth, particularly at a stage of rapid economic growth that accentuated rural–urban (RU) disparities in the economic and social spheres. The annual growth rate of urban population in the country which was 3.5% in the decade of the fifties was the highest in post-independence era. This was the highest the country had seen until that time, fuelled by large-scale migration due to partition of the country following independence, which led to the emergence of theories of ‘over-urbanisation’. Formalisation of the criteria for identifying urban centres in the 1961 census resulted in a dramatic decline in urban growth figures in the 1960s. The 1970s, however, following the same methodology for identification of urban centres, saw a very high urban growth of 3.83%. The growth rate since then came down to 3.1% in the 1980s. It went down further to 2.73% in the 1990s. The decade 2001–11 reported a growth rate of 2.76%, marginally higher than previous decade (Sivaramakrishnan et al. 2007). The growth rate is expected to range between 2.3 and 2.5% over the next two decades (WUP 2018). With the declining growth rate of urban population, level of urbanisation in India rose from 17.3% in 1951 to 31.1% in 2011. According to WUP 2018, current level of urbanisation in India is 34.0%, lower than the average figure of Asia (49.9%) and even South Asian average of 35.8%. According to the projection, in 2030, India’s level of urbanisation will rise to 40.1%, and to 52.8% in 2050. The rate of urbanisation is low in India since the period of independence. During 1955–60, annual average

92

D. Kundu

rate of urbanisation was 0.39%, which rose to 1.59% during 1975–80, followed by a declining trend which continued till 2000. After 2000, the rate of urbanisation started increasing again. Notably, most of the estimates point out that India’s urbanisation is likely to accelerate in the coming decades. It is also estimated that after 2015, the rate of urbanisation in India will surpass the regional average and will continue to increase (WUP 2018). However, the number of UA/towns has grown at faster rate compared to level of urbanisation. In 1951, there were 2843 urban agglomerations (UAs)/towns. The number increased to 4368 in 2001 and 6173 in 2011, respectively. Reclassification of the erstwhile villages to urban centres, resulting in the addition of 2530 new census towns have accounted for this growth. This phenomenon of in situ urbanisation of former rural settlements took place because these settlements for the first time

Fig. 4.1 Urbanisation level in India, 2011. Source Census of India 2011

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

93

satisfied the census criteria of 5000 population, density of 400 persons per sq. km and sectoral diversification indicated by at least 75% of male main workers engaged in non-farm activities. However, these census towns, though urban by definition, are rural by governance. On the other hand, the role of rural–urban migration as well as natural increase is declining. It may be noted that rural–urban migration has contributed to less than 20% of increase in urban population. In this regard, the High Powered Expert Committee (HPEC) had observed that notwithstanding three decades of rapid economic growth, rural–urban migration has remained relatively low as industrialisation has been capital intensive and the services boom fuelled by the knowledge economy has also been skill intensive. This has prevented Indian cities from realising their full potential of generating employment opportunities and consequently making the development process more inclusive. In India, a wide regional disparity can be observed in terms of level of urbanisation. According to 2011 census data, the western and southern India had higher level of urbanisation compared to northern and eastern India (Fig. 4.1).

4.3 Nature and Pattern of Urbanisation 4.3.1 City-Size Distribution and Top-Heavy Urban Structure As per the Population Census of India 2011, there are 7933 individual cities and towns in India. This includes 4041 statutory towns and 3892 census towns. There are 474 urban agglomerations (UAs) and 981 outgrowths. If urban agglomeration is taken as a unit, there are 6173 cities/towns and UAs in India. Based on the size of the population, the Census of India groups cities and towns into six size classes from Class I to Class VI (Box 1). The urban areas which have a population above one hundred thousand are termed as cities, while those which have a population less than one hundred thousand are termed as towns. Box 1: What is ‘urban’ in India? Urban settlements in India consist of: Statutory towns (ST): All places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area committee as declared by the state law. Census towns (CT): Places which meet the following criteria: • a minimum population of 5000; • at least 75% of male working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; • a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre.

94

D. Kundu

‘Cities’ are ‘urban areas’ with a population of at least one lakh (0.1 million). The others are termed as ‘Towns’. ‘Metropolitan cities’ are defined as those with a population of at least 10 lakh (1 million). ‘Urban agglomerations’ (UAs) are defined as continuous urban spreads constituting a town and its adjoining urban outgrowths (OGs), or two or more physical contiguous towns and any adjoining urban outgrowths of such towns. A UA must consist of at least one statutory town, and its total population of all constituents put together should be not less than 20,000 as enumerated in the census of 2001. Size Class Classification (based on population) Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Class VI

100,000 and more 50,000–99,999 20,000–49,999 10,000–19,999 5000–9999 Less than 5000.

In the decade 2001–2011, the pattern of India’s urbanisation underwent an important shift, which was characterised by an increasing number of metropolitan UAs. The number of metropolitan cities/UAs rose sharply in India, from 35 to 52 during 2001–2011. In fact, 17 new metropolitan (million plus) cities emerged in this decade, the maximum in any decade thus far. According to the HPEC (2011) estimates, the number of metropolitan cities is expected to increase further to 87 by 2031. During the decade 2001–2011, the number of cities with a population above 5 million increased from 6 to 8, and those with a population between 1 and 5 million increased from 29 to 44. The non-metropolitan Class I cities increased from 359 in 2001 to 416 in 2011—an increase of 57 cities (Table 4.1). The highest increase in terms of numbers in this class of cities was seen in the decade 1991–2001, when 83 such cities were added. In 2011, the 52 metropolitan cities include 46 UAs and only 6 individual cities, while 416 non-metropolitan Class I cities include 252 UAs and 164 individual cities. On the other hand, the number of towns/UAs (Class II–Class VI) in India has gone up from 3984 in 2001 to 5705 in 2011—an increase of 1721 towns (Table 4.1). The census decade 2001–2011 has witnessed the highest increase in the number of towns. This is largely due to inclusion of new areas under ‘urban’. These new urban areas are largely census towns as discussed earlier which have qualified the definition of urban as per the Population Census of India. Among the 5705 towns, there are only 176 UAs and the remaining 5529 are individual towns.

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

95

Table 4.1 Number of cities and towns across size class: 1961–2011 Year

Metropolitan cities Class IA

Class IB

Non-metropolitan Class I cities

Towns

Urban India

Class 1C

Total Class I cities

7

100

107

2223

2330

Total

1961

1

6

1971

2

7

9

143

152

2405

2557

1981

3

9

12

207

219

3027

3246

1991

4

19

23

276

299

3400

3699

2001

6

29

35

359

394

3984

4378

2011

8

44

52

416

468

5705

6173

Note Class IA cities have a population above 5 million, Class IB cities have a population between 5 and 1 million, Class IC cities have a population between 0.1 and 1 million (non-metropolitan Class I cities). Class IA plus Class IB cities together define metropolitan cities; towns constitute Class II, Class III, Class IV, Class V and Class VI towns, i.e. those with a population below 1,00,000 Source Calculations based on Census of India data for various years

The overall Indian urban settlement structure is top heavy, wherein most of the urban population is increasingly being concentrated in the Class I cities. It is noted that in 2001, 68% of population were living in 394 class I cities. The figures increased to 70.2 and 468 respectively (Table 4.2). In terms of the absolute additions to the population, between 2001 and 2011, the metropolitan cities have added 51.4 million as compared to 17 million for the non-metropolitan Class I cities. Thus, out of the 91 million net addition to the urban population in the recent decade, 75.1% (68.4 million) is due to the demographic growth of the 468 Class I cities alone. The 52 metros account for 56.4% of the net addition, while the non-metropolitan Class I cities account for 18.7% of it. Table 4.2 Percentage distribution of urban population: 1961–2011 Year

Metropolitan cities

Non-metropolitan cities

Total Class I

Towns

Class IA

Class IB

Total

Class IC

1961

7.66

15.93

23.59

28.29

51.88

48.12

1971

12.96

13.32

26.28

30.88

57.16

42.84

1981

15.58

12.09

27.68

33.53

61.21

38.79

1991

17.35

15.55

32.9

31.45

64.35

35.65

2001

21.13

16.7

37.82

30.8

68.62

31.38

2011

22.56

19.76

42.32

27.88

70.19

29.81

Source Calculations based on Census of India data for various years

96

D. Kundu

While there was an increasing concentration of urban population living in the metropolitan cities of India in the decade 2001–2011, the proportion of urban population in non-metropolitan India and towns declined during the same decade. The percentage share of population in metropolitan cities increased from 37.8 to 42.3% in 2001–2011. The proportion of population in the non-metropolitan Class I cities of India decreased from 30.8 to 27.9% in the decade 2001–2011 (though their numbers went up by 57). The proportion of population in towns also decreased from 31.38 to 29.81% though the numbers went up by 1721 during the same decade (Table 4.2).

4.3.2 Peripheralisation There is an increasing trend of peripheralisation around large cities, especially metropolitan cities and regions.1 For Class IA, the core cities have grown at rates much faster than their peripheries; but for the cities of Class IB, the peripheralisation is seen to be much stronger. There is evidence of huge sprawls around the cities of Class IB, with the population in the areas under core cities as a percentage of the total city decreasing from 82.8% in 2001 to 76.7% in 2011. Although for the cities of Class IA, the opposite is seen with more people living within the Class IA city cores (the population in the areas under core cities as a percentage of the total city increasing from 65.1% in 2001 to 65.4% in 2011), in overall metropolitan cities, the core city is seen to be holding a lesser population in 2011 than was the case in 2001 (the population in the areas under core metropolitan cities declining from 72.7% in 2001 to 71.2% in 2011). It may be noted that eleven metropolitan cities have less than 50% of the total city population within their municipal limits. It is seen that all the seven metropolitan Table 4.3 Core-periphery analysis of the metropolitan and non-metropolitan Class I cities: 2001 and 2011 Size class Metropolitan cities

Non-metropolitan cities Class I cities

Core to total (%)

Annual exponential growth rates 2001–2011

UA/city

2011

2001

Total

Core

Periphery

Class IA

65.4

65.1

2.12

2.33

1.73

Class IB

76.6

82.8

3.62

2.85

6.67

Total

71.2

72.7

2.79

2.59

3.33

Class IC

85.7

90.2

2.56

2.04

6.34

76.9

79.7

2.70

2.34

3.99

Source Calculations based on Census of India data for various years 1 The

Class I cities are subdivided into three size-class categories: IA, IB and IC. Class IA are cities with a population above 5 million; Class IB cities are those with a population between 1 and 5 million, and Class IC cities are those with a population between 0.1 and 1 million (non-metropolitan Class I cities). Class IA and Class IB cities together define metropolitan cities.

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

97

cities of Kerala have very small core city areas (all are less than 45%), while two of them (Malappuram and Kannur) have core city populations less than 10% of the total city population. Kannur has 6 small municipalities, one cantonment board and 61 census towns. Malappuram has 4 small municipalities, one outgrowth and 37 census towns. These new metropolitan cities have been formed with assimilation of several census towns beyond the city boundaries. These metropolitan agglomerations are characterised by the absence of unified urban local bodies for the entire urban agglomeration. In non-metropolitan Class I cities, the population of the core city areas as a percentage of the total city population showed a decline of 4.5 percentage points from 90.2% in 2001 to 85.7% in 2011 (Table 4.3). While the core city of the non-metropolitan Class I cities registered an annual exponential growth rate of just 2.04% in the decade 2001–2011, the lowest among all the size classes of urban settlements under consideration, their peripheries registered a growth rate of 6.34% in the same decade, which was second only to the growth rate registered by the peripheries of the Class IB cities, i.e. at 6.67%. Out of the total 416 non-metropolitan Class I cities in India, 28 had less than 50% of the total city population within their municipal limits. Of these, 9 were in Kerala, 7 in Tamil Nadu and 4 in West Bengal. A similar trend was noted by a World Bank (2015) study which also reported faster population growth on the peripheries of major cities in areas beyond municipal boundaries. Using night light data, the urban sprawl around major metropolitan cities has been plotted. The figure below shows the urban sprawl which occurred during 2004–13 in cities of Bangalore, Delhi, Chennai and Hyderabad.

98

D. Kundu

Urban Sprawl of Bangalore

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

Urban Sprawl of Delhi

99

100

Urban Sprawl of Chennai

D. Kundu

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

101

Urban Sprawl of Hyderabad

4.3.3 Messy and Hidden Urbanisation The World Bank (2015) has described Indian urbanisation as ‘messy and hidden’ urbanisation,2 as a sizable proportion of the region’s urban population lives in slums, and cities have been growing outward, spilling over their administrative boundaries, rather than upward through the construction of buildings with higher Flooe Area 2 South

(2015).

Asia Development Matters, Leveraging Urbanization in South Asia, World Bank Report

102

D. Kundu

Ratio. And with growth occurring beyond city limits, much urbanisation has been hidden—a growing number of people in the region live in places that possess strong urban characteristics but that are not officially recognised as urban.

4.4 Urban Challenges As mentioned in the previous section, Indian cities lack adequate basic services and infrastructure and are also characterised by housing shortage. This section discusses various urban challenges in the Indian context.

4.4.1 Housing Condition According to the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage (2012–2017), Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, there were 18.78 million households facing the problem of housing shortage in urban India (2012). Nearly, 95% of the households facing this shortage are poor, and over 85% of the shortage is due to congestion factor. As per Census of India 2011, 68.5% of the total houses could be classified as ‘good’ in urban India. This proportion was low in rural India (46.0%) and all India (53.2%). The issue of shortage of housing is severe for metropolitan cities, for example, in 2011, in Greater Mumbai, 57.3% households were living in one room only. In 2011, 65 million people in India lived in slums, which constituted 17% of urban India. The challenge of slums is not unique to India, 863 million people around the world live in slums and squatter settlements.3 But India and China have the highest number of slum dwellers. These slums lack the basic housing conditions in terms of condition of buildings, ventilation, etc. It is seen that apart from housing shortage and concentration of slums, metropolitan and larger cities have better housing conditions compared to smaller cities, mostly in terms of building material.

4.4.2 Coverage in the Access to Basic Services During the last decade, India has made remarkable progress in the provision of toilet facilities within premises, drainage, electricity and access to bathroom facilities. Notably, there is a stark rural–urban difference in terms of toilet facilities. In 2011, compared to 87.4% of the household’s access to toilet in urban areas, the figure was 3 ‘State of the world’s cities 2012/2013.’: Sustainable Development, UN. UN Habitat—For a Better

Urban Future, 2012.

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

103

Table 4.4 Access to basic amenities in urban India: 2011 and 2001 (per cent) India

2001

2011

Households using tap water as main source of drinking water

68.7

70.6

Households with toilet facility within premises (water closet)

46.1

72.6

Households with waste water collection into closed drains

34.5

44.5

Households with electricity as main source

87.6

92.7

Households with attached bathroom

70.4

77.5

Source Calculations based on Census of India data, 2011 and 2001: houses, household amenities and assets

32.6% in rural areas. It is also noted that 72.6% of the urban households had access to flush toilets within premises. The figures are much higher for metropolitan cities compared to non-metropolitan cities and towns. The progress in supply of drinking water through taps registered a marginal increase from 68.7% in 2001 to 70.6% in 2011. While 70.6% of the households in urban India had access to tap water, it was only 30.8% in rural India. This is because rural India heavily relies on ground water sources (handpump 43.6%, well 13.3% and tube well 8.3%), while dependence on tap water in high in urban India. In urban India, 74.0% of slum households had access to tap water. The coverage was high in metropolitan cities (84.4%) but low in other Class I cities (69.9%) and towns (64.4%) as compared to the average figure (Fig. 4.2). Handpump was the second largest source of drinking water in slums in all size classes of cities and towns. Almost 12.7% of the slum households in urban India used handpump as their main source of drinking water. In terms of access to water within premises, only 56.7% of the total slum households in urban India had access to drinking water within their premises. The proportion decreased with the decreasing order of cities and towns with an exception in Class VI category. However, waste water collection into closed drains is still far from desired target (Table 4.4). In terms of access to drainage outlet, 81.8% urban households were connected to drainage for waste water collection. But only 44.1% urban household had access to closed drainage, though the figure was much higher than rural figure of 5.7%. Similar to above-mentioned pattern, metropolitan and large cities are better endowed. There exists a strong relationship between the size of the cities and availability of basic services. Access to basic services was higher in larger cities as compared to smaller cities and towns. The coverage of basic services in the metropolitan cities was uniformly better than the non-metropolitan Class I cities and towns.

104

D. Kundu

Fig. 4.2 State-wise coverage to water, 2011. Source Census of India 2011

4.5 Urban Development Programmes in the Neoliberal Regime: An Overview In India, urban development is a state subject. Urban policies in post-independence era witnessed the launch of a few centrally sponsored schemes (CSS) with a focus on subsidised industrial and low-income housing and basic amenities including slum upgradation. The first two plan periods did not make any direct investment in urban development. The Third Plan (1961–1966) recognised the need for balanced regional development and advised that urban planning should adopt a regional approach. During this period, municipal administrations were entrusted with the task of providing

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

105

more housing and improving living conditions in the cities. From the Fourth FiveYear Plan (1969–1974) onwards, the government started withdrawing itself from certain directly funded activities like housing. During this period, in 1970, the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) was set up, which provided loans to new state capitals. It advocated the development of small and medium growth centres through lower interest rates for housing, water supply and sanitation—with the aim of redirecting growth towards small towns and cities, with financial allocations for the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns scheme (Mahadevia 2003). The major problem noticed during this period was inadequate service and housing facilities in cities due to the growth of urban population, especially migrants.4 However, HUDCO played a major role in lending loans for infrastructure, land acquisitions, housing and implementing social programmes of the government in mainly large cities. The small towns which are generally unable to obtain state government’s guarantee due to their weak economic base and uncertain financial condition hardly benefitted from HUDCO financing (Kundu et al. 1999). The eighties saw a focused attention to urbanisation with the launch of the National Commission on Urbanisation in 1988. A few more programmes were launched for the metropolitan cities and small and medium towns in the nineties with reforms built into the funding mechanism. 1990s saw an era of opening up of the country’s economy, although ad hoc measures of the liberalisation were initiated in the mid-eighties. Following the balance of payment crisis, a programme of economic liberalisation was launched in the country which propagated the idea of free market with limited state intervention. Roughly, during the same time, the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) was enacted which decentralised powers and essential functions related to city planning, poverty alleviation and provision of basic services to the ULBs. The 74th CAA laid down the functions to be fulfilled by ULBs, established ward committees in cities with population of 300,000, mandated periodic election of the ULBs and devolution of funds, functions and functionaries to ULBs as per the suggestions of the State Finance Commissions (Batra 2009). However, many states have not transferred all functions to ULBs; thus, ULBs depend on higher authorities for actual transfer of funds. The Eleventh Plan launched an inclusive agenda and emphasised the need to bring about major changes in urban governance in order to boost investment in infrastructure development in urban areas (Kundu and Samanta 2011). Also, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewable Mission (JNNURM) was launched in 2005, allocating substantial additional central assistance (ACA) to cities for infrastructure, housing and capacity building. Besides, developing infrastructural facilities across 65 mission cities, JNNURM aimed at providing urban infrastructure and housing through its component of Urban Infrastructure and Development Schemes for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) in non-mission cities, covering all other towns under UIDSSMT subsuming the existing related programmes.

4 (http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/4th/4planch19.html).

106

D. Kundu

The mission succeeded in getting the state and the city governments to commit themselves to structural reforms which the central government failed to achieve despite adopting several measures and incentive schemes through other programmes and legislations (Kundu et al. 2007). It was also effective in renewing focus on the urban sector across the country. Yet, many states lagged behind in programme utilisation due to lack of enabling capacity and capacity to generate matching funds (Planning Commission 2011a). The share of government fund allocated under JNNURM was largely biased against the non-mission cities/towns. The share of UIDSSMT and IHSDP was 12.8 and 8.9%, respectively. The remaining share of 80% funds was directed towards the 65 mission cities. The big-city bias of JNNURM is also reflected in the per capita spending by the central government between 2005 and 2009; the figure for mission cities worked out to be Rs. 220 per capita per annum as compared to Rs. 119 for the non-mission cities (Kundu and Samanta 2011). Moreover, the mission was deeply criticised on the ground that irrespective of size of the state and ULBs, the central government mandated the reforms. There was no cost–benefit analysis whether the reform recommended for metropolitan cities were applicable to small towns as well (Planning Commission 2012). During the Eleventh Plan, in pursuance of the vision to make India slum-free, the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) was launched. The scheme aimed to upgrade slums and assign title to their residents along with basic infrastructure and social amenities in each selected slum. Rental and transit housing was admissible under the scheme (Bhagat 2014). RAY also extended financial support to states for creation of affordable housing stock through public–private partnership (PPP). However, not much progress was achieved under this scheme, as it was stalled with the change of the government. In fact, this program was replaced in 2015 by ‘Housing for All’, which aimed to operate under four verticals: rehabilitation of slum dwellers with participation of private developers using land as a resource; promotion of affordable housing for weaker section through credit linked subsidy; affordable housing in partnership with private and public sectors; and subsidy for beneficiary-led individual house construction. Central funding is available for each vertical for a certain amount and the rest has to be organised by the state/ULB and the private developers.

4.5.1 Smart Cities Mission To address the challenges of urban infrastructure deficit, the Smart Cities Mission was launched during the Twelfth Plan with an objective to promote cities that provide core infrastructure and give a decent quality of life to its citizens. The core infrastructure elements to be provided in a smart city include adequate water supply, electricity, sanitation, solid waste management, efficient urban mobility and public transport, affordable housing for the poor, robust IT connectivity and digitalisation, good governance and citizen participation, sustainable environment, safety and security of citizens, health and education. The implementation of smart city plans has been

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

107

entrusted to Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) in each city, a limited Company under the Companies Act, 2013. The SPV is supposed to plan, appraise, approve, release funds, implement, manage, operate, monitor and evaluate the smart city development projects. The central government has also recommended that the Smart City Plans (SCPs) should include ways to converge funding options from other Centrally Sponsored Schemes at the city level. The Smart Cities Mission is being operated as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS), and the central government proposes to give financial support to the mission to the extent of INR 48,000 crores over five years, i.e. on an average INR 100 crore per city per year. An equal amount, on a matching basis, is being contributed by the state/ULB; therefore, nearly INR 1,00,000 crore of government/ULB funds will be available for smart cities development (Government of India 2015). The state/ULBs could also look for other resources like taxes from property, profession and entertainment, monetisation of land/services, PPPs, municipal bonds, borrowings and the National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (Knowledge@Wharton 2016). Thus, the Smart Cities Mission focuses on making cities investment-friendly by leveraging on the central governments grants and bringing in private sector financing. With constraints of capacity at the ULB level and unclear devolution of functions and funds even after the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, the urban sector faces a huge infrastructure financing challenge. Given the major risks involved, the private sector has also largely stayed away from urban infrastructure projects, until very recently. It is considered that the newly launched mission mode programmes like Smart Cities Mission, Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Swachh Bharat Mission and Prime Minister’s Awas Yojana (Urban), which are aimed at ensuring urban infrastructure, would be able to bring in INR 73 lakh crore investment (Press Information Bureau 2016). The Twelfth Five-Year Plan projected that roughly 12–23% of the investment need in the urban sector can be met by taking project on PPP which has the added advantage of bringing in efficiency gains. This would roughly translate to about 250–300 PPP projects in urban sector each year. As per the recommendations of the Working Group on Financing Urban Infrastructure (2011), resource mobilisation from instruments like PPP, borrowing and land based instruments need to scaled up to fund this magnitude of investment requirements and this would require concentrated efforts from all tiers of the government. Building new smart cities and transforming the metros will need huge funds; investments of INR 98,000 crores are to be brought into the cities through the Smart Cities Mission, under which 100 smart cities would be built and AMRUT for 500 cities over the next five years (Mathew 2015). Only about 50% of this amount is supposed to come from the central government and the rest has to be shared by the states and the ULBs. ULBs in most Indian cities are not in a position to shell out the entire requirement and are looking for raising funds from the private sector. Especially for the Smart Cities Mission, it is extremely crucial for the cities to find sources of funding in order to execute the plans as per the proposals. Although the proposals talk about convergence with other schemes both at the centre and the state levels, majority of the funding is dependent on the Smart Cities Mission funds

108

D. Kundu

and multi-lateral/bi-lateral assistance. As mentioned before, this mission is being implemented through a SPV that is supposed to run as a company, jointly owned by the state and the city and in some cases private partners. This may in the long run disempower the ULBs as most of the lucrative sources of funding would be tied for repayment of loans for smart city development. Also, the ULBs will have no power to use the funds dedicated through escrow to the smart city projects. This may come in the way of financing operation and maintenance of the ULBs. As per the given template for submission of the plans, all cities had to detail out the financial plan (part E of all the submitted proposals) in which the ULBs had to evaluate their own capacities (also the SPVs) to undertake self-funded development projects, the availability of funds from other government schemes that will converge in SCP and the finance that can be raised from the financial market. The cities had to decide on the financial sources, lifetime costs of each project and revenue and recovery of O&M. Since all the projects proposed by the cities as part of area-based development, pan-city development and greenfield development are to be implemented through the SPVs, the plans also include cash flows for each financial year (Annexure 3 of all submitted proposals). Most of the proposals are lacking clearly on: (a) who are the intended private players; (b) how the funds would be brought in; (c) what would be the mechanism for formulating the PPP ventures and (d) how much Viability Gap Funding would be required from the government. The average area under area based development of the smart cities works out to be 3–5% of the city area with an average funding of 75% of the total funding of SCPs. This focused resource concentration only on a specific section of the city can bring about serious disparities within the city in the long run. Also, this area will be particularly under the jurisdiction of the SPV for further planning and implementation of the proposals. The credibility or bankability of the cities themselves in attracting private funding for the proposed projects pose a big challenge given the weak state of municipal finances in the country. There is also certain level of scepticism from the industry experts regarding the mission itself. Since it is a CSS and cities would be dependent on the central government for funds, any political upheaval could possibly stall the progress. Although the private sector (both domestic and international players) has shown great deal of interest in engaging in the smart city projects, the industry is seeking assurance about return on investment. For instance, the private investors want confidence from the government that policies will not change mid-way and they are seeking room for flexibility in the terms of agreement, while a project is in progress (Mookerji and Taneja 2014).

4.6 Urban Governance The first significant step towards addressing issues related to urban governance and strengthening of decentralisation process in post-independence period was the 74th

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

109

Constitution Amendment Act (74th CAA) June, 1992 tried to devolve funds, functions and functionaries to the urban local bodies (ULBs). Eighteen functions, hitherto carried out by the states were to be devolved. The Twelfth Schedule envisions municipalities to be performing functions such as planning for economic and social development, urban planning, urban poverty alleviation, urban forestry, protection of the environment and promotion of ecological aspects, and slum improvement and upgradation (GoI 2016). The Act suggests devolution of functions to urban local bodies without making it mandatory. States were required to take the final call in the matter. Many of the Twelfth schedule functions have not been devolved to the ULBs who still are carried out by various agencies/parastatals at the state level. Many ULBs are underequipped or understaffed. Administrative fragmentation in the areas under the command of the ULBs is a critical challenge. In India, urban development is a state subject, which has resulted in variation in the powers, tasks and membership of the ward committees (WDCs) across states. Under the 74th CAA, ward committees were to be formed in each city by clubbing several wards or each ward could have a ward committee. Also, the provision in the CAA that the state governments are to decide the criteria and procedure of selection of the members of the WDCs has made their very existence and composition a prerogative of the state machinery. There is limited citizen’s participation in planning and implementation at the ward level as these committees have not been constituted properly nor has the CAA clearly spelt out the scope of the functions or their composition. There is also large variation in financial powers of the WDCs across states. Many state governments have remained silent on this issue while some have delegated marginal powers to them. It is noted that WDCs in most of the cities are ineffective in representing the aspirations of the common people. The concept of participation between the people and the local government did not succeed in most cities due to the large size of the constituencies. In many cities, they are non-existent, and even where they are functioning, there is hardly any participation from the citizens at large. WDCs are, thus, non-functional and structurally flawed in most of the metro cities. Further, there is limited participation of both middle and upper classes, which led to an alternative system of participatory governance in the form of civil society organisations. Ward committees were also having an important role to play in actively taking part and finding ways to ensure that citizens give input to the decisions that local councils make and participate fully in the decisions that affect them at local level, such as the framing, implementation and monitoring of the city development plan, municipal budgeting and municipal performance management processes. RWAs are emerging in almost all big cities and are effective as people in a locality or belonging to a group can see their interest being served by these organisations. The participatory model helps the people to get involved to voice their concern by building local pressure groups. RWAs found in middle class areas serve their interests as consumer-citizens. Participation in associational activities is skewed quite heavily towards those with higher levels of education and income (Harris 2005). In many states, urban local bodies (ULBs) are weak, ineffective and not able to perform as vibrant democratic units of self-government on account of failure to

110

D. Kundu

hold regular elections, prolonged supersession and inadequate devolution of powers and functions. As a result, ULBs were not able to perform effectively as vibrant democratic units of self-government. Mayors/Chairpersons are elected either by the councillors among themselves or directly by the people along with the election of councillors. The tenure of mayor ranges between 1 and 5 years. In most of the ULBs, the Commissioner is an officer of the state government deputed to work in the municipal body. India’s cities do not have empowered leaders with the expertise and tenure to deliver against explicit mandates. While many cities have mayors, their tenures are short and they rarely have the power to drive new investments, hire key personnel, fund projects or reorganise departments—all critical to revamp a city’s performance. Having regard to these inadequacies, it was considered necessary that provisions relating to ULBs are incorporated in the Constitution. Accordingly, it was proposed to add a new part (IX-A) related to the Urban Local Bodies in the Constitution to provide for constitution of three types of municipalities: (i) Nagar Panchayats for areas in transition from a rural area to urban area; (ii) municipal councils for smaller urban areas and (iii) municipal corporations for larger urban areas. The 74th CAA mentions that the election of the chairpersons of municipalities will be in the manner specified in the state law. It has used the term chairperson to connote mayors. In several state Acts, the term mayors and presidents have been used for municipal corporations and chairpersons for smaller municipalities. It may be noted that the 74th CAA did not mention the term mayor. Existing provisions in most state laws do not facilitate any effective participation of the people themselves in the governance of their cities. Proximity between the people and their representatives is essential for securing accountability. Lack of efficient capacity across all levels of government is the root cause of India’s urban development challenges. Also, substantial skill gaps exist across all areas of urban management. Weak administration and strong political interests limit the extent to which ULBs can revise property taxes quinquennially, reluctance to levy user charges and raise own resources tap on an expanding tax base and enforce compliance with taxes are the challenges of political economy. The State Finance Commissions have not been able to address the issue of finances of local bodies in a big way. State governments have created a large number of parastatal bodies—development authorities, housing boards, slum boards, and Water and Sanitation Boards. Presence of parastatals create fragmentation and leads to functional bodies working in isolation. Growth of such specialised bodies as parallel systems of governance has weakened the ULBs. As mentioned earlier, many of the 12th schedule functions have not been devolved to the ULBs. There are several agencies responsible for the delivery of urban services. Jurisdictional overlap is one of the key constraints in urban governance. Administrative fragmentation in the areas under the command of the ULB is a critical challenge. The 18 functions assigned by the Constitution of India are not being fully performed by ULBs, who still rely on various agencies at the state level to perform the functions for which the ULB may in fact be underequipped or understaffed (Fig. 4.3).

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

111

TRANSFER OF 12th Schedule functions

Source: JNNURM Report, March 2014 Fig. 4.3 Transfer of 12th Schedule Functions. Source: JNNURM Report, March 2014

The lack of strengthening of ULBs has resulted in problems of cooperation and collaboration among multiple agencies and the resulting delays in execution of projects, underutilisation of funds and loss of revenues for the ULBs. Also, less than a third of the cities have master plans, and their implementation has been unsatisfactory leading to haphazard and unplanned development. The shortcomings of master plans are in design, conceptual issues and procedures. Master plans paid inadequate attention to the provision of trunk infrastructure, environmental conservation and financing issues. The progress made so far in actual devolution has been far from satisfactory. Many states have not transferred functions, funds and functionaries in spirit of the amendment. Most ULBs continue to be weak entities, without adequate capacity for meeting their functional responsibilities. The issue of rural–urban convergence remains to be adequately addressed, despite provisions related to district planning5 committees and metropolitan planning committees (MPCs).6 The MPCs have been constituted in just a few cities and remain largely ineffective. Urban governance continues to remain as fragmented as ever, 5 Article 6 Article

243 ZD of the Constitution. 243 ZE of the Constitution.

112

D. Kundu

with ULBs being one of the multiple governance bodies, something that would not have been addressed even if 74th CAA had been implemented fully. Existing provisions in most state laws do not facilitate any effective participation of the people themselves in the governance of their cities. Proximity between the people and their representatives is essential for securing accountability. The provision for Wards Committees in the 74th Constitutional Amendment was designed to meet this need. However, not much progress is witnessed in this direction.

4.6.1 State of Local Finance Urban local governments in India which have both a constitutional and statutory basis are defined essentially by the state-level statutes. These define their functions, powers and responsibilities. The constitution provides three lists, viz. a union list, a state list and a concurrent list. Out of the state list, the legislature of a state endows the municipalities with such powers and authority as it considers necessary to enable them to function as institutions of local self-government (Habitat India Report 2016). The state governments have the prerogative to devolve levy of taxes and charges as outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the state list to the urban local bodies. The constitution, however, provides for setting up of a state finance commission in every state and requires it to make recommendations on (i) taxes, duties, tolls and fees that should be shared between the state and municipalities; (ii) taxes, duties, tolls and fees that may be assigned to municipalities; (iii) grants-in-aid for municipalities and (iv) any other measure that would improve the finances of municipalities. It entails a major vertical and horizontal restructuring in the state municipal fiscal relations, providing states with a unique opportunity to redesign the existing fiscal system that is coherent and flexible enough to meet the rapidly changing local needs and responsibilities. The municipalities in India are among the weakest in the world both in terms of capacity to raise resources and financial autonomy. Most municipalities have a huge backlog of basic infrastructure. The HPEC estimated that the ULBs in India spend about 27–28% of what they need for efficient delivery and management of services. The resource requirement of urban local bodies is huge no matter what methods are adopted for its assessment. Also, the high levels of commercial and physical losses in the distribution network are compounded by the unwillingness of local/state governments to levy adequate user charges. Water utilities in India are typically able to recover only 30–35% of the operations and maintenance (O&M) cost. In the Philippines and Cambodia, most water utilities recover the full O&M cost. Even in Bangladesh, water utilities recover about 64% of their O&M cost (ADB 2007). Recovery ratios for sanitation and solid waste collection are uniformly low across all cities. With the abolition of octroi by most states, property tax is the most important source of revenue for local governments. The ability to finance growing local government expenditures via property taxes is severely constrained by administrative,

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

113

regulatory and technical shortfalls. In particular, weak administration and strong political interests limit the extent to which local government can tap on an expanding tax base and enforce compliance with taxes. The own sources largely comprise property tax and user charges, but in most cases, ULBs do not enjoy freedom in administration of these. The inadequacy of own sources creates perpetual dependence of transfers from union and state governments. In fact, this trend has been strengthened in the past few years under the JNNURM, when large amounts of untied grants were available to cities for infrastructural improvement. This slackened the initiative of the municipalities to be credit worthy and approach the market for funds. A study based on a survey of 36 largest cities in India shows that the major factors contributing to poor realisation from property tax are poor assessment rate (56% of the properties covered), weak collection efficiency (37% of the property tax demand raised), flawed methods for property valuation, loss on account of exemptions (11.7%) and poor enforcement (NIPFP 2009). The necessity for paradigm shift in financial management of ULBs is further brought out by scale of investment requirement for addressing even basic needs. The High Powered Expert Committee (HPEC) has projected the capital investment requirement for urban infrastructure, renewal and redevelopment (including slums), and capacity building for the 20-year period from 2012–13 to 2031–32 at Rs. 35.75 lakh crore, apart from nearly 15 lakh crore for operation and maintenance. Once funds, functionaries and functions are devolved, and robust accountability mechanisms are created, it is likely to bring about necessary change in how ULBs function in India. The union and state governments may continue to provide support in the intermediate run, particularly in view of scale of investment required and need for strategic intervention, but grants must be linked to own efforts of ULBs. While transfers from state governments and the Government of India have increased in recent years, the tax bases of ULBs are narrow and inflexible and lack buoyancy, and they have also not been able to levy rational user charges for the services they deliver. There are clear trends towards increasing central and state government transfers and grants-in-aid. Given the state of the finances of the municipalities, it is unlikely that the states and municipalities alone will be able to raise and assign resources for financing the scale of urbanisation. Successive Central Finance Commissions (CFCs) have made recommendations for improving the finances and functioning of the ULBs. Recently, 14th CFC has increased grants to ULBs by 2.65 times compared to 13th CFC grants. On the other hand, in case of the State Finance Commissions, there have been substantial delays in taking action on the recommendations of the SFCs and partial acceptance of their recommendations without assigning any reasons by the state governments. Own revenues and transfers form the two most important components of municipal revenues in India. Own revenues comprise tax and non-tax revenues such as property tax, tax on advertisements, user fee, water charges, etc. Transfers consist of state government’s assignments, devolutions and grants-in-aid, Finance Commission dispensations and grants-in-aid from central government. As per the Fourteenth Finance Commission, in 2012–13, municipal revenue constituted just over one per

114

D. Kundu

Table 4.5 State of the finances of municipalities (all states, 2007–13) Structures

Year 2007–08

Year 2012–13

Own sources INR(crore)

Per cent

INR(crore)

Tax revenue

18,366

37.2

30,912

Per cent 32

Non-tax revenue

9134

18.5

19,002

19.7

Sub-total

27,501

55.7

49,913

51.6

3515

7.1

5387

5.6

Transfers Government of India Finance Commission

986

2

3760

3.9

State devolution and assignments

9342

18

18,537

19.2

State grant-in-aid

6653

13.5

14,809

15.3

Others

1355

2.7

4232

4.4

Sub-total

21,851

44.1

46,727

48.4

Own-source revenue as per cent of GDP

0.60

0.48

Total municipal revenue as per cent of GDP

1.08

1.03

Source India Public Finance Statistics, Ministry of Finance 2009–10, and data collected by the Fourteenth Finance Commission

cent of GDP in the country, while municipal revenues in other emerging economies such as Brazil and South Africa are five per cent and six per cent of their GDP, respectively. Thus, there is significant scope for the ULBs in India to contribute to the local taxes. The India Habitat III National Report provides insights into India’s municipal finance system based on data collected for the Fourteenth Finance Commission. The data pertains to the years 2007–08 and 2012–13. The own source of revenues declined from 55.7% in 2007–08 to 51.6% in 2012–13. The overall contribution of municipal finances to GDP, however, remained unchanged (Table 4.5). Importantly, user charges as a percentage of own revenues of ULBs have increased. The Thirteenth Finance Commission database indicates that in 2007–08, the ownsource component of revenues while covering about 52% of the municipal expenditure showed no perceptible change. Transfers, a term used to include all assigned and devolved revenues and various types of grants-in-aid, have emerged as a crucial component of municipal revenues and an important instrument for financing municipal expenditure in India. The 74th Amendment and the JNNURM had in place of have put inter-governmental transfers at the centre of the strategy for strengthening municipal governance. On an average, transfers accounted for 48% of the total municipal revenues in 2012–13, and financed nearly 50% of the total municipal expenditure.

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

115

4.7 India’s Progress in Framing a National Urban Policy Since independence, various programmes related to urban development have been launched, specifically under various five-year plans. However, no National Urban Policy had been launched to guide the process of urbanisation in a planned manner. In recent years, India has moved from a ‘business-as-usual approach’ to paying systematic attention to urbanisation and its challenges. Policymakers and planners believe that Indian cities need a robust framework of urban policy that can guide its current development trajectory. A draft National Urban Policy (NUP) has been formulated as an overarching policy statement that will set the direction for the country’s urbanisation, by providing a policy framework, recognising the fact that urban development in the country is a state subject. The policy comes exactly three decades after the National Commission on Urbanisation (1988), came up with a roadmap on tackling growth in small and mid-sized cities. Since then, there has been no urban policy at the national level. The idea of the policy is to have a fluid plan that can be tweaked at regular intervals instead of one rigid master plan. The draft NUP is based on the following principles: taking urbanisation as an opportunity rather than a challenge; citizen-centric approach to align the development agenda of the cities with people’s priorities and needs; cooperative federalism: freedom and resources to states/urban local bodies (ULBs) to design and implement; focus on infrastructure that leads to delivery of services to citizens; renewed focus on integrated planning through convergence and qualitative improvements; commitment to environment sustainability; focus on inclusive growth. Technology to enhance efficiency of services delivery shifts from project-based approach to outcome-based approach. Based on these principles, India is framing its vision of urbanisation which reinforces the planned approach for addressing urban issues. It lays down ten broad levers to make cities work towards greater efficiency, inclusion, sustainability and safety. These levers are: putting in place integrated urban policies consistent with principle of cooperative federalism; harmonise agglomeration economies; harness the rural–urban continuum; promote inclusive urban development; recognise and actively promote the centrality of sustainability; empower municipalities and other local level institutions; strengthen housing finance system; provide and finance urban infrastructure and basic services; provide access to social justice and gender equity and robust urban information system. The draft principles on which the urbanisation policy will be based further state that cities should plan for density as per location rather than type of land use. Cities should also thrive on multi-modal public transportation and leverage their human capital to become financially self-reliant. The NUPF recognises the fact that urban development is a state subject. Hence, the states need to develop their respective State Urban Policies including Implementation Plans based on this framework. It is not an attempt to provide a detailed, top-down guidebook to cities. The centre will support the development and implementation of State Urban Policies based on the framework directly and shift away from top-down central schemes. It presents a new way of planning Indian cities.

116

D. Kundu

The vision underpinning NUPF 2018 is to see cities as dynamic agglomerations of people who are constantly interacting with each other and with socio-economic institutions and the built environment. The soft and hard infrastructure of the city provides the backdrop for such interaction and are not ends in themselves. The exact optimisation of a specific city, therefore, depends crucially on local context and cannot be done through the blind application of some Cartesian ideal. This is why the new approach emphasises preservation of heritage, revival or even reinvention of local architectural styles, underlining the importance of regional linkages and environmental sustainability. This fits with the fact that plurality is the essence of Indianness. Since human capital agglomeration and un-codified human interaction are so important to this new model, the emphasis is on clustering economic, social and cultural infrastructure. Therefore, in contrast to the past, the new approach encourages mixed use and bringing together social groups. Except hazardous industrial activities, NUPF 2018 discourages urban master plans based on neat silos and rigid text-based codes. Instead, the urban landscape is proposed to be managed by monitoring the form and, where necessary, through strategic interventions. This requires greater emphasis on situation awareness of evolving trends rather than a rigid adherence to some idealised end point. Similarly, there is active encouragement for public spaces that are open to all and encourage interaction. Thus, parks, museums, iconic monuments, sports facilities and bazaars are key to the ‘sense of place’ of a city. Social infrastructure such as universities, places of worship and entertainment hubs need to be part of the urban fabric rather than segregated from the flow of the city. Another important break with the past is the idea that Indian cities need to be managed by building for density. The older approach was to ‘decongest’ the city. NUPF 2018 sees social and economic agglomeration as the purpose of the city. Moreover, there is greater focus on movement of people to, within and between cities. This relates both to daily movement of commuters as well the movement up the socio-economic ladder. The former explains the emphasis on investing in multi-modal public transportation, especially in walkability. The latter explains the emphasis on rentals and secondary real estate markets. This recognises the fact that socio-economic mobility requires the ability to change homes and buy/sell property with ease. Thus, the city is made inclusive by virtue of socio-economic mobility, mixed uses, shared public spaces, public transportation and so on. The obvious question that arises is: Who and how will we apply the new approach? In the absence of a mechanical set of codified steps given from the top, there has to be much greater emphasis on developing a vision at the local level and a unified urban leadership that can implement it. An important ingredient will be the ability of the individual cities to leverage local resources to gain a degree of financial independence. All of this will require rethinking urban administration. Many successful models exist at national and international levels that can be emulated. The constitutional framework already exists, and different states can use the framework to resolve this issue in their own way. Again, the NUPF 2018 has refrained from being too prescriptive.

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

117

Two further issues will need to be considered—capacity and transition. The old approach had one big advantage in that it provided a set of top-down text-based codes that required no more than draftsmanship to plan and to enforce an outcome, no matter how sub-optimal. The new approach needs much more active engagement, institutional memory and deeper understanding of the evolving dynamics of the city. The local state/municipal authorities will now have to think about how to manage the city real time rather than follow some pre-existing codes or rigid master plans given from the top. Vision, monitoring and feedback loops matter in this new approach. This requires design capacities that will be scarce in most cities, especially smaller ones. The draft NUPF 2018 does not expect urban authorities to shift overnight to the new approach. The sudden removal of existing codes and master plans may not be advisable, as this would create a governance vacuum. It will take many years for the new organic, decentralised framework to replace the old urban planning and architectural approach stuck in mid-twentieth century ‘modernism’. Nonetheless, by laying out a clear set of principles, it is hoped that it creates a way for the new thinking to gradually permeate urban planning and management across India. A beginning has already been made through the HRIDAY and Smart Cities Missions where individual cities have been asked to create a bottom-up vision for themselves. It is too early to assess the pros and cons of the NUDF; however, it is clear that the framework is based on the principles of neoliberal philosophy. How far the social obligations of housing the poor will be met is a serious question to be addressed.

4.8 Conclusion and Way Forward Although the current pace of urbanisation is slow with only about one-third of Indians living in cities, the level of urbanisation in the country is predicted to pick up in the future years. Even with the present rate of urbanisation, India housed 377 million people in urban areas in 2011 (Census 2011). A large section of them does not have access to adequate housing and basic amenities. Further, our cities do not have adequate resources, both financial and manpower to run the cities efficiently. Given the scale of requirements, it is unlikely that the investment requirements can be met through vertical transfers alone and underscores the need for own source mobilisation by cities. Cities need to draw up resource mobilisation plans and look at options like impact fees, TDRs (transfer of development rights), land banks and tapping the financial markets through municipal bonds. However, care should be taken to ensure that the vulnerabilities of cities do not increase while adopting these innovative methods of financing. The third tier of government needs to be given more autonomy in deciding and fixing the local taxes, which are currently under the state control. Unlike the reform of central and state-level taxes undertaken in India in the mid-1990s, parallel efforts to reform municipal taxation are few. The draft NUDF should take into account these factors and aid in empowering the cities to work towards sustainable growth.

118

D. Kundu

At present, the Smart Cities Mission is restricted to a few cities and a limited area within the city concerned. Efforts should be made to increase the coverage of the smart city interventions to pan city with a particular emphasis on slums and poor to take forward the tenets of the New Urban Agenda of leaving no one behind in the process of development. Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Dr. Aparajita Ghatak (GIS specialist, NIUA) for the preparation of the GIS-based maps.

References ADB and Ministry of Urban Development. (2007). Report on benchmarking and data book of water utilities in India. Government of India. Batra, L. (2009). A review of urbanization and urban policy in post-development India, Working Paper Series. Working Paper Number CSLG/WP/12, Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Bhagat, R. B. (2014). Urban policies and programmes in India: Retrospect and prospect. Yojana, 58, 4–8. Fujita, M., Krugman, P., & Venables, A. (1999). The spatial economy: Cities, regions and international trade. Government of India (2011). Report on Indian infrastructure and services. High Powered Expert Committee (HPEC). Harris, J (2005). Political Participation, Representation and the Urban Poor: Findings from Research in Delhi. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(11), 1041–1054. Henderson, V. (2000). How Urban Concentration Affects Economic Growth. World Bank Policy Research, Working Paper, (2326). Jacob, J. (1984). Cities and the wealth of nations: Principles of economic life. New York, NY: Vintage. Knowledge Wharton (2016). Leveraging the Internet of Things for Competitive Advantage, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/leveragingtheinternet-of-things-for-competitive-advantage/ Kundu, et al. (2007). A Strategy Paper on ‘Migration and Urbanization in the Context of Development Dynamics, Governmental Programmes and Evolving Institutional Structure in India’, A Paper commissioned by United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Kundu, A., Bagchi, S. & Kundu, D. (1999). Regional distribution of infrastructure and basic amenities in urban India: Issues concerning empowerment of local bodies. Economic and Political Weekly, 34(28), 1893–1906. Kundu, D., & Samanta, D. (2011). Redefining the inclusive urban agenda in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(5), 55–63. Mahadevia, D. (2003). From Utopia to Pragmatism: The Paradoxes of Urban Development in India. Review of Development and Change, 8, 171–220. Mathew, G. (2015). Investment challenge: Smart cities need smart funding options. The Indian Express, August 15. Retrieved from: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/ investment-challenge-smart-cities-need-smart-funding-options/ McKinsey Global Institute. (2010). India’s Urban Awakening: Building Inclusive Cities. New Delhi: Sustaining Economic Growth. MoHUPA, GoI. (2016). India Habitat III: National Report. Accessed from: http://mhupa.gov.in/ writereaddata/1560.pdf.

4 Urbanisation in India: Towards a National Urban Policy …

119

Mookerji, N., & Taneja, M. (2014). Flexible PPP Pact to Woo Industry for Smart City. Available from http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/flexible-ppp-pact-to-wooindustry-for-smart-city-114091701235_1.html. Accessed March 18, 2016. National Institute of Public Finance and Policy. (2009). India urban report: A summary assessment. Planning Commission. (2011a). Mid TERM APPRAISAL OF ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Planning Commission. (2011b). Report of the Working Group on Financing Urban Infrastructure. Government of India. Planning Commission. (2012). Press Note on Poverty Estimates: 2009–10 and 2011–12. Government of India. Press Information Bureau (2016). Prime Minister to launch smart city projects. Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA), Government of India, June 23. Registrar General of India (2011). Census of India. Government of India. Sivaramakrishnan, K. C., Kundu, A., & Singh, B. N. (2007). Handbook of urbanization in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2018). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 Revision. Online Edition. UN-Habitat. (2013). State of the world cities 2012/2013: Prosperity of cities. New York, NY: UN-Habitat for better life. World Bank Report. (2015). South Asia: Managing Spatial Transformation for Prosperity and Livability, Conference Edition, Washington DC, USA.

Chapter 5

Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan From Messy and Hidden Urbanisation to Smart and Green Cities Nasir Javed, Rahema Hasan, and Nadia N. Qureshi Abstract Pakistan is urbanising at a faster rate compared to several other south Asian countries. As World Bank has described, urbanisation is characterised as ‘messy and hidden’, as it is mostly haphazard and informal in nature and a large share of population, living at the periphery, remain undocumented. Pakistani cities also lack adequate basic infrastructure. The existing policies are unable to cope up with growing challenges. Against this backdrop, Pakistan recently adopted National Urban Policy (NUP) to achieve a sustainable future. This chapter describes Pakistan’s urban challenges and the possible role of NUP in solving these issues and guide it towards a sustainable and greener future. Keywords Messy and hidden urbanisation · NUP

5.1 Urbanisation in Pakistan Pakistan is in the midst of a major urbanisation boom; the recent population census of 2017 reveals that 75.6 million people live in urban centres, which constitutes 36.4 % of the total population in the country (Ministry of Statistics, Government of Pakistan 2017). However, in reality, the share is much higher than the reported figure. In calculating the urban population, the Census 2017 has used the administrative definition of urban, i.e. areas falling within the Urban Local Councils, which is a fairly restrictive definition, that excludes a large chunk of suburban developments. The country is urbanising at an annual growth rate of 2.4% (Ministry of Statistics, Government of Pakistan 2017), which is the fastest in South Asia (Kugelman 2014). N. Javed (B) · R. Hasan · N. N. Qureshi The Urban Unit, Lahore, Pakistan e-mail: [email protected] R. Hasan e-mail: [email protected] N. N. Qureshi e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_5

121

122

N. Javed et al.

This rate of urbanisation has picked up pace only in recent years and things are changing rapidly in Pakistan. It is estimated that 52.2% of the country’s population will reside in urban areas by the year 2050 (UNDESA 2018). For Pakistan, this rapid growth has a serious downside since most of it is of low quality. Cities today are being transformed globally to become engines of economic growth, with the aim to unlock urban productivity through creation of agglomerate economies and the generation of employment and with thrust to innovation. However, cities in Pakistan are becoming centres of consumption rather than engines of growth and production and it is ‘messy and hidden’ in nature, as described by Ellis and Roberts (2016). ‘Messy’ urbanisation in Pakistan’s context manifests itself in the form of inadequate access to housing, drinking water, sanitation services for most of the urban residents and city streets that are gridlocked with traffic. Again, massive rural to urban migration gives rise to urbanisation on the peripheries of major cities, that are not captured by official statistics, leading to the ‘hidden’ part of the equation. With rapid urbanisation and service delivery deficits, problems are expected to aggravate, posing a challenge to Pakistan’s economic trajectory. Unfortunately, there is little realisation that urbanisation, being a one-off phenomenon, if handled badly will be extremely difficult to control and manage. One of the reasons for this disordered and downcast urbanisation in Pakistan is the mindset of the policy makers, both at the political and bureaucratic levels. Historically, at the time of its creation in 1947, Pakistan inherited a large rural setup. Majority of its population had roots in the villages and hence the leadership did not buy into the argument that cities are the economic engines of a country and should be focused upon. They envisioned and focused on the model of integrated rural development. They primarily aimed at taking facilities to the doorsteps of the villagers which eventually discouraged rural to urban migration. This mindset has been a major reason for lack of a comprehensive urban policy at the national and even at the provincial level. In many ways, Pakistan still manages cities from a rural perspective, like the centuries-old land record system is still prevalent in most of the cities. The main civil service, for example, is still called the ‘District’ management group, with a primary focus on rural management. Till date, the country’s policy makers have not been able to decide how to define urban areas. These vague and arbitrary definitions of urban areas along with the lack of integration are hampering the process of urbanisation in Pakistan. The ambiguity between rural and urban regions has resulted in the underestimation of the ongoing expansion of urban areas, even if they reflect all the urban characteristics, thereby making policy formulation even more complex. The propensity towards agriculture continues to exist even in contemporary Pakistan where land ownership is still considered to be the ultimate measure of wealth. This mindset has grounded Pakistan’s progress in the agriculture sector, keeping itself aloof from urban epistemology. A common definition to define an urban area would be the first step to change the mindset. This will help to assess and develop socio-economic development plans across the country based on urban characteristics. In addition, this will aid in comparability of urban development across national and international regions.

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

123

Between 1958 and 1980, the main framework for growth and development in Pakistan was the Five Year Plans. Since the country was considered to be an agricultural economy, their focus was majorly on the rural and agricultural sector. In 1979, the first comprehensive local government ordinance was introduced in all provinces, which created the urban local governments in the form of municipal corporations, municipal committees and town committees. Around the same time, various city-level outline development plans, master plans and structural plans were also developed for urban areas. However, they all lacked a proper framework for implementation as well, since the Local Government Act was sketchy and unclear. Perhaps the first significant attempt at harnessing the urban potential came in 2011 when the Planning Commission launched ‘The Framework of Economic Growth’ that provided a major thrust towards ‘Creative cities’, focusing primarily on making cities commercially active with retail markets and accelerated growth of housing and infrastructure. Subsequently, in 2013, the Government of Pakistan launched the ‘Pakistan Vision 2025’, that focused on ‘smart and planned cities’ as important drivers of growth, stating that ‘the challenge for Pakistan will be to address the existing challenges of the large urban centres while planning ahead for the continued migration towards cities’. The vision aimed to harness the full potential of planned urbanisation by adding connectivity and modern infrastructure to develop creative, smart and green cities. The Vision 2025 seeks to ensure that Pakistan’s cities are digitally connected, equipped with wireless network sensors and there is e-connectivity in all parts where free flow of information is possible, thereby laying the foundations for the cities of Pakistan to be smart and creative. In the same year, the Government of Punjab, the largest province in the country, notified the Punjab Growth Strategy, 2018, which had a major focus on comprehensive urban development, calling ‘cities the engines of growth’. Despite all these plans, strategies, visions and frameworks, the situation of the cities across the country has not improved, rather, it has been worsening. Hardly a fraction of what was planned and claimed has been achieved; owing perhaps to the fact that an integrated policy framework for urbanisation is lacking.

5.2 Pakistan’s Urban Challenges The challenges caused by unmanaged and unplanned rapid urbanisation have accelerated at the same pace as has urbanisation in Pakistan. The country has performed poorly in managing these challenges, leading to further problems and issues. Authorities at the federal, provincial and municipal levels in Pakistan are struggling to manage these challenges with modest success, primarily owing to less than optimum governance framework, including the lack of coherent policies, strategies, legal and regulatory institutions and their limited capacities. Given the rate of urbanisation, the quantum of the challenges as explained below and need for a comprehensive action, Pakistan faces a real challenge turning this urban crisis into an urban opportunity.

124

N. Javed et al.

5.2.1 Land Management Unplanned urban sprawl continues to go unchecked throughout Pakistan. From an analysis of the pattern of urban expansion of the top 50 cities of Punjab, it is noted that these cities have grown three folds between 1995 and 2015. Corresponding to the urban sprawl, cities have grown in a low-density fashion as illustrated through the maps for Lahore and Rawalpindi–Islamabad in Figs. 5.1 and 5.2. It is seen that the urban footprint of Lahore has increased by 203% from 220 to 665 km2 and the densities have declined by 32% from 18,700 persons per km2 to 12,700 during the same period. Low-density areas of Lahore have increased from 48 to 58%. Outdated master plans for the cities, inadequate land use regulations, dispersed land use patterns, fragmented and overlapping local boundaries, lack of a unified urban land record system and overlapping municipal jurisdictions have resulted in such poor land management. This has in turn led to the development of informal settlements, commonly known as ‘Katchi abadi’1 and slums resulting in urban poverty and inequality. According to Shaikh and Nabi (2017), 36% of the population in Karachi that live in formal settlements and it covers approximately 77% of the city’s

Fig. 5.1 Lahore spatial Urban expansion 1995–2005–2015 (left) and Lahore Intra City Density 2015 (right) 1 ‘Katchi abadi’ is a legal definition of a slum that has developed over encroached land, mostly state

owned. Whereas the term slum is used here to depict a settlement that lacks basic urban services.

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

125

Fig. 5.2 Rawalpindi–Islamabad spatial Urban expansion 1995–2005–2015 (left) and Intra City Density 2015 (right)

residential land, with urban densities below 8400 per km2 . On the other hand, informal settlements in Karachi have densities as high as 450,000 per km2 (Case Studies for the Global Report on Human Settlements 2003). These huge disparities in the distribution of land within the city have made equal access to vital urban services a challenging task. In addition, the expansion of the city beyond its administrative boundaries has further burdened service delivery, as the administration only plans and serves residents within its own boundary irrespective of inhabitation beyond it. The apparent mismatch in the administrative boundary2 and urban extents3 (i.e. city boundary) in four cities of Pakistan (Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi–Islamabad and Faisalabad) can be visualised in the Fig. 5.3. It is seen that the urban expansion is most vigorous in Rawalpindi–Islamabad and the city boundary has become much larger than its administrative boundary. Similarly, in case of Faisalabad, the city expanded beyond its administrative boundary at many places. Even the city of Karachi has noted rapid increase in the built-up areas and

2 The

administrative boundary is the boundary of Municipal Committee, Municipal Corporation and Metropolitan Corporation, officially notified as administrative boundary by the Punjab Local Government System. 3 The city boundary is the urban extent of a city, demarcated through a methodology of built-up contiguity, by using remotely sensed satellite imagery of Landsat.

126

N. Javed et al.

Fig. 5.3 The mismatch of administrative and city boundaries in the four large cities of Pakistan

coalesced with nearby towns like Din Qasim and Kamari in 2013 (Mehboob et al. 2015).

5.2.2 Affordable Housing The second major challenge to urban development is to provide affordable housing for all. At present, Pakistan has a serious housing shortage of around 10 million units, with the deficit escalating rapidly in urban areas (World Bank 2017). Again, the State Bank of Pakistan estimated a housing shortage at 4.4 million units in 2015 (Shaikh and Nabi 2017). According to an analysis it is seen that the housing shortage in Punjab was at 2.45 million in 2017 as shown in Fig. 5.4, and as per projections using inter-census growth rate, it is expected to soar to 5.1 million by 2028 and 11.3 million by the year 2047, if the current trends continue. Moreover, there is a mismatch between the supply and demand of housing for various sections of the society. The actual housing shortage which causes people to live in overcrowded housing conditions is in fact conditioned by income levels. Developed land, large and expensive houses are in excess of their demand, which has also led to land hoarding and speculation, causing prices of land to rise, making it unusable for affordable housing and affecting the low-income groups. Figure 5.5 highlights the mismatch between the proportion of households who can afford a certain type of houses and the percentage of that type of housing units available to that population proportion. However, the concentration of new developments remains to serve majorly the middle and higher-income groups. On the other hand, it is the lowest income group who suffers the most. It is noted that the deficit in housing

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

127

Fig. 5.4 Housing Shortage 2017 Map. Source Author’s calculations (projections based on Population Census 1981, 1998, 2017)

128

N. Javed et al.

Fig. 5.5 Housing affordability and relative shortage

is highest for the lowest income group, accounting for only 5% of the total housing compared to their 40% population share. This quantifiable housing gap is being accompanied by qualitative deprivations too, which include but are not limited to structural deficiencies, overcrowding and lack of water and sanitation facilities, indicating the seriousness of the situation across urban areas in Pakistan. Therefore, the provision of affordable housing requires planning and an urban policy that focuses on increasing supply. Over the years, various governments have attempted to resolve these housing issue, beginning with the Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s slogan of ‘Roti Kapra aur Makan’ (Bread, Clothing & Housing) in 1970s, to the Ashiana housing scheme in Punjab announced in 2010, the Prime Minister’s Apna Ghar Program in 2013 at the national level and the current government’s plans, announced in, to build 5 million housing units over the next five years. Unfortunately, none of the schemes has been able to have a real impact, owing to the overall weak governance framework and the lack of a comprehensive National Urban Policy. Furthermore, in 2001, the also the federal government announced the National Housing Policy 2001; that analysed the real issues facing the housing sector in Pakistan such as the housing shortage, lack of housing finance, non-existence of foreclosure laws, lack of planning and outdated building and zoning regulations (Jabeen 2015). The policy had set ambitious targets for the provision of urban and affordable housing, however, like many other policies, and the lack of supporting strategies, plans, and institutional arrangements, and inadequacy in implementation, the objectives of the policy could not be achieved.

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

129

5.2.3 Urban Transportation Despite the rapid development of urban centres, urban mobility still remains a big challenge for cities across the country. According to Imran (2009), the lack of planning accompanied by capacity constraints and a failure to utilise high-density mixed land use patterns have obstructed the development of a public transport system, leaving urban centres without efficient transport systems, which in turn hampers mobility, equity and environment sustainability. For example, Karachi, even after being a megacity, continues to function without a mass public transport system, where out of the total vehicular traffic, public transport vehicles comprise only 4.5% share but cater to 42% of the total population of the city (Shaikh and Nabi 2017). The choice of using non-motorised transport including walking and cycling has become increasingly difficult for city dwellers as the cities and the trip distances have expanded, despite which, the use of non-motorised transport is 40% in Lahore (Shaikh and Nabi 2017) and this share is about 50% in the case of Karachi (Lodi 2014). A case study of the Lahore Metro Bus system has been conducted to analyse the city’s attempt at an integrated mass transit system based on global practices for sustainable mobility. As per the Lahore rapid mass transit system developed by JICA, the Lahore Metro Bus, known as the green line as shown in Fig. 5.6, was to serve users on the primary corridors identified, with routes feeding into other mass transit lines. However, at present, the Lahore Metro Bus is the only operational mass transit line built, while the rail-based corridor of 27 km, the orange line is still underway. As shown in Fig. 5.7, given the fact that no other line is running, accessibility remains an issue for a large proportion of the population in the city (Fig 5.7). Other than the issue of accessibility, there are other issues with the green line, that include a lack in the ease of using the system, a lack of information for the commuters, an inefficient fare structure for shorter trip, non-integration of bus stops with land use and densities, and a lack of integration among different public and private transport operators. Furthermore, the feeder routes are inefficient and non-user friendly with poor and unplanned route alignment and with a complex ticketing system, requiring a card by all uses to get on the buses, where the card is only available at a few stops across the city. It is also noted that, the lack of mass public transport network has led to a high demand for private transport, increased automobile ownership leading to traffic congestion. In addition, the existing urban transport networks discourage women’s mobility in urban areas, due to the lack of women-specific seats and the lack of safety in all modes of public transport. An inadequate and inefficient urban transport system not only obstructs urban mobility but also hampers economic activity within and between the cities. These challenges regarding urban transport are yet another reason that underline the need for a National Urban Policy that deals with different sectors of transportation, which up till now have been dealt with in silos, keeping focus away from an integrated multi-modal and transit-oriented development framework. Recently, the government launched a National Transport Policy in 2017, however, the impact of the policy is yet to be observed. It is for reasons like these that urban

130

N. Javed et al.

Fig. 5.6 Lahore rapid mass transit system

mobility in the urban centres in Pakistan continues to be a big challenge, despite investments at least in the big cities. Learning from this initiative, Punjab and Pakistan should plan efficient urban transport systems in an inter-connected way ensuring that future transport and mobility challenges are linked to urbanisation.

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

Range

Population Served

131

Percentage

0–5

6,444,476

69.84

5.1 – 10

1,180,350

12.79

10.1 – 15

591,695

6.41

15.1 – 20

581,815

6.31

20.1 – 25

363,647

3.94

> 25

65,821

0.71

Total

9,227,805

100

Fig. 5.7 Transport accessibility level in Lahore—Mass transit system

5.2.4 Water and Sanitation According to recent estimates by the World Health Organisation, only 36% of the people in Pakistan have access to safe drinking water. The situation of the urban areas is better than rural counterparts as the figure is 41% for urban compared to 32% in rural areas. Furthermore, discharge of waste into drains and water bodies has resulted into deteriorating water quality. According to a study conducted by the State Bank of Pakistan, 50 million people in Pakistan are exposed to the peril of arsenic poisoning from contaminated groundwater. Samples of underground water indicate arsenic levels of over 200 µg/l, which was considerably higher than the WHO’s recommendation of 10 µg and the Government’s limit of 50 µg (State Bank of Pakistan 2017). A National Drinking Water Policy (NDWP) 2009 has been approved with the aim to improve the water quality and affordability by 2025 for the entire population of Pakistan. The clear separation between the provision of services and overall regulation is the main objective of the policy. According to the policy, access means at least 45 and 120 litres per capita per day of drinking water available to all the households in rural and urban areas respectively and the source of the drinking water should be within the house premise or at a such a distance that the total time required for reaching the water source, collecting water and returning to home is not more than 30 min. This policy also highlights the importance of local government to provide drinking water and recognises women as main actors of domestic water supply and management. The provincial policies for Punjab (2011), Sind (2017) and KPK (2015) are also adopted from the National Drinking Water Policy (NDWP). Similar to water supply situation, waste collection and management services remain low throughout the country. Waste management in Punjab through waste

132

N. Javed et al.

management companies is confined to only six major cities of the province. Similarly, a metropolis such as Karachi that generates nearly 13,000 tons of garbage daily has only two landfills, which are more of dumping sites than landfill sites (Ebrahim 2018). This not only affects the quality of life and environment but is also a huge threat to the economy. Furthermore, as per estimates, the lack of adequate sanitation is costing Pakistan 344 billion rupees per annum (Jatoo et al. 2016) and the World Bank estimates this economic loss to be around of the 3.9% of the GDP (Shaikh and Nabi 2017). As more and more cities urbanise with limited resources at hand, Pakistan needs to adopt a sound National Urban Policy or framework which can help addressing these challenges of water, waste and sanitation to ensure a healthy life for its citizens.

5.2.5 Environmental Challenges The major cities of Pakistan are facing major environmental challenges, adversely affecting livability. Other than rapid urbanisation, the deterioration of the environment is a result of many local determinants including ineffective environmental compliance from commercial and industrial stakeholders, inadequate public transport, inefficient waste management and recycling mechanism, deforestation, and the lack of an environmentally friendly infrastructure. The air quality of Pakistan shows that the concentrations of PM10 in the urban areas of Pakistan often exceed 200 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3 ). This value disproportionately exceeds the World Health Organisation (WHO) benchmark of 70 µg/m3 (Sánchez-Triana et al. 2014). The government and the concerned stakeholders have to move towards a more environmentally friendly regime before these environmental hazards turn into major catastrophes for the country. The authors were part of the team that undertook a situational analysis on the Karachi heat wave of 2015 that killed more than a thousand residents over three days (Commissioner Karachi 2017). Of the many reasons, the analysis revealed that largely unplanned urban development patterns, traffic congestion, lack of green areas and poor urban services had a direct and strong correlation with the number of deaths per/1000 of population. This situational analysis highlighted that urban planning also needs to take into account future environmental challenges linked with rapid urbanisation to ensure an environment that is conducive to livability as well as to economic activity (ESSA Technologies, Urban Unit 2017).

5.2.6 Limited Public and Green Spaces Public spaces, especially green spaces are an important part of the urban life and this understanding has been embedded in the New Urban Agenda as well as the Sustainable Development Goals. Public spaces such as recreational areas, green

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

133

spaces, public sidewalks, community centres and buildings play an important part in improving productivity and health of urban residents, encouraging spatial integration and social inclusion. These spaces reflect the degree of livability in the city, especially when it comes to densely built cities like Karachi or Lahore. But these continue to be a negligent area in city development in Pakistan. Haque (2015) highlights that until the year 2010, only 2% of the development schemes aimed at providing public centre/spaces in the country, which included libraries, community centres and graveyards. Although, there are private housing scheme rules, land use rules and building regulations that dictate a certain percentage of development to be open public space, the rules and regulations are rudimentary and fragmented. Rapid urban growth in Pakistan has added to urban congestion, thereby adversely affecting the per capita space availability. Also the total share of available green space is also declining at a fast rate in the big cities of the country (Bidgood 2017). According to a spatial analysis conducted, it is seen that, on an average, cities in Punjab have 4–8% open public spaces and parks, compared to internationally recommended share of a minimum 15%. Figure 5.8 shows this spatial disparity of green spaces across cities in Pakistan. The same analysis reveals that proportion of green spaces in cities is being lost as cities urbanise; Karachi, being the largest city in Pakistan, has the largest built-up area with the lowest percentage of green space of 6% in comparison with other cities. Proper zoning and plans are needed to ensure public spaces are developed throughout the cities in Pakistan. With high rise buildings expected to change the future look of cities, provision of quality public and green spaces has become imperative and needs to be incorporated in the future city urban design.

5.2.7 Poverty and Social Insecurity Rapid urbanisation in Pakistan has resulted in an upsurge in the incidence of relative urban poverty and social insecurity. In terms of absolute numbers, 74 million persons were estimated to be poor during the year 2015–16, an increase of 13 million from estimated 61 million between 2010–11 and 2015–16. Table 5.1 reveals the increasing share of poor population both in urban and rural areas. In the past, the rural areas had higher levels of poverty but with fast-growing urban population in recent years, urban poverty has increased. It is noted that a large share of urban population is poor. The share of poor people rose from 19 to 30% between 1987–88 and 2001–02. After a short period (between 2001–02 and 2004–05) of decline in the share, it again started rising since 2004–05 and reached its highest in 2010–11 (34%). Contrary to the increasing trend of rural poverty, the share of population below poverty line is declining after 2010–11. Even the growth rate of poverty was also higher for urban areas till 2004–05. After 2004–05, the growth rate of urban poverty became much lower than growth rate of rural poverty. It is seen that urban poverty is less than rural poverty, since people migrate to cities in search of better living, the incidence of rural gets transferred to urban areas which results the increase in urban poverty.

Fig. 5.8 Green spaces, planned and unplanned areas in metropolitan cities of Pakistan

134 N. Javed et al.

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

135

Table 5.1 Trends in poverty incidence (Percentage of population living below the poverty line) Pakistan

1987–88

1996–97

1998–99

2001–02

2004–05

2010–11

2015–16

23

28

30

33

30

38

38

(2.4)

(3.6)

(3.3)

(−3.0)

(4.4)

(0.0)

25

30

28

34

32 (−1.2)

Urban

19

25 (3.5)

(0.0)

(6.7)

(−2.2)

(3.6)

Rural

26

30

32

35

31

39

41

(1.7)

(3.3)

(3.1)

(−3.8)

(4.3)

(1.0)

Note Annualized growth rates (percent) from previous period are given in parenthesis Source Latest estimates are based on HIES 2015–16. The poverty incidences for other are taken from Jamal (2013). Consistent methodology and calorie norms are applied for all years

The upsurge in urban population and in the unplanned urban settlements like slums and ‘Katchi Abadis’ have not only increased the levels of poverty but also the crime rates, violence and other unintended social consequences that result from deprivation. The excessive pressure on cities has also burdened the social infrastructure within cities. A high percentage of urban population is being provided with low quality of health and education, inadequate housing, urban mobility and deteriorating drinking water and sanitation facilities. The growing urban poverty and social insecurity is severely undermining the overall socio-economic fabric of major urban centres, creating a need for immediate attention. There is an urgent need to address this. Moreover, urban poverty is more damaging, as the urban society’s social and family safety networks are less secure than rural areas. Similarly, poverty averages hide the relative higher percentages of poverty and lower quality of municipal and social services at the peripheries of cities, ‘katchi abadis’ and slums, urging the need for a more equitable governance. There have been numerous poverty reduction programs in Pakistan to improve the standard of living of the population, for example, the Employees Old-age Benefits Scheme, Social Welfare Program, Targeted Income Transfer Schemes and Social Security Schemes and the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF), but no significant impact has been witnessed.

5.2.8 Urban Governance Despite the growth of cities in Pakistan, little has been done to develop systems for urban governance. The current urban governance system is plagued by over centralisation, institutional incapability and extremely deficient human resources. This has resulted in not just confusion in the management of urban areas, but in outdated master plans and land records, overlapping administrative jurisdiction boundaries between different urban authorities as highlighted by Javed and Riaz (2018) for

136

N. Javed et al.

Fig. 5.9 Administrative jurisdiction of different institutions in Lahore. Source Javed and Riaz (2018)

Lahore. Figure 5.9 shows different administrative authorities operating in Lahore that have overlapping administrative areas. This example alone highlights the argument that the existing structure and system of urban governance in Pakistan needs to be revamped under the umbrella of a National Urban Policy, which clearly identifies the role and geographical administrative spread of each urban agency. Lack of a sound legal and regulatory framework have also adversely affected urbanisation at the provincial levels; restricting growth to only provincial headquarters and a few major commercial regions, causing extreme spatial inequality. The impact of these deficiencies has directed focus on the provision of urban infrastructure rather than on service delivery. Therefore, the country struggles in two core areas of urban governance, i.e. resource planning and its management. This scenario necessitates a National Urban Policy which can help the country to improve its capacity to respond to this urban challenge in an effective manner while strengthening the system for planning and resource mobilisation.

5.3 The Need for a National Urban Policy Looking at urbanisation as an opportunity rather than a challenge, Pakistan needs to urgently develop a National Urban Policy that will be an instrument for introducing

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

137

and applying a coherent set of interventions that will foster the future growth of the cities. A National Urban Policy is needed not only to address the strains and challenges caused by the lack of planning and rapid urbanisation, but rather to understand and realise the importance and the potential of the cities in Pakistan. There is much that can be achieved through urbanisation if there are responsive and effective policies, supported by adequate infrastructure. By developing a National Urban Policy, a nationwide drive can be initiated to develop cities that are the engines of growth for Pakistan, ushering in a new era of development which is citizen-centric, coordinated and sustainable. A national vision will set forth the way for a nation-wide framework, which will highlight the desired output and eventual outcomes, identifying key enablers, cross-cutting principles and stakeholders. The former will help in mobilizing and empowering urban actors for problem solving, which will help in educating and focusing attention towards urban challenges and opportunities, and aid in building resilient cities over time. Pakistan needs an urban policy at the national level which reflects its citizen’s aspirations, state capabilities, historical legacy, cultural context and present economic situation. All these elements will direct policy relevance and discourse towards many urban issues that remain neglected. A National Urban Policy can set forth a platform for integrated planning through convergence and qualitative improvements. Cities in Pakistan are experiencing both urban population growth as well as urban expansion. According to the urban cluster analysis by the Urban Unit, among the emerging cities, Kamoki and Muridke have witnessed the greatest urban expansion between 1995 and 2015 (Ibrahim and Riaz 2018) that is 12.17% and 9.39%, respectively. These two cities may be insignificant at the provincial horizon today but are expected to grow as urban clusters and may even integrate with Lahore in the future (Ibrahim and Riaz 2018). This analysis highlights how areas once ignored and thought of as rural are developing and emerging as new urban clusters. Although such urban expansions have triggered remarkable developments in these areas, challenges linked to these have also developed and are going unresolved. One of the major issues related to the development of cities, termed by the World Bank terms as ‘messy and hidden’, is that of urban sprawl and the growth of the city beyond its administrative boundaries. A stagnant economic trajectory with rapid urbanisation does not present a promising future and without proper urban planning, cities in Pakistan will not be able to accommodate the growing urban populations. Rather than becoming engines of growth, cities in Pakistan may become centres of discontent and unrest if timely action in the form of formulating and implementing a National Urban Policy is not taken.

5.3.1 Towards Smart and Green Cities Pakistan’s Vision 2025 sets forth the agenda of economic as well as urban development in the country, marking cities the primary generator of GDP. Comprehensive

138

N. Javed et al.

planning and translation of policies into action can help create vibrant and productive cities in Pakistan. Similarly, development priorities based on national and international urban agenda can also impact Pakistan’s cities in a big and positive way. Cities, which have marked their presence in the international arena, focused on intensive policy coordination and investment decisions, with the aim to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable so as to create opportunities for all. With the aim to provide better living conditions and economic opportunities to existing and future generations, following a National Urban Policy, cities in Pakistan need to also work on adopting a ‘smart and green route’ which focuses on the aspect of sustainability and inclusivity. Pakistan needs an urban development mechanism that provides and caters to its urban residents’ economic needs, promotes social inclusivity and environment sustainability. Innovation and adequate policy measures can aid in designing and managing cities which are smart and provide quality of life to its residents in an efficient and effective way. According to different assessments, significant investments will be required to meet future needs of cities with the current rate of urbanisation, with expenditure on city development and infrastructure expected to be around trillions of dollars over the next 30 years (PwC 2010). To make urbanisation a productive and positive transformation agenda, a National Urban Policy is required which is based on three main goals namely (i) social equality that will promote inclusivity, (ii) economic viability that will promote financial self-sustenance and (iii) environment sustainability that will promote the preservation of environment. Assessing urban development through the lens of sustainability, concept of smarter and green cities transpires. Keeping in purview the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Pakistan has the potential to develop ‘smart and green cities’.

5.3.2 Components of Smart and Green Cities The foresight of a modern smart city is an urban centre which is safe, green and efficient. This is only possible if the city infrastructure for waste management, water, energy, transportation, etc. is designed, constructed and maintained using advanced technologies and promotes integration of networks. The following components in Fig. 5.10 describe the foundations of sustainable green urban development. Modern livable cities agenda in Pakistan will have to be based on the notion of smart and green cities, entailing use of smart technology to ensure social inclusiveness and integration of urban life with technological components for a higher quality of life for urban residents. Having a well-defined urban form will set forth the development of a city, addressing two basic needs: that is economic viability and environmental sustainability. Smart and green cities can only be developed when an enforced urban growth boundary is established for each city. A well-defined urban growth boundary will not only help in limiting urban sprawl but will also aid in effective development planning in cities. Similarly, urban development will have to be centred around a public transit

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

Urban Transportation

Urban Form

01

Urban Environment

139

Urban Growth Boundary Transit-oriented development Mixed -use of land Small blocks -Density Public Green Spaces

02

Urban mobility Car Limits Non-motorized transit

03

Waste Management Renewable energy Water Efficiency

Fig. 5.10 Components of sustainable green urban development

system, to ensure convenience and accessibility for urban residents. The urban form will have to define and promote mixed-use of urban land to ensure availability and accessibility to basic amenities, which include schools, post offices, banks, retail market, green public spaces, etc. At the same time, promoting small block development will increase density in cities and the accessibility to public green spaces, which is an essential component for growth of future cities. These public spaces will enable and promote climate-friendly cities, where urban residents can interact, share ideas and relax. By encouraging densely built yet greener cities, authorities will not only enhance economic activity in an area but will also improve quality of life for its citizens. Urban mobility will be a key factor in development of modern cities and will play a major role in shaping urban resident’s activities and participation in the society. A modern and intelligent transport system will have to be put in place to improve efficiency and resource utilisation across cities in Pakistan. A smart and green transport solution will be one that improves traffic management and accessibility, reduces congestion and travel time, provides road safety and at the same time allows cycling lanes and safe pedestrian sidewalks. To be able to achieve this, city authorities will have to explore ways in which they can promote non-motorised transport and place limits on the use of cars, to enable a clean urban transport system. Cities will have to be innovative in their approach and while they encourage people to use these new approaches, they will have to invest heavily in the provision of public transport, which at present, is negligible in many major cities of Pakistan. The use of smart meters for waste management, water and power transmission, along with the use of renewable energy, will help build a smart urban environment in cities, providing a solution that is based on technology and promotes efficient use of resources. For example, smart grids/meters for water and power transmission can reduce leakage and waste and can be integrated into alternate sources of electricity, like solar and wind energy. The environmental benefits to be gained through smart

140

N. Javed et al.

Smart energy management Smart water management Smart waste management Urban mobility Smart environment Smart communication Smart surveillance

Physical Infrastructure

Incubators Skill developmentcenters Specialized business parks, hubs, etc.

Social Infrastructure

Economic Infrastructure

Smart healthcare Smart education Recreation: arts, sports, culture

Institutional Framework

E-governance and citizen services

Fig. 5.11 Components for smart cities management

management of the urban environment are huge and can have a ripple effect on the economy. A green and smart city approach entails technology-based solutions, which not only make urban service delivery economically viable but also stand to confirm environmental sustainability and social inclusiveness. Future modern cities need to integrate various technological components to deliver better urban services as well as provide a higher quality of life to urban residents. Figure 5.11 cites a few components, which if adopted under the National Urban Policy can pave the way for smarter and green cities in Pakistan. The road towards smart cities is going to be about smart solutions rather than smart products. Information and Communication Technology (ICT)-based systems will only be a small block in the pile, rather capabilities will have to be developed to provide end-to-end solutions, which will require partnerships to adopt these technologies and to cash in on their benefits. City wise smart city projects will have to be initiated that take into account the needs and future demands of the city based on the urbanisation trends. This move towards smart cities will require coordinated action and an integrated approach, based on the national policy agenda to accomplish the city’s vision. This will primarily require smart physical infrastructure different from the existing one in cities across Pakistan. In addition to urban transport and form, as discussed previously, smart communication and surveillance systems ensuring public safety and security will play a key role in law enforcement.

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

141

On similar lines, Punjab has already introduced a ‘Safe City Project’ under the Punjab Safe City Authority, which has been designed not only for security but is also integrated with traffic management, emergency response and modern communication systems. Similarly, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) government has taken an initiative of Cyber-Emergency Response Centre that is aimed at ensuring cyber-security for its citizens. Given the rise in cyber-crime, such initiatives will help Pakistan in shaping its future IT vision and plans. Again, digital learning will define the future of modern cities as well as human development. Smart infrastructure that equips educational and health facilities with modern technologies can act as a catalyst to human and economic development of Pakistan. For example, connecting rural health units with specialist diagnostic centres through tele-services can help in improving maternal health. Details of a few initiatives have already been initiated by provincial governments in Pakistan for the management of educational and health institutes and some related to specific surveillance projects are given in Table 5.2. Pakistan is experiencing growth in tech-innovation and entrepreneurial culture especially in major urban centres like Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar. The growth on this front has also contributed to increased incubation of social labs, skill development programs and specialised business hubs. It is pertinent that developing economies see exponential growth in terms of major economic indicators such as GDP per capita, productive employment and balance economic growth, as they move towards such structural changes in their socio-economic dynamics. It is important to note that provincial governments in Pakistan introduced various ICT-based initiatives (Table 5.2) and the Pakistan Vision 2025 sets a direction in this regard by stressing on the model of smart governance to improve city management. Punjab has been the leading province in this case and established an institution for this purpose, named Punjab Information Technology Board (PITB), with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Technology Board (KPITB) following behind. Pakistan has made its way to develop smart cities through adoption of various ICT initiatives, and the table below gives a description of the various initiatives running across five major cities of Pakistan, namely Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, Faisalabad and Peshawar. These initiatives have been pinned against the same components proposed for smart city development. Despite the fact that Pakistan has made its way towards smart cities, a lot still needs to be done. Much of the initiatives undertaken till date are more sector specific rather than city-centric. This once again necessitates a National Urban Policy that provides a holistic direction and platform for development. The management of cities, and especially, future cities will be a complex as well as a challenging task and will require rigorous planning along with better implementation of policies and strategies. Urban planning will have to be aligned with the vision of smart and green cities to effectively and efficiently manage cities and to make them hubs of economic growth. Moreover, solutions anticipating various emerging issues will have to be developed along with risk mitigation plans to achieve the envisioned socio-economic results.

142

N. Javed et al.

Table 5.2 Examples of ICT-based city solutions currently in place Cities

Lahore

Karachi

Islamabad

Faisalabad

Peshawar

E-Complaint system by city district government Karachi (CSDK)

Islamabad City App by CDA E-Governance initiatives by NADRA (Social grant programs, smart national identity card, electoral roll, border management & passport issuance system)

E-Khidmat centres Digitalisation of crime Data Punjab Central Portal for recruitment Digitalisation of Urban immovable property tax (UIPT) E-Rozgaar Punjab land record management and information system (LRMIS)

Right to information system (RTI) Grievances redressal system e-Recruitment district e-services computerisation of property tax

Institutional infrastructure E-governance and citizen services

E-khidmat centres digitalisation of crime data Punjab central portal for recruitment Digitalisation of Urban immovable property tax (UIPT) E-Rozgaar Punjab land record management and information system (LRMIS)

Physical infrastructure Smart energy management

Smart meters by LESCO

Smart grid initiative by K-Electric

Digitalisation of systems by IESCO

SMART energy meters by FESCO

SMART energy meters Net metering Online billing

Smart waste management

Data digitalisation and information systems development by LWMC

Customer complaint systems by KMC

Islamabad city App by CDA Customer complaint system

Waste management information systems by FWMC

Municipal solid waste management Piloted hospital waste management project

Urban mobility

Metro bus Orange train Raasta App

None

Metro IslamabadRawalpindi

None

Bus rapid transit (BRT)

Smart communications

Free public Wi-Fi

None

None

Free public Wi-Fi

None

Smart environment

Environmental and social systems Self-monitoring and reporting tool (SMART)

None

None

Environmental and Social Systems Self-monitoring and reporting Tool (SMART)

KPK billion tree afforestation project

Smart surveillance

Punjab safe city project

None

Punjab safe city project

Punjab safe city project

Cyber-emergency response centre (continued)

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

143

Table 5.2 (continued) Cities

Lahore

Karachi

Islamabad

Faisalabad

Peshawar

Social infrastructure Smart healthcare

Electronic hospital management information Systems disease surveillance systems Tracking vaccinators (e-Vaccs)

None

None

Electronic hospital management information systems disease surveillance systems Tracking vaccinators (e-Vaccs)

E-ilaaj (tele-health facility)

Smart education

E-Learn Punjab School information systems for public schools Chief Minister Laptop scheme

Prime minister’s youth laptop programme

Prime minister’s youth laptop programme

E-Learn Punjab School information systems for public schools Chief minister laptop scheme

The early age programming Naway Sahar laptop scheme in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Recreation: arts, sports, entertainment

Street art initiatives E-libraries Sports libraries

Karachi youth festival

LokVirsa cultural events HEC digital library

E-libraries sports-libraries

KP E-Art gallery Digital youth summit

IBA-CICT incubation centre (Sind research incubation centre)

National Incubation center (Islamabad) NUST technology incubation centre (TIC)

Business incubation Center GCU faisalabad

IT park Peshawar IT park Abbottabad

Economic infrastructure Incubators, skill development centres, specialised business parks, hubs, etc.

Arfa Karim tower Incubator plan X plan 9 E-Rozgaar

5.4 Conclusion As stated at the outset, urbanisation in Pakistan, despite being one of the fastest in the South Asian region in terms of numbers, has been less than optimum in achieving the intended benefits of cities, i.e. improved quality of life. As described by the World Bank, urbanisation in Pakistan is ‘messy and hidden’ and considering the direct relationship between urbanisation and GDP the country should have had at least a 40% higher GDP. We conclude that this is the result of not having an integrated framework for urban development. At this time, keeping in mind that major development takes place at the subnational and local levels, a comprehensive National Urban Policy, developed through a process of thorough consultation with the provinces and cities, is required. This, however, cannot be achieved, unless there is a shift in the mindset of the decision makers, both elected and appointed, from the vision of an agricultural country towards a modern urbanised economy.

144

N. Javed et al.

Considering that Pakistan is a signatory to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Agenda 21 of the UN Habitat, and has its own framework in the form of Vision 2025 that is approved and notified, developing a sustainable National Urban Policy that aims at transforming its cities as engines of growth, with smart and green development should not be a challenge. Once the National Urban Policy sets the vision and the direction, a reform and strong institutional setups is very much needed, that are able to fill the gaps in the legal and regulatory framework relating to urban planning, building control, land use, urban taxation, municipal services, and ICT etc., and that aim to make our cities smart and green. Given the existing incapacities of the city governing institutions, there is a strong case for significant reforms, in terms of numbers, skill sets and incentives system of the human resource that is mandated to plan, maintain and develop urban centers. One of the prime objectives of this urban policy and institutional framework will be to facilitate the transformation of the current unregulated land use to be more equitable and focused on smart development; restricting sprawl, building up to medium and high rise, adopting mixed-used developments and transit-oriented growth. If this happens, significant changes in the densities of the cities will be achieved, which may increase up to at least 300–350 persons per hectare over the next ten to twenty years. It is expected that this policy of increasing densities will enhance the availability of affordable housing by reducing the cost of land housing unit, while also reducing the cost of providing piped services. A transit-oriented development, with mass transit lines and quality public transport will reduce the congestion and environmental pollution, at least in the major cities across the country. Transport improvement will need a complimentary system of non-motorised and pedestrianfriendly streets and networks. This policy framework will also address the issue of water, sanitation and waste management, especially in the suburban areas and ‘katchi abadis’. The urban sector in Pakistan contributes almost 78% of GDP and transforming cities with a well-structured, well-defined and overarching National Urban Policy will lead to a significant improvement in their overall economy leading to poverty reduction and improved quality of life for all.

References Arif, H., & Masooma, M. (2003). Urban slums reports: The case of Karachi. Pakistan: UN- Habitat. Bidgood, A. (2017, August 08). Why enhancing public urban spaces matters for Karachi. Retrieved April 26, 2018, from The World Bank. http://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/ why-enhancing-public-urban-spaces-matters-karachi. Commissioner Karachi. (2017). Karachi heatwave management plan: A guide to planning and response. Karachi. Planning and Development Department. (2015). Punjab growth strategy 2018. Government of Punjab. Ebrahim, Z. T. (2018, April 05). Lifting 10 years of garbage in Karachi, a gargantuan task for solid waste board. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from The Dawn. https://www.dawn.com/news/1399517.

5 Developing a National Urban Policy: A Case Study of Pakistan

145

Ellis, P., & Roberts, M. (2016). Leveraging urbanization in South Asia: managing spatial transformation for prosperity and livability. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank. ESSA Technologies Ltd. and The Urban Unit. (2017). Supporting Karachi City in mitigation of extreme heat impacts: Situational analysis. Project Report, Office of the Commissioner, Karachi, Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Karachi. Haque, N. U. (2014a). Achieving progress, growth and development through Urban renewal. Woodrow Wilson Center, Wilson Center’s Asia Program. Woodrow Wilson Center. Haque, N. U. (2014b). Frustrated urbanization and failed development 45 in Pakistan. In M. Kugelman (Ed.), Pakistan’s runaway urbanization: What can be done?. Washington: DC: The Wilson Centre. Haque, N. U. (2015). Flawed Urban development policies in Pakistan. Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE). Islamabad: Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE). Ibrahim, M., & Riaz, S. (2018). The urban gazette: Lahore growth—past and future. The Urban Unit, Urban Settlements. Lahore: The Urban Unit. Imran, M. (2009). Public transport in Pakistan: A critical review. Journal of Public Transportation, 12(2), 54–83. Jabeen, A., et al. (2015). Housing crises in Pakistan: Review of population growth and deficiencies in housing laws and policies. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 24(3), 323–347. Jatoo, W. A., Fu, C. J., Saengkrod, W., & Mastoi, A. G. (2016). Urbanization in Pakistan: Challenges and way forward (options) for sustainable Urban development. In 4th International Conference on Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development 2016 (EESD 2016). Energy and Environmental Engineering Research Group (EEERG) of Mehran University of Engineering and Technology (MUET). Javed, N., & Khan, M. (2018). Redefining Urban A Case for Multi-Criteria Definition of Urban Areas in Pakistan. The Urban Unit. Lahore: The Urban Gazette. Javed, N., & Riaz, S. (2018). Issues of Urban planning and policy: The case study of Lahore, Pakistan. In B. Dahiya & A. Das (Eds.), New Urban Agenda in the Asia-Pacific: governance for sustainable and inclusive cities. Kugelman, M. (2014, December 30). Pakistan’s urbanization: ‘A challenge of great proportions’. Pakistan’s urbanization: ‘A challenge of great proportions’. (G. Domínguez, Interviewer) Deutsche Welle. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from Deutsche Welle. http://www.dw.com/ en/pakistans-urbanization-a-challenge-of-great-proportions/a-18163731. Lodi, A. A. (2014, November). A seminar on public transport: A review of public transport scenario of Karachi. Retrieved April 20, 2018, from http://iepkarachi.org.pk/Downloads/transport/Ashar% 20Lodi.pdf. McKinsey Global Institute. (2011). Urban world: Mapping the economic power of cities. McKinsey & Company. Mehboob, M. A, Atif, I., & Iqbal, J. (2015). Remote sensing and GIS applications for assessment of Urban Sprawl in Karachi, Pakistan. Science, Technology and Development, 34(3), 179–188. Retrieved on January 02, 2019 from http://nust.edu.pk/Library/Pages/default.aspx. Ministry of Climate Change, Government of Pakistan. (2015). National report of Pakistan for HABITAT III. Islamabad: Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Climate Change. Ministry of Statistics, Government of Pakistan. (2017). Press release on provisional summary of 6th population and housing census 2017. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan. http://www.statistics.gov.pk/assets/publications/Population_ Results.pdf. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan. (2015). Labour force survey 2014–15. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan, Statistics Division. Islamabad: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan.

146

N. Javed et al.

Pakistan Today. (2017, November 06). WHO report deems safe drinking water a luxury for numerous Pakistanis National. Retrieved April 27, 2018, from Pakistan Today. https://www.pakistantoday. com.pk/2017/11/06/who-report-deems-safe-drinking-water-a-luxury-for-numerous-pakistanis/. Planning Commission, Pakistan Vision 2025, Ministry of Planing, Development & Reform, Government of Pakistan. Poverty and Vulnerability Estimates: Pakistan, 2016 by social policy and development centre. PwC. (2010). Sustainable Urbanisation: The role of ICT in city development. PwC. https://www. strategyand.pwc.com/media/file/Sustainable-urbanization.pdf. Sánchez-Triana, E., Santiago, E., Javaid, A., Akiko, N., & Khan, A.S. (2014). Cleaning Pakistan’s air. Washington, D.C: World Bank. Shah, Q. A., & Abbas, H. (2015). Livelihoods and access to services: An analysis of peri-urban areas of Lahore, Pakistan. Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI). Islamabad: Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI). Shaikh, H., & Nabi, I. (2017, January 16). The six biggest challenges facing Pakistan’s urban future. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from The International Growth Centre. https://www.theigc.org/blog/ the-six-biggest-challenges-facing-pakistans-urban-future/. State Bank of Pakistan. (2017). State Bank of Pakistan’s annual report 2016–17—State of the economy State Bank of Pakistan. http://www.sbp.org.pk/reports/annual/arFY17/Chapter-07.pdf. The International Growth Centre. (2011). The Framework for Economic Growth IGC. London. https://www.theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Planning-Commission-2011-Final-Report. pdf. UN-HABITAT, NYU and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. (2016). Atlas of Urban expansion. Retrieved April 08, 2018, from Atlas of Urban Expansion. http://www.atlasofurbanexpansion. org/acknowledgements. United Nations. (2014). Wold urbanization prospects: The 2014 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. United Nations. World Bank. (2015, December 9). Leveraging urbanization for prosperity and livability. Retrieved April 16, 2018, from The World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/09/ leveraging-urbanization-for-prosperity-and-livability. World Bank. (2017). Pakistan housing finance project. Project Information Document/ Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (PID/ISDS), The World Bank.

Chapter 6

Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan: Experiences and Lessons Learned Mathew French, Parul Agarwala, Humayoun Faiz, Ahmad Shoaib Azizi, Masood Hamza, Srinivas Popuri, and Jan Turkstra Abstract In 2014, the Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GoIRA) identified urban development as a key pillar of its ‘Realising Self Reliance’ decade (2015–2024). Sustainable urbanisation was subsequently established as a National Priority Programme, which is a precursor to a National Urban Policy (NUP), an umbrella policy framework for all sectoral policies that operate in the urban sphere. The Urban National Priority Program (UNPP) sets an ambitious vision for 2016– 2025 and coordinates actions across a range of institutions and territorial space. This chapter explores the experience of developing the UNPP between 2014 and 2017. The chapter shows the significant re-orientation of Afghanistan’s policy away from seeing urbanisation as a negative phenomenon—something to be stopped, or even reversed but towards perceiving urbanisation as a driver of development, peace and prosperity. This chapter, therefore, provides an empirical case study of how one of the poorest and most fragile countries prioritised urbanisation as a driver of national development in line with Sustainable Development Goal 11 and the New Urban Agenda. This chapter presents a synopsis of the UNPP and provides seven lessons learned that may assist to steer NUPs in countries with similar development challenges of fragility, protracted conflict and rapid urbanisation. Keywords Afghanistan · Urban · National urban policy · Fragile cities · Governance M. French Monash Sustainable Development Institute, 8 Scenic Boulevard, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia P. Agarwala (B) UN-Habitat, HUDCO House, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India e-mail: [email protected] H. Faiz Ministry of Urban Development and Land, 3rd Macrorayon, Kabul, Afghanistan A. S. Azizi · M. Hamza · J. Turkstra UN-Habitat, UNOCA compound, Kabul–Nangarhar Hwy, Kabul, Afghanistan S. Popuri UN-Habitat, Regional Office of Asia and the Pacific, ACROS Fukuoka Building, 8th Floor, 1-1-1 Tenjin, Chuo-ku, Fukuoka 810-0001, Japan © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_6

147

148

M. French et al.

6.1 Introduction Afghanistan has a rich legacy of human settlements. Situated at the cross roads of the Silk Road between Central Asia and South Asia, it has been an important strategic trade route for centuries. The Silk Road, stretching from the far eastern seaboard of China to Western Europe, played an important role in the transit of people, goods and ideas. Urban settlements proliferated along this trade route, such as the city of Herat along the Afghan-Iran border and the ancient city of Balkh, in northern Afghanistan. Balkh is one of the oldest cities of the Persian Empire and has been a religious and cultural centre of Buddhism, Islam and Zoroastrianism over the centuries. In more recent times, Afghanistan has seen periods of both great peace and instability (Johnson and Leslie 2009). From mid-1930s until the 1970s, under the reigns of King Amanullah, followed by his cousin King Nadir Shah and his son Mohammed Zahir Shah, the country was relatively peaceful and seeking a degree of modernisation. Yet it was retaining largely an agricultural-based economy and tight kinship and tribal networks. The next forty years since the late-1970s have seen considerable violence, coups, foreign occupations and widespread destruction that have devastated much of the country. This insecurity and instability significantly impacted the urban and human settlement structure of the country. Enormous civilian population movements occurred to and from cities during this period. Most notable is the considerable refugee movement during the civil war and Taliban period (1989–2001), particularly to Pakistan and Iran that hosted over six million Afghan refugees. Across most economic and human development indicators, Afghanistan consistently ranks as one of the lowest. Afghanistan has an average annual income of a US$ 586 per capita (World Bank 2018). Poverty is constantly increasing in Afghanistan. In 2017, more than half of population (54.5%) were living below the national poverty line, compared to one-third of population (36.0%) in 2011–2012 (Central Statistics Organization 2018). Though the rural poverty rate (58.5%) is higher than the urban (41.6%), cities present a unique set of dynamics that often compound the vulnerability of poor urban households who frequently suffer from weaker coping mechanisms, higher incidence of food insecurity (42.1%) and less social capital and support networks compared to rural households (Hall 2014). Even in terms of population composition, Afghanistan has one of the youngest population in the world. Over three-quarters (79%) of the Afghan population is under the age of 35 years; nearly half below the age of 15 years (47%); and roughly a third (32%) between 15 and 35 years of age (Central Statistics Organisation 2014b). Again, cities are home to a disproportionate number of youth (aged between 15 and 24 years), who constitute nearly a quarter of the urban population (23.6%), notably higher than in rural areas (17.8%) (GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2015: 14). Afghans remain the single largest group of refugees in protracted exile globally. As many as 1.4 million Afghan refugees still remain in neighbouring countries (UNHCR 2018) and an estimated 1.2 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) within its boundaries (IDMC 2018). After a prolonged period of war, violence and disturbance, refugees started returning back from the beginning of new millennium.

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

149

Since 2002, over 5.2 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan (UNHCR 2014). More recently, the United Nations in Afghanistan (2017) reported that in 2017 only, more than one million refugee returnees, undocumented returnees and deportees came from Pakistan and Iran alone. The largest Afghan cities have attracted considerable numbers of returnees. It is estimated that almost one in every two households (49%) that have returned from displacement settled in urban areas (CSO 2014a). Urban areas play a key role as ‘safe havens’ for a large share of internally displaced Afghans as well. Over one-third of the urban population was born outside the city in which they currently reside (35.9% from another district; and 17.5% from another province; and 4.3% in another country) (CSO 2014a: 17). In addition to repatriation, the last decade has witnessed considerable rural to urban migration, with the concentrated economic activity and relative security in cities functioning as strong ‘pull factors’ (Popal 2014). Evidence indicates that while security is a major factor in the decision to move, many Afghans come to cities seeking better livelihood opportunities, education and access to services (UN-Habitat 2016b). Thus, the population expansion of Afghan urban areas is prone to shocks or waves of migration, rather than a phenomenon occurring gradually over time. This has immense consequences on the provision of city services, livelihood opportunities and housing in already fragile cities (Muggah 2014) and is often the basis for humanitarian aid to increasingly be directed to cities (Archer and Dodman 2017). At the end of 2017, over one million Afghans still remain internally displaced (IDPs)1 throughout the country (IDMC 2018) and an estimated 166,000 new IDPs are expected in 2018 (UNHCR 2018). While tracking the movements of IDPs is difficult, especially in cases of multiple displacements, whereby individuals or groups have been forced to relocate on more than one occasion, evidence suggests that many displaced Afghans live in and around Afghanistan’s urban centres. Therefore, it is noted that refugee returnees, rural-to-urban migration, internal displacement and natural population growth are contributing to Afghanistan’s high urbanisation rate. While Afghanistan is still a predominantly rural society, with only an estimated one-fourth of the population living in cities, the situation is changing rapidly (GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2015). Where in 1950, only 1 out of every 20 Afghans lived in cities which increases to, 1 out of every four by 2018., Based on the projected figures, it is seen that by 2060, 1 out of every 2, i.e. 50% of the population—will live in cities (Fig. 6.1) (UNDESA 2017). Figure 6.2 shows Afghanistan’s growth trend of urban population in the regional context. Afghanistan is the least urbanised country in the region. In 2018, Afghanistan had the lowest level of urbanisation among all countries in the region (25.5%). By 2025, assuming the same underlying conditions prevail, slightly more than a quarter (27.6%) of the country will reside in urban areas. By the existing trend it seems like 1 IDPs

(Internally Displaced Persons) are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular, as a result of, or in order to, avoid the effects of armed conflict, situation of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized state border. (Refer: Sect. 3.1, Afghanistan National IDP Policy, November 2013).

150

M. French et al. Urban and rural population Afghanistan

Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural

60

90

Population (millions)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20

40

20

0 1950

1975

2000

2018

10 2018

Proportion of total population (per cent)

Percentage of population in urban and rural areas Afghanistan

0 2025

2050

1950

1975

2000

(a)

2025

2050

Year

Year

(b)

Fig. 6.1 Afghanistan’s urbanisation trajectory. Source UNDESA (2018)

Fig. 6.2 Urbanisation trends of Afghanistan in a regional context, 1950–2050. Source UNDESA (2018)

Afghanistan, like its neighbouring countries, will continue to urbanise in the coming decades. Recognising the importance of urbanisation and the inevitability of it, in 2015, the GoIRA identified urban development as one of its pillars for the ‘Realising Self Reliance’ decade (2015–2024). The Government embarked on the development of an Urban National Priority Programme (UNPP), which, as with a NUP, is an umbrella policy framework for other sectoral policies that operate in the urban sphere. The UNPP sets a vision for 2016–2025 and works to coordinate actions across a range of institutions and territorial scales. The experience of Afghanistan’s path to the UNPP is one of a significant reorientation of national thinking and mindsets, away from urbanisation as a negative

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

151

phenomenon and towards seeing urbanisation as a driver of development, peace and prosperity. The chapter provides a case study of Afghanistan’s experience with the development of the UNPP. The first section reviews the urban development context in Afghanistan, exploring the key spatial, and urban planning, governance and financerelated challenges. The second section reviews the experience of developing the UNPP. The last section reflects on this experience and reviews some key lessons learned for developing a national urban policy (NUP) in one of the least-developed countries (LDCs) which is in a fragile state.

6.2 A Snapshot of Afghanistan’s Urban System Until the UNPP process started, there was no clear picture of the urban system in Afghanistan. There was no official definition of ‘urban’ although ‘urban’ typically referred to the area within municipal administrative boundaries (Kammeier and Issa 2017; GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2015). Nevertheless, any reliable, disaggregated and up to date data on the population and conditions within municipal boundaries was not available. The last national census was in 1979. Even more recent province-level population surveys did not use the updated, larger municipal boundaries, so were widely believed that they under-enumerated the urban population. In an effort to better understand Afghanistan’s cities and the urban territorial system, the Government and UN-Habitat undertook a detailed mapping of all urban space in the country as input to the UNPP process. This produced two data sets: The State of Afghan Cities 2015 (SoAC) and the Atlas of Afghan City Regions 2016 (GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2015; GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2016). SoAC utilised up to date, high-resolution satellite imagery to map the existing land-use and count all dwellings in the 34 provincial capital cities. The Atlas of City Regions undertook the same process for 28 of the largest ‘district municipalities’ and five major city regions (metropolitan areas) These two data sources present a reliable picture of Afghanistan’s urban system and form the basis for the data in this chapter.

6.2.1 Provincial Capital Cities Afghanistan has 34 provincial capital cities, one for each province. Kabul city, the capital city, dominates with a population of over 3.5 million. It is a perfect example of a primate city in that it is roughly five times larger than the next largest city, Herat (UN-Habitat 2016a). Provincial capital cities encompass a subset of vastly varying cities, which can be further subclassified based on population size and functional arrangement. The first sub-category of provincial capitals is the ‘Regional Hub’ cities of Herat (Western Region), Kandahar (Southern Region), Mazar-i-Sharif (Northern Region)

152

M. French et al.

and Jalalabad (Eastern Region) with populations between 300,000 and 800,000. These cities are surrounded by vast agricultural lands and peri-urban settlements. They have historically been, and continue to be, key hubs in terms of regional trade and services for their surrounding areas. Kabul and the five Regional Hubs make up roughly 60% of the total urban population of the country. The next sub-category is the ‘Transit and Trading Hub’ cities in their provinces and sub-regions (e.g. South-East; North-West). These cities have populations of more than 100,000 people and function as strategic points for commerce- and traderelated activities. These include the provincial municipalities of Lashkar Gah, Kunduz, Taluqan, Pul-i-Khumri, Sheberghan, Zaranj, Maimana and Ghazni. Several district municipalities such as Spin Boldak, Torkham, Turghundi and Shirkan Bandar are also important as trade and transit points to neighbouring countries. Another sub-categories of provincial cities is ‘provincial centre’ cities, which are smaller in terms of area and population and largely support their surrounding districts. These include Khost, Charikar, Faiz Abad, Tarinkot, Gardez, Qala-i-Naw, Aybak, Asadabad, Farah, Sar-i-pul, Qalat, Bamyan, Mehterlam and Cheghcharan (Ferozkoh). Lastly, ‘urban villages’ are provincial capitals with very small populations and largely agricultural-based economies. These include Mahmood Raqi, Bazarak, Pul-i-Alam, Nili, Sharan, Maidan Shahr and Paroon.

6.2.2 District Municipalities The second administrative municipal tier includes ‘district municipalities’. These municipalities also play an important part in the human settlement structure of the country. There are approximately 120 district municipalities in Afghanistan (Popal 2014). With the exception of Kabul and Regional hubs, which have relatively high concentrations of population, the remaining ‘urban’ centres are still slowly adopting urban characteristics due to their proximity to larger centres and growing economic role. Many of these municipalities exhibit urban characteristics with burgeoning nonagriculture-dependent economic activities and intensifying population densities. In some instances, many of these district municipalities are even bigger than some provincial capitals in terms of both population and area. For instance, Spin Boldak, is the 13th largest urban centre in Afghanistan, which ranks 22 out of 34 provincial capitals. These district municipalities can also be sub-classified based on geographic location and economic significance into— (i) border towns (Islam Qala), (ii) city extensions (Injil) and (iii) agricultural hubs (Rostaq).

6.2.3 City Regions/Metropolitan Area The Atlas of Afghan City Regions 2016 sheds light on another important dimension of the human settlement structure of Afghanistan: the prevalence of city

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

153

Fig. 6.3 Afghanistan’s urban human settlement structure. Size of circles is proportional to the population. Source Authors image based on: GoIRA and UN-Habitat (2015); GoIRA and UNHabitat (2016)

regions/metropolitan areas. Kabul and the four regional hub cities (Herat, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Mazar-i-Sharif) have strong spatial, environmental, social and economic linkages with their immediate peri-urban areas and neighbouring district municipalities. These cities coupled with the surrounding provincial and district municipalities function as ‘metropolitan’ areas. The Atlas shows that an estimated one-third of the Afghan population lives in these five city regions, highlighting their importance in the human settlements structure of the country, and therefore, policies and programs should recognise them as one functionally connected region that expands beyond administrative, provincial and municipal boundaries (Fig. 6.3).

6.3 A Critical Review of the Status Quo: Afghan Cities in Crises2 Afghanistan’s urban development challenges are reflective of a fragile, leastdeveloped country (LDC) with an emerging urbanisation trajectory (Beall et al. 2013). In 2017, less than 37% of the urban residents had access to safely managed 2 Information and data in this section draws heavily from: GoIRA and UN-Habitat (2015) and GoIRA

and UN-Habitat (2016).

154

M. French et al.

drinking water services (SDG 6.1.1) and only half of the urban residents (56.5%) had access to safely managed sanitation services (SDG 6.2.1) (Central Statistics Organisation 2018). Unaffordable formal housing supply, poor urban mobility and congestion, deteriorating air quality, limited garbage disposal services, land grabbing and a worsening urban environment are some of the many key challenges Afghan city’s face (UNAMA 2014). In terms of urban governance, rules and regulations, there are serious gaps in the existing urban policy, legal and regulatory framework (Boex et al. 2011). Despite a transition to a development agenda over the past decade, until recently, there was a lack of enthusiasm from institutions to pursue drafting a national urban policy or a national housing policy. A well-intentioned Informal Settlements Upgrading Policy is drafted but has been pending for over four years, as is the draft new Municipal Law (French et al. 2018). A Policy on addressing the needs of IDPs was approved in 2013 but has had little impact on fostering durable solutions (GoIRA 2013). Gaps in the urban policy framework has resulted from a laissez-faire approach of the government agencies, the private sector, donors and others stakeholders working together on the urban environment but leading to a disjointed urban development vision and programmatic interventions. The unclear responsibilities and relationships between central government, municipalities, line departments and municipal service providers contribute to the weak planning and management of urban development and territorial expansion, competition and duplication of efforts. This also led to the lack of coordinated plans and investments at city level, severely constraining development potential. Limited human and institutional capacity of municipalities is also a serious challenge. Institutional capacity limitations include under-equipped municipal offices, limited stewardship from the national level, as well as weak monitoring/oversight. Only few municipalities have more than 10% female staff and most women are generally employed in low-level positions. Local governance and grass-root action often relies on community-level governance to contribute to state-building and improved urban development, particularly through urban Community Development Councils (CDCs) and Gozar Assemblies (GAs) for urban governance (French et al. 2018). There remains considerable potential for municipalities to strengthen state legitimacy, raise local revenues and guide inclusive urban development. Even planning is highly centralised and focused majorly on master-planning. In the absence of appropriate and enforced planning instruments such as strategic plans and zoning regulations, informal development has led to spatially inefficient patterns of land use and environmental degradation and risks. Quasi-informal land subdivision is a major phenomenon with vacant plots accounting for roughly onequarter of urban land (French et al. 2016). Similarly, ‘squatting’ by IDPs, returnees, rural–urban migrants and other urban poor has also contributed to ad hoc development outside the formal planning and development control system. While relocation may be unavoidable for households living in dangerous areas, the vast majority of informal housing can be cost-effectively upgraded through incremental regularisation and basic service provision. Afghan cities also face infrastructure deficit. Basic urban infrastructure, such as, sewage systems, water network, storm-water drains, solid

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

155

waste collection and disposal and well-connected road network are under-developed or unavailable in most urban centres. In terms of the urban economy and finance, municipalities are the only subnational governance entities that can raise and spend own-source revenues. Data from GoIRA and UN-Habitat (2015) shows that, between 2011 and 2013, 34 provincial capitals collected only an average of 95 million USD per year. Again, the five largest cities contributed the vast majority: 55% from Kabul Municipality and 26% from the regional hubs of Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kandahar and Jalalabad. On an average, municipalities collected 20USD per dwelling per annum, although there was considerable variance among cities. Given the current low per-capita revenue, there is enormous potential to increase local revenues to fund improved service delivery and capital investment projects. Strengthening municipalities’ human and institutional capacity to raise and transparently spend own-source revenues offers considerable scope for increasing investments in urban rehabilitation and redevelopment, providing basic municipal services, and contributing to ‘self-reliance’ in the coming decade. City regions and rural urban linkages are important considerations when considering the human settlement structure of the country. Kabul, Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kandahar and Jalalabad can be the key drivers of economic growth given their agglomeration economies and potential to leverage surrounding high-value fertile agricultural lands for establishing the agro-based industrial hubs. Between 69 and 72% of total land in the city regions of Kandahar and Mazar-e-Sharif is currently used for agricultural production (GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2016). The key limiting factors in fostering the agro-industrial economy in city regions are poor road networks and infrastructure; insecurity and informal networks of access and control (AREU 2014); and a shortage of skilled labour, processing and storage facilities, and logistics and supply chains (Samuel Hall 2011). Housing is a major challenge in cities of Afghanistan. 86% of the urban housing stock could be classified as slums based on the international definition of lacking one or more of the following basic elements of adequate housing, i.e. (i) access to a safe water source, (ii) improved sanitation, (iii) durable, structurally sound housing materials, (iv) adequate living space and (v) security of tenure (UN-Habitat 2016a; CSO 2014a). Houses have come up on unsuitable areas such as unstable hillsides, flood-prone areas and productive agricultural areas. Land tenure security is also a major challenge. The environmental implications of the housing sector though largely not considered yet, require serious consideration in any housing policy and programme (French and Lalande 2012). The largely informal nature of Afghanistan’s housing development, indicates that tenure insecurity in differing degrees affecting the majority of urban citizens (French and Acioly 2012).

156

M. French et al.

6.4 Impact of International Aid and the Reconstruction Effort The current situation of Afghan cities is mostly shaped by events since 2001. More than one-hundred billion USD in foreign aid has flowed into Afghanistan to support the rebuilding process (Ministry of Finance 2014). This makes Afghanistan the largest post-war reconstruction effort in history, larger even than Europe’s post WWII Marshall Plan. At the macro-economic level, international aid and reconstruction led to a development boom, which significantly increased the per capita income, created new employment opportunities and led to overall GDP growth. This trend continued for a decade, until mid-2013, with GDP growth rates consistently averaging around 9% per annum (World Bank 2018). However, the Afghan economy has characteristic of a war economy. The reconstruction efforts disproportionately benefited some of the economic sectors such as service industry, logistics and construction sectors, which were cornerstones of the urban economy (GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2015). Therefore, with the withdrawal of international troops, the political uncertainty around the 2014 national elections and the international slump in global markets, the Afghan economy also slowed down and suffered due to market distortions created in the country’s economic sectors. Overall, the foreign-aid flows into the country have had an arguably limited impact on improving the lives of urban dwellers. There have been many urban development programmes since 2001, however, these have largely been off-budget, disjointed and not well coordinated. The UN-Habitat undertook many community-based reconstruction programmes using the ‘People’s Process’, which engage citizens in slum upgrading and housing reconstruction (Turkstra and Popal 2011; French et al. 2018). The United States Agency for International Development and the World Bank supported several programmes including the Kabul City Initiative (KCI), Regional and Metropolitan Programme for Urban Populations (RAMP-UP), Kabul Municipal Development Programme (KMDP) and the Sustainable Hubs for Afghan Hope and Resilience (SHAHAR). The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) supported sub-national governance through the Afghanistan Sub-National Governance Programme (ASGP) (UNDP 2015). What is common to all was the lack of clear direction of urban policy at the national level. As a result, these programs were ‘off budget’ which created parallel systems and did not systematically address the urban development challenges in an integrated manner. By 2013, the government, donors and implementing agencies became increasingly aware of the fact that a more coordinated and integrated approach to urban planning, development and management was needed in order to address these complexities.

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

157

6.5 Development of the Urban National Priority Program (UNPP) In early 2014, the Government of Afghanistan initiated the State of Afghan Cities Programme (SoAC) to undertake the first detailed assessment of Afghanistan’s 34 Provincial Capitals (GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2015). The resulting report raised the profile of the urban agenda in Afghanistan and provided the first-ever quantitative baseline of urban land use and dwelling characteristics. It was launched by President Ashraf Ghani and showcased the importance of urban development as a driver of development at the highest levels within government as well as the international community. Indeed, the driving force for the prioritisation of the urban agenda was the leadership of President Ghani, in September 2014. Ghani’s election manifesto gave a first insight into the importance of Afghan cities and towns, particularly for its role in economic development and citizenship (Ghani 2014). The new leadership brought a technocratic approach to governance, focusing on anti-corruption, modernisation and strengthening government institutions for service delivery (GoIRA 2014), in line with Ghani’s long-held theories of failed state transformations (Ghani and Lockheart 2009). To translate Ghani’s manifesto to action the National Unity Government (NUG) announced the updating and consolidation of the existing National Priority Programmes (NPPs), from 22 to 12, and identified four initial National Priority Programme (NPPs), one of which was the Urban National Priority Programme (UNPP). NPPs were not new to Afghanistan. The previous Karzai-led government had also developed NPPs to guide development and investment in the period between 2005 and 2013. There were 22 NPPs during that period, among which one was solely dedicated to Urban Management Support Programme (UMSP). UMSP was drafted under the Ministry of Urban Development Affairs (MUDA), yet was never officially endorsed in the preceding administration and therefore not considered as an active NPP. Despite the considerable effort that took to shape it, feedback from urban stakeholders noted that it was not used to guide investment or programming. The paper on Realizing Self Reliance (RSR) presented at the London Conference on Afghanistan (2014) outlined the NUG’s vision for a reformed Afghanistan till 2024. RSR clearly articulated the reform priority for urban development, with the NUG targeting for: Making cities the economic drivers for development. In order to do so we need to improve living conditions and service delivery in urban centres. Urbanization will need to be managed by reducing disparity between rural and urban areas and thereby controlling ruralto-urban migration. … Establishing metropolitan development authorities and funds will allow for coordinated development planning and professionalized management. (Realising Self-Reliance (2014) National Unity Government of Afghanistan, p. 12)

Responding to the clear instructions from the central government, the MUDA steered the development of the UNPP document. MUDA had the task to lead the overall coordination of the sector, closely with other lead partners including the Independent Directorate for Local Governance (IDLG), the Afghan Independent Land Authority

158

M. French et al.

(ARAZI) and Kabul Municipality (KM). MUDA requested technical assistance from UN-Habitat to co-develop a consultation process and draft the UNPP document, which was implemented under the Future of Afghan Cities Program, funded by the Australian and UK governments. Learning lessons from the previous attempt with the unsuccessful Urban Management Support Program, MUDA consciously sought to implement a consultative process with a wide range of stakeholders. MUDA held five large regional workshops to engage residents and stakeholders that solicit inputs. MUDA aimed to base the UNPP on accurate data. So, it could undertook the mapping of the city regions and 28 strategic district municipalities. This sought to enrich urban database beyond the 34 provincial capital cities. To make sure it was a government-led process rather than a ‘document written by foreign experts’, national urban advisors were part of each institution and they work on a daily basis with government counterparts. These efforts helped to some extent in making it a nationally owned process that reflected the ground realities and priorities of the local people. The overall UNPP framework which encompasses a vision, three pillars and flagship actions was developed over the course of six months and was approved in principle by December 2015. This set the foundations enabling different institutions to lead the three pillars and flagship actions. The document was further refined during January to April 2016 through a series of technical workshops. The regional UNPP workshops were proved useful for both communicating to subnational entities the ongoing work at national level with NPP development and were useful to gather inputs from regions. Likewise, the stakeholder workshops and focus group meetings were also proved useful for gathering specific inputs on thematic issues. The technical advisory missions strengthened policy, objectives and outputs of the UNPP by incorporating successful practices and precedents from countries facing similar challenges. The draft UNPP was endorsed at the first High Council on Urban Development in June 2016.

6.6 Urban-National Priority Programme (UNPP)—Main Components Afghanistan’s UNPP document sets out the main principles and framework for a National Urban Policy. The overarching framework of the UNPP encompasses a common vision and specific objectives for managing and fostering urban growth that are supported by its three pillars and four flagship actions (Fig. 6.4). The guiding principles and overarching themes were derived from several national and international documents, such as the Constitution of Afghanistan, Realizing Self Reliance, Afghanistan National Development Strategy, SDGs, the New Urban Agenda (United Nations 2016) and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among others. The following principles are mainstreamed into the UNPP: human rights, safety and security,

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

159

(U-NPP) - RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Version _25 June 2016 Overall outcome (Vision) Outcome

By 2024, Afghanistan has a network of dynamic, safe, livable urban centers that are hubs of economic growth and arenas of culture and social inclusion urban governance. through decentralized urban planning and Pillar One: Strengthened Urban Governance and

Pillar Two: Adequate Housing and Basic Urban Services for All Afghans 1

and social2 housing

Pillar Three: Strengthened Urban Economy and Infrastructure 3.1: Reduce urban poverty and strengthen the resilience of urban households

growth fabric

transform inner-city neighbourhoods for accountable and transparent local service delivery, and revenue

2.4 finance system (for new housing and upgrading)

.

-based and inclusive urban development at the micro-level.

economic decision making

2. to all households

3.4 economic zones -urban linkages,

2.6: Improve neighbourhood-level public spaces and

2.7 materials industry

heritage and urban and city region eco-systems ('environment').

1.6: Strengthen urban monitoring, knowledge and data

Fig. 6.4 UNPP results framework

transparency and accountability, urban and spatial planning, governance, and financial feasibility, with the last three themes being the fundamental building blocks of the National Urban Policy. The overall objective of the UNPP is as follows: Afghanistan’s cities become hubs of economic growth that reduce urban, peri-urban and rural poverty; increase employment opportunities, especially for youth and women through private sector investment; and contribute to improved local governance and stabilization (GoiRA 2016).

The three pillars of the UNPP were developed collaboratively by the four government stakeholders (MUDA, IDLG, ARAZI and KM) with guidance from the President’s office. The three pillars are: 1. Strengthening Urban Governance and Institutions. 2. Ensuring Adequate Housing and Basic Services for All. 3. Harnessing the Urban Economy and Infrastructure. For each pillar, a situation analysis identified its main challenges within the thematic areas. A policy statement was prepared to provide direction and set specific priorities. This was crucial to narrow the list of reforms, programmes and projects needed to be formulated and implemented by government agencies and bring them under one common umbrella policy statement. Following this step, specific objectives and outputs were identified under each pillar with a clear implementation time lines and alignment with the overall objective. These objectives represent the government’s priorities in the medium and long term until 2025. Pursuant to the government mandate to implement ‘quick win’ and ‘highly visible’ projects, four flagship actions were formulated. These prioritised different thematic areas ranging from land registration to investment in strategic infrastructure, under the condition that implementation timeline is three to four years so as to coincide with the mid-term review of the UNPP. The four Flagship Actions include:

160

M. French et al.

1. Urban Solidarity Programme: To improve citizen’s engagement, municipal governance and access to basic neighbourhood services; 2. National Housing Programme: To provide adequate housing ensuring affordability, habitability, accessibility, at suitable locations for all Afghans; 3. City for All: To stimulate local economic development and improve tenure security for all Afghans; 4. City Regions Economic Development Programme: To create regionally balanced economic development, promote local industries and products and generate employment opportunities.

6.7 Sustainable Growth and Smart Cities Within the UNPP Sustainable development and smart growth principles are also incorporated into the UNPP policies, strategies and outputs upon contextualisation to Afghanistan’s specific needs. A series of negotiations with the key government entities on policy statements as well as commitments to specific outputs were undertaken based on the availability of human and financial resources, institutional capacity, agency mandate and feasibility of on-ground implementation. In addition, based on SDG 11, which states ‘Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’, the strategic priorities and targets were formulated. It also provided a template for designing a monitoring and evaluation framework. The following paragraphs briefly describe the policies and programmes that align with the sustainability principle and SDG 11. Pillar 1: Strengthening Urban Governance and Institutions Policy statement: Develop a shared urban vision to guide urban strategies and development plans founded on disaggregated urban data, and support municipal governance through a decentralised system. Afghan cities are rapidly expanding and expected to double their population within the next 20 years. It is imperative that the governance structures and institutions also rapidly reform to manage and steer the urban development in a sustainable trajectory. The policy reform proposes greater administrative and financial decentralisation from central to provincial authorities and municipalities to levy charges or user fees and deliver services. The following specific objectives point out mainstreaming of sustainability principle, ‘green growth’ and smart cities in pillar 1: National Urban Policy and National Spatial Strategy are identified as priority policy documents to be prepared and endorsed. The NUP and NSS should promote strategies to fulfil the targets of SDG 11, which is also reflected in the overall vision statement of UNPP. With persistent efforts from donors and technical advisors, in 2018, the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing is actively pursuing formulation of a NUP and a NHP. The policies are set within the overarching

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

161

framework of the Urban NPP, which streamlines the main principles including re-enforcing the impending urban priorities set within the national and global mandates. Citizens’ Charter Afghanistan Project (CCAP) includes both urban and rural programming. CCAP aims to strengthen partnership between the state and the communities, build state legitimacy and reduce institutional fragmentation in basic service delivery. The Charter is a commitment to provide all citizens in Afghanistan with a suite of basic services, based on community prioritisation for long-term sustainability of project interventions. The objective of the Citizens Charter is ‘to improve service delivery through strengthened Community Development Councils and Clusters’. The programme funds small infrastructure projects executed by the communities, such as green space parks, street lighting, water and sanitation and waste management. Afghan Urban Peace building Project aims to promote safe and resilient cities and neighbourhoods by applying the ‘People’s Process’ through the entire design of implementation cycle. In the current context of ongoing conflict and urban fragility, safety in cities is of great concern. The urban population is currently living under a fragile and unsecure conditions. Therefore, a focus on ‘humansecurity’ through infrastructure upgrade and strengthening of urban governance to improve safety in Afghan cities is the focus of this programme. Urban Management Information System is identified as one of the priority projects to establish a formal data repository on urban indicators that would be publicly accessible. The data and analytical tools will enable the government partners to make ‘smart and sustainable’ policy decisions. The Management Information System would be crucial for establishing government accountability and transparency that can be monitored by the public. Pillar 2: Ensure Adequate Housing and Basic Services for All Policy Statement: Promote the supply of well-located, serviced and affordable housing while also regularising and upgrading informal settlements to improve housing conditions and access to basic urban services, public spaces and facilities. It is estimated that to cope with urban growth in the coming decade, Afghanistan needs to build 41,000 affordable housing units per year, of which 77% is to cater for low and very-low income households that can spend maximum 100 USD per month on housing costs (GoIRA and UN-Habitat 2017). According to housing supply estimates, 86% of existing urban housing could be classified as slums and require urgent upgrading and regularisation to improve tenure security. Key objectives and actions in the Pillar 2 include: A National Housing Policy is currently under preparation as a flagship action under the UNPP. The Policy will need to balance the need for incremental upgrading of existing informal settlements with the provision of new affordable housing and identify resources for sustainable housing financing.

162

M. French et al.

Extending basic services and amenities to all and improving public spaces are two objectives under the Pillar 2. Afghanistan’s urban residents are underserved by basic urban services and have limited access to public amenities such as parks and recreational activities, particularly for exclusive use by women. At the UNPP focus group meetings, women’s only parks and recreational areas were an unequivocal demand by all participants. Undertake urban renewal in major cities to transform inner city neighbourhoods is another important objective included in Pillar 2. The underlying principles of urban renewal and inner-city revitalisation would promote urban density along strategic corridors, promote transit-oriented development to decongest city cores, and increase public spaces. One of the projects identified by the government is the cleaning of the Kabul riverbed and the riverfront areas and ‘greening’ it by creating new public parks and recreational facilities. Strengthen local and national construction and building industry is included under the objectives to promote locally resourced construction materials in Afghanistan to reduce the negative environmental implications of the building sector. Despite the large-scale rebuilding effort in the last decade, the local construction materials industry is still at an incipient stage with the country relying on imported construction materials, mainly from Pakistan and Iran. Therefore, this objective intends to channel resources towards assisting the domestic construction industry. Pillar 3: Harnessing the Urban Economy and Infrastructure Policy Statement: Enhance urban land management and municipal finance, provision of urban economic infrastructure and services with improved urban rural linkages thus integrated with local economic development strategies and hence addressing urban poverty and youth challenge. Afghanistan’s cities will undeniably be an important forum for economic transition and social integration during the transformation decade. Today, major cities are experiencing adverse effects of unplanned growth manifested as urban poverty, tenure insecurity, unemployment, growing income gap and informal economy. Afghans also experience significant food insecurity; i.e., more than one-third of Afghans face severe or moderate food insecurity (FAO 2017). Therefore, managing the delicate balance between urbanisation and agricultural production is a challenging but important policy endeavour considering the rural–urban continuum. Effective alignment of government’s policies and programme priorities which integrate urban economy with spatial development strategies, targeted infrastructure investments and transforming burgeoning informal economy which can lead to regionally balanced growth. Key objectives and actions in the Pillar 3 include: ‘City for All’ flagship action intends ‘to improve stability and stimulate local economic development through enhancing local governance and strengthening the social contract between citizens and the state’ (UN-Habitat 2015). In the absence of adequate and equitable land titling mechanisms, a majority of urban residents

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

163

living in informal areas do not have occupancy certificates or land registration titles. This impacts the ability of urban residents to demand basic services which significantly reduces municipal revenues for urban services. The main components of the programme are: (i) effective land management and clear land rights and responsibilities; (ii) strategic urban planning to guide investments and establish common vision and (iii) improved municipal governance and citizen engagement and representation. Strengthen rural–urban linkages, complementarities and export market value chains is an important objective for regional integration and sustainable urban development into the peri-urban and rural areas to preserve fertile agricultural lands. The current patterns of low-density sprawl within and around the city regions must be contained and appropriate policy mechanisms need to be proactively implemented to prevent loss of land to unmanaged urban development. The five main cities of Afghanistan, namely Kabul, Herat, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Mazar-e-Sharif account for 69% of the total urban population on the one hand, and their city-regions contain vast fertile and irrigated agricultural land on the other. This presents an opportunity to promote agro-based industries, logistics hubs, storage, refrigeration and warehousing units to increase self-reliance on agricultural produce, increase livelihood opportunities and promote economic development for sustainable growth.

6.8 Lessons Learned on a NUP Process in Fragile Contexts This section outlines main lessons learned from the process of developing an UNPP for Afghanistan. Each of this reflects an experience and identifies the key variables that contributed to the development, with an aim to better understand how to best steer a NUP process in a fragile, least developed country (LDC) which is in protracted conflict and undergoing rapid urbanisation. Therefore, this section asks only one question: What are the key ingredients that make a NUP development possible in such a context? 1. Harnessing a moment of change: The first lesson learned is not from the process itself, but rather to recognise the important confluence of forces that initiated and sustained the NUP process. There was a small window of opportunity provided by the new government, and one that was led by a President who understood and championed the importance of cities as a driver of development. There was a sense of optimism in the first ever non-violent power transition from one government to another in the history of Afghanistan. The government leaders had a ‘can do’ attitude and the international community were largely positive in the early months that the Afghanistan was on a path of self-reliance. This positive spirit led people in the early days to think big, comprehensively, together, and with a long-term focus: all essential elements of a NUP process, which is, by its very nature, a long-term ‘big picture’ endeavour.

164

M. French et al.

2. An accurate baseline: for framing the policy and laying the political foundations: The State of Afghan Cities 2015 project, with its discussion paper series, Report and Atlas contributed to this ‘moment of change’ by placing the urban agenda high on the national and international development agenda. The Project promoted evidence-based policy making, especially as it sequenced the approach of data collection in tandem with formulation of the UNPP framework. It equipped citizens and institutions with primary, reliable and up-todate data. It also provided the associated key messages to effectively lobby for increased investment in Afghan cities and advocate for coordinated actions across a range of sectors, including housing, settlement upgrading, water, governance and rural–urban linkages, which nurtured appetite for a National Urban Programme. The SoAC programme was rather action orientated. It was a rapid assessment that generated key data, essential in fragile contexts where even basic demographic and spatial data did not exist. It was participatory, involving thousands of citizens across the country as well as a range of government and civil society institutions. It was government-led, while also having strong technical support by the international community. The SoAC project for the first time lead urban agencies to work together on a common project and produce a joint product. This has laid the foundations for cooperation and recognition that they were stronger together. 3. Trust and cooperation for common action. In fragile states with weak governance, one of the key issues is a lack of trust and cooperation amongst government entities, and between government and citizens, civil society and the private sector. Before the UNPP, various ministries and government agencies active in the urban sector were functioning in silos, seldom interacting to build synergies in their urban programmes. Furthermore, a lack of coordination amongst the urban stakeholders also implied poor knowledge of different projects active in the urban sector. The formulation of UNPP with coordination and partnership of government agencies, brought these fragmented programs and agencies under one common framework and aided in prioritisation of policies and programmes for optimising resources. What characterised the UNPP process was a never-before-seen spirit of cooperation amongst urban sector government actors. Understandably, there were a lot of competing interests and conflict during the process. People fought and meetings were hostile. This was particularly true because old tensions die hard. For example, the long-held disagreement between MUDA and Kabul Municipality regarding roles and responsibilities was not easy to overcome. Likewise, the breadth of the UNPP required a key new actor, namely the Afghan Land Authority (ARAZI), an institution that had very different understandings and ways of looking at Afghanistan’s cities. Yet there appeared to be an implicit recognition that each institution needed the other, and that they were stronger together. The phase ‘urban sector’ became common place which itself was an interesting thing as it increasingly had an identity of its own, separate to individual institutions.

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

165

4. Sustained and effective leadership. Trust and cooperation alone cannot produce results without effective leadership to drive the process and maintain focus. The Leadership at MUDA, especially Minister Naderi, proved an essential ingredient in the UNPP process. The MUDA Leadership displayed an ability to balance short-term actions with the long-term UNPP development. MUDA coordinated the meetings and workshops at a variety of levels that included technical-level meetings to detail the UNPP content as well as important meetings with Ministers and Deputy Ministers to secure buy-in and the bureaucratic set-up that is required to develop and pass policies through the machinery of government. The skill of the Minister to navigate a complex web of embedded and often competing interests to advance the UNPP is a key reason why the UNPP document was developed in the short timeframe and with the buy-in of various stakeholders. 5. Weak institutional and human resource capacity constrained efforts for a truly government-led UNPP development. Most government institutions had limited staff, most of whom were already overstretched to deliver their core responsibilities, therefore, were not able to allocate sufficient time to meaningful engagement in the process of UNPP development. Some of the more experienced government staff focused only on top-down engineering and master-planning approaches. To them, the participatory approach with its focus on bottom-up and social approaches was hard to grasp. To mitigate these capacity limitations, short-term Urban Advisors were embedded in each institution thus enabling a specific focal point who could champion the UNPP, rally around the staff to attend meetings, share feedback, and create trust in the process. 6. Sustained technical support is essential, especially in fragile contexts. The UNPP process benefited from a broader inclusion of stakeholders and ideas than if it had of only been MUDA alone. This experience shows the considerable value in having an ‘independent’ secretariat and technical support that can bring people together to make the process more inclusive and the content more comprehensive. A key success criterion is that the technical assistance is meaningfully embedded into the government institutions, working side-by-side with government counterparts on a day-to-day basis. 7. The role of the international community as key partners. Unfortunately, despite a public narrative about national sovereignty, our experience during the UNPP process is that donors in fragile and under-resourced contexts have a significant influence on where the majority of funds and resources are spent. However, they are often overlooked in national policy processes. The UNPP process actively sought to involve them as partners from the early stages. The lead UNPP institutions convened many meetings and briefings to ambassadors and donors to sensitise them to align their development frameworks and resources with the emerging UNPP framework. Two Discussion Paper series proved very useful in creating a positive narrative about urbanisation as a force for development which influenced donor funding priorities.3 3 See: UN-Habitat discussion paper series available at: http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/projects/ afghanistan/detail23_en.html.

166

M. French et al.

6.9 Conclusion Afghanistan has taken notable steps towards using a NUP to set a vision and guide action in the urban sector. Afghanistan provides a distinctive case study of the formulation of a NUP of a LDC facing conflict. The Afghan UNPP is already witnessing some success in shaping coordinated action in the sector and advancing targeted investments in flagship programmes. While the process and draft UNPP document is not without flaw, but it does engender greater confident that urban actions will improve the sustainability of Afghan cities and their people. The UNPP experience in Afghanistan has had an impact in promoting the principles of a global urban agenda like the Habitat III, SDG 11and COP 21 and sustainable and inclusive urbanisation.

References Archer, D., & Dodman, D. (2017). Editorial: The urbanization of humanitarian crises. Environment and Urbanization, 29(2), 339–348. AREU. (2014). The social life of the onion: the informal regulation of the onion market in Nangarhar. Working paper: Kabul, Afghanistan. Beall, J., Goodfellow, T., & Rodgers, D. (2013). Cities and conflict in fragile states in the developing world. Urban Studies, 50(15), 3065–3083. Boex, J., Buencamino, G., & Kimble, D. (2011). An assessment of Afghanistan’s municipal governance framework. Urban Institute. Accessed online. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/ assessment-afghanistans-municipal-governance-framework. Central Statistics Organization (CSO). (2014). National risk and vulnerability assessment 2011–12. Kabul, Afghanistan: Afghanistan Living Condition Survey. Central Statistics Organisation. (2014). Estimated population by civil division, Urban, rural and sex, 2014–2015. Afghanistan: Kabul. Central Statistics Organization. (2018). Afghanistan living conditions survey 2016–17. CSO: Kabul. French, M., & Lalande, C. (2012). Greening cities requires green housing: Advancing the economic and environmental sustainability of housing and slum upgrading in cities in developing countries. The Economy of Green Cities: A World Compendium on the Green Urban Economy. Springer. French, M. & Acioly, C. (2012). Housing developers in the developing world. Smith, S. (Ed.). The international encyclopedia of housing and home. French, M. Turkstra, J., & Farid, M. (2016) Vacant land plots in afghan cities: A problem and an opportunity. Urbanization I(2), 1–16; Indian Institute for Human Settlements: SAGE. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2017). Seasonal food security assessment in Afghanistan. FAO: Kabul. French, M., Popal, A.B., Rahimi, H., Popuri, S., & Turkstra, J. (2018). Institutionalizing participatory slum upgrading: A case study of urban co-production from Afghanistan, 2002–2016. Environment and Urbanization. October 2018. Ghani, A., & Lockheart, C. (2009). Fixing failed states: A framework for rebuilding a fractured world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ghani, A. (2014). Manifesto of change and community team. March 2014. https://www. journalofdemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Ashraf%20Ghani%20Manifesto.pdf. Date accessed 4 August 2018. GoIRA. (2013). Natonal policy on internally displaced persons IDPs. Kabul: Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation.

6 Developing a National Urban Policy in Afghanistan …

167

GoIRA. (2014). Realizing self-reliance. Commitments to reforms and new partnership. London Conference on Afghanistan. GoIRA: Kabul. GoIRA and UN-Habitat. (2015). The state of Afghan cities 2015. GoIRA and UN-Habitat: Kabul. GoIRA and UN-Habitat. (2016). Atlas of Afghan city Regions. GoIRA and UN-Habitat: Kabul. GoIRA and UN-Habitat. (2017). Afghanistan housing profile. UN-Habitat and GOIRA: Kabul. Hall, S. (2014). A study of poverty, food security and resilience in Afghan cities. Samuel Hall, PIN and DRC: Kabul. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). (2018). Global Report on Internal Displacement 2018. Geneva, Switzerland: IDMC. Johnson, L., & Leslie, J. (2009). Afghanistan: The mirage of peace. London: Zed Books. Kammeier, H. D., & Issa, Z. (2017). Urban Governance in Afghanistan: Assessing the New Urban Development Programme and Its Implementation. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) and GIZ. Ministry of Finance. (2014). Development cooperation report 2011–2013. Kabul, Afghanistan: Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Muggah, R. (2014). Deconstructing the fragile city: Exploring insecurity, violence and resilience. Environment and Urbanization, 26(2), 345–358. Popal, A. B. (2014). Municipalities in Afghanistan. Independent Directorate of Local Governance (IDLG): Kabul, Afghanistan. Samuel Hall. (2011). Nut feasibility study for crescent trade. Report. Commissioned by ASMED. Turkstra, J., & Popal, A. B. (2011). Settlement regularization Afghanistan, 46th ISOCARP congress 2010. Kenya: Nairobi. United Nations. (2016). New Urban Agenda: Quito declaration on sustainable cities and human settlements for all. United Nations: Quito, Ecuador. United Nations in Afghanistan. (2017). Population movement bulletin (8). 26 Jan 2017. UNAMA. (2014). The stolen lands of Afghanistan and its people, the legal framework. Rule of Law Unit: Kabul, Afghanistan. UNDESA. (2017). World population prospects. https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/. Date accessed: 4 August 2018. United Nations Development Program (UNDP). (2015). Afghanistan sub-national governance program (ASGP) evaluation. Afghanistan: Kabul. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2018). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision, custom data acquired via website. UN-Habitat. (2015). City for all: program document. UN-Habitat: Kabul. UN-Habitat. (2016a). A Portrait of the capital: mapping spatial and analysis situation of the Kabul City Region. Discussion Paper Series 2, Paper #7. http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/projects/ afghanistan/pdf/DP7_English.pdf Accessed 4 August 2018. UN-Habitat. (2016b). Coming in from the margins: Ending displacement and increasing inclusion in Afghan cities. UN-Habitat: Kabul. UNHCR. (2014). Global reports 2001–2013. UNHCR: Geneva. In GoIRA and UN-Habitat (2015). The state of Afghan cities 2015. GoIRA and UN-Habitat: Kabul. UNHCR. (2018). Operations portal: Refugee situations. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/country/pak. Date accessed 4 August 2018. World Bank. (2018). World development indicators: Afghanistan. https://data.worldbank.org/ country/afghanistan. Accessed 4 August 2018.

Chapter 7

The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving Sustainable, Resilient, Greener and Smarter Cities Mario R. Delos Reyes, Mark Anthony M. Gamboa, and Ryan Randle B. Rivera Abstract In the Philippines, there is a continuing challenge for national urban policymakers and decisionmakers to strike the right and effective balance between preparing a policy that applies across levels of the government, on the one hand, and providing details about what interventions and investments are to be made by local governments, on the other. In addition, and more importantly, the current National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF) recognises the right of the people to the city, by emphasising in its policy statements and strategies the concept of inclusive urban development—a development that leaves no one behind and the development that is felt by ordinary people without waiting for the promise of “trickle-down” to work. However, rapid urbanisation poses a major challenge to both national and local governments alike as they continue to grapple with the increasingly daunting task of managing and addressing urban issues and challenges. The framework underscores people’s authority to deal with the urban issues and challenges by bringing back a planning process which is people-centred. A clear implementing structure and mechanism is the first step towards making the framework effectively work, not just for the country’s urban areas, but also for rural and rural–urban areas, as well. The development of national urban policy in the Philippines is crucial for achieving sustainable, smarter and greener cities. Keywords Philippines NUP · NUDHF · Urban development · Urban · Urbanisable areas M. R. Delos Reyes (B) · M. A. M. Gamboa University of the Philippines School of Urban and Regional Planning (UP SURP), E. Jacinto St., Diliman, Quezon 1101, Philippines e-mail: [email protected] M. A. M. Gamboa e-mail: [email protected] R. R. B. Rivera Centre for Neighbourhood Studies (CeNS), E.T. Virata Hall, E. Jacinto St., UP Diliman, Quezon 1101, Philippines e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_7

169

170

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

7.1 Introduction The recent literature on developing countries’ urbanisation explored its trends, drivers and challenges (Jedwab et al. 2017; Collier and Venables 2017; Jones 2017; Yi et al. 2017; Cobbinah et al. 2015; Eckert and Kohler 2014; Chen et al. 2014). It is described as remarkably rapid and migration-driven (Jedwab et al. 2017). It is propelled by liberal economies transformed by technological and political movements (Cohen 2006). It emerged with the advent of globalisation and digital economies (Friedman 2017). Both internal migration and natural demographic factors largely contributed to rapid urbanisation in developing countries (Cohen 2006; Jedwab et al. 2017). Urban pull factors and rural push factors forced many countryside inhabitants to migrate to towns and cities, which often leads to overcrowding. Moreover, urban population in developing countries continue to grow at a faster rate with relatively high fertility rates and low mortality rates. This, however, has aggravated the delivery of basic services in many urban areas (Eckert and Kohler 2014). The unprecedented and unmanaged expansion has led to informal settlements, unemployment and underemployment, income inequality and poor living conditions (Harris and Todaro 1970; Cobbinah et al. 2015; Jones 2017). All of these are taking place, while urban governance is struggling to adapt to such unprecedented conditions. Hence, there is a pressing need to foster a strategic, adaptive and coherent approach to urban governance—an approach that should be effective in the face of an ever-changing urban development paradigm with special reference to developing countries.

7.2 Urbanisation Context, Definitions and Trends in the Philippines Urbanisation in the Philippines is generally discussed at the scale of local governments. Local governments are created through an enactment of a law, as long as the proposed unit complies with the legal requisites on income, land area and population set forth by the Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act No. 7160), and have a three-tiered structure—the province and highly urbanised cities/independent component cities at the highest tier; the municipalities and component cities at the second tier; and the barangays (or villages) as the lowest tier (Table 7.1). Although each tier and type of local government is autonomous and has a designated role, local governments are still under the general supervision of the president—the form of government in the Philippines being one that is unitary and presidential.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

171

Table 7.1 Geographical–political units in the Philippines Geographical–political unit

Composition

Role

Number*

Province

Composed of a cluster of municipalities, or municipalities and component cities

Serves as dynamic mechanism for developmental processes and effective governance of local government units (LGUs) within its territorial jurisdictiona

81

City

Consists of more urbanised and developed barangays

146

Municipality

Consists of a group of barangays

Serves primarily as general-purpose government for the coordination and delivery of basic, regular and direct services and effective governance of the inhabitants within its territorial jurisdictionb

Barangay

Basic political unit

Serves as the primary planning and implementing unit of government policies, plans, programmes, projects and activities in the community, and as a forum wherein the collective views of the people may be expressed, crystallised and considered, where disputes may be amicably settledc

42,045

1488

a Rep.

Act No. 7160, Sec. 459 Act No. 7160, Secs. 440 and 448 c Rep. Act No. 7160, Sec. 384 *Number of LGUs as of 31 December 2019 b Rep.

The definition of urban areas took various forms since the 1970s until the enactment of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA of 1992).1 This is illustrated in Figures 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4, which present maps of the country’s urban areas from 1970 to 2015. Among the factors considered in the definitions of urban areas are the number and density of population, the administrative and economic roles of a territory, the degree of agricultural activities conducted and the level of infrastructure present within an area. At present, the UDHA of 1992 uses both political and demographic definitions of urban areas (Table 7.2). 1 The

law provided a legal definition of urban and urbanisable areas.

NSCB Resolution No. 9, s. of 2003 I. If a barangay has a population size of 5000 or more, then a barangay is considered urban II. If a barangay has at least one establishment with a minimum of 100 employees, a barangay is considered urban III. If a barangay has 5 or more establishments with a minimum of 10 employees, and 5 or more facilities within the two-kilometre radius from the barangay hall, then a barangay is considered urban

Definition of urban areas in the 1970 Census of Population

I. All barangays comprising the city or municipality whose minimum population density is 1000 persons per sq. km. II. Poblaciones or central districts of cities and municipalities which have a minimum population density of 500 persons per square kilometre. III. Poblaciones or central districts (not included in 1 and 2) which, irrespective of population size, have the following: a. Street pattern (i.e. network of street in either parallel or right-angle orientation) b. At least six establishments (commercial, manufacturing, recreational and/or personal services) and c. At least three of the following: i. Town hall, church or chapel with religious service at least once a month ii. A public plaza, park or cemetery iii. A market place or building where trading activities are carried on at least once a week iv. A public building like a school, hospital, puericulture and health centre or library IV. Barangays having at least 1000 inhabitants which meet the conditions set forth in 3 above and in which the occupation of the inhabitants is predominantly non-farming/fishing

Table 7.2 Definitions of urban areas in the Philippines

I. “Urban areas” refer to all cities regardless of their population density and to municipalities with a population density of at least five hundred persons per square kilometre II. “Urbanisable areas” refer to sites and lands which, considering present characteristics and prevailing conditions, display marked and great potential of becoming urban areas within the period of five years

Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992

172 M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

173

Fig. 7.1 Level of urbanization from 1970 to 1980 based on the 1970 definition of urban barangays. Source: Data from 1990 Urban-Rural Population Report 3

Cities and urban areas are determined on the basis of political designation by legal definition. Urban and urbanisable areas are politically designated, and its definition is provided for by either a statute or an administrative regulation. The three classes2 of cities in the country—highly urbanised cities, independent component cities and component cities—are automatically considered as urban areas following the definition under the UDHA of 1992. The law automatically classifies all cities regardless of its class as urban areas (Figs. 7.1 and 7.2). As the UDHA of 1992 uses the demographic definition of urban areas by designating localities with a population density of 500 persons per square kilometre and above as urban areas, local government territories can also be classified as urban localities even if they are not created as cities. In this case, municipalities, which are usually perceived as exhibiting rural characteristics in terms of economic activities, could be classified as urban areas as long as the population density requirement is met.

7.3 Urbanisation in the Philippines and in Southeast Asia The country hosts one of the biggest numbers of urban centres in Southeast Asia (SEA). It stands second following Indonesia since 1960 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2018). Currently, at least 49.9 million Filipinos are residents of urban areas (Map 3), and by 2050, this would grow by almost 46%, 2 For specific definitions of the three classes of cities, see Philippine Statistics Authority. Philippine

Standard Geographic Code (PSGC). Retrieved http://nap.psa.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/articles/con_ cityclass.asp. 3 Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/1990%20Urban%20Rural%20Population. pdf.

174

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

Fig. 7.2 Level of urbanization from 1990 to 2000 based on the 1970 definition of urban barangays. Source: Data for 1990 from 1990 Urban-Rural Population Report and for 2000 from Report No. 4 - Urban Population of the National Statistics Office, by Philippine Statistics Authority4

accounting for about 93.5 million Filipinos (ibid.). In terms of level of urbanisation, the Philippines saw decrease in proportion of urban population after reaching its highest at 1990 (47%) and the trend continued till 2000, reaching its lowest at 45.3%. Then, the proportion of urban population again started increasing. In 2015, it was 46.3% and increased to 46.9% in 2018 (UN DESA 2018). As regards the rate of urbanisation, the Philippines has started yielding negative growth rates during 19902010 period. But during 2010–2018, again the rate turned positive at 3.9% (Table 7.3).

7.4 Major Urban Challenges in the Philippines 7.4.1 Water Supply The sector of water supply is characterised by fragmented governance structure with weak technical and management capacity at the local level (NEDA 2016). The incompleteness and incoherence of sector information have compromised the functions of resource planning and operation monitoring (ADB 2013). The lack of access to financing has limited, if not discouraged, the inflow of private sector investments that could have augmented water supply infrastructure (ibid.). National government agencies have also failed to precisely monitor the underserved areas 4 Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/1990%20Urban%20Rural%20Population. pdf and https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2000%20CPH-Report%20No.4%20Urban% 20Population.pdf.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

175

Fig. 7.3 Level of urbanization in 2010 based on the definition of urban barangays in the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) Resolution No. 9, s. 2003. Source: Data from Urban Barangays in the Philippines (Based on 2010 Census of Population and Housing), by Philippine Statistics Authority5

(ibid.). Hence, the service gap in rural and peri-urban areas, and even in some urban areas, remains in a persisting bad situation. Many families living below the poverty incidence suffer from limited access to safe and reliable water supply. In 2014, about 3.26 million families, or 14.5% of Filipino households, did not have access to Level III (piped water supply with private water point) water facilities. More than half of these families, about 1.86 million, are from the bottom 30% of the income stratum of the country (Philippine Statistics Authority 2017). 5 Retrieved

from https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/article/Table%201_2.pdf.

176

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

Fig. 7.4 Level of urbanization in 2015 based on definition of urban areas under the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. Source: Data from 2015 Census of Population and Housing, by Philippine Statistics Authority6

7.4.2 Sanitation In 2014, at least 76.6% of the 22.7 million households in the Philippines used a nonshared or had private flush toilet facility. Therefore, 23.4% of the population did not have private flush toilet facility. Moreover, at least 680,000 families during the same period did not have access to a toilet facility at all (Fig. 7.6). The data from PSA reveal that these households use either open field or bushes for excretion. Unfortunately, sanitation has always been seen as “adjunct” to water supply. Investments for this 6 Retrieved

from https://psa.gov.ph/population-and-housing/node/120080.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

177

Fig. 7.5 Average annual population growth from 1960 to 2015. Source: Data from 2015 Census of Population and Housing, by Philippine Statistics Authority7

sector are limited and are generally supplemented with water supply interventions. The absence of a dedicated water and sanitation agency and inadequate technical capacity also hamper the improvement of this sector (ADB 2013). Urbanisation has also generated large amounts of solid waste. To address this, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 mandates all local government units (LGUs) to undertake solid waste management within their jurisdiction. But this remains a monumental task, as illustrated by the lack of functional solid waste management plans and inadequacy of materials recovery facility in many LGUs. Moving forward, the continuous capacity building of LGUs, active engagement of stakeholders and enforcement of suitable best practices are crucial in ensuring urban environments that are sustainable (Delos Reyes 2017, p. 80).

7.4.3 Housing and Informal Settlements Rapid population growth has outpaced the government’s delivery of housing units. Issues on project implementation, land acquisition and bureaucracy hamper the housing sector (NEDA 2016). Implementation of key sector reforms remains difficult because of institutional arrangements which are fragmented in nature. The lack

7 Retrieved

from https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/specialrelease/_ PHILIPPINES_Statistical%20Tables_0.xls.

1960

1970

11,808,042

2nd

Rank in Southeast Asia 33

30

3rd

Urban population (%)

Rank in Southeast Asia 9th $186.77

$254.43

–

Rank in Southeast Asia

GDP per capita ($ US)

Rank in Southeast Asia

1980

–

$684.65

6th

12.78

4th

37.5

50.45

2nd

17,764,858

32

47,396,968

1990

–

$715.31

3rd

22.58

4th

47

69.44

2nd

30,100,216

31

61,947,348

2000

2010

5th

$1038.91

11th

6th

$2129.50

11th

5th −1.75

4th

45.3

13.41

2nd

42,415,984

20

93,726,624

−1.93

46.1

24.25

2nd

37,400,857

26

77,991,569

Source World Urbanization Prospects of United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2018 and World Bank Open Data 2018 Note Total number of countries in Southeast Asia is 11, and the ranking is based on 11th countries

–

9.53

Urbanisation rate (decadal)

3rd

48.34

Growth of urban population (decadal)

2nd

36

7,959,938

35,804,729

Total urban population

26,273,025

Population growth rate (decade)

Total population

Table 7.3 Philippine urbanisation in relation to Southeast Asia, 1960–2018 2018

6th

$2988.95

9th

3.47

6th

46.9

17.79

2nd

49,961,978

14

106,512,074

178 M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

179

Fig. 7.6 Household toilet facilities of poor families, 2014. Source The figures from the table are consolidated from 2008 and 2014 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA)

of complete and coherent information on informal settlements has also made the interventions ineffective. As of 2016, a housing backlog of about 2 million units continues to exist.8 This, if left unaddressed, is expected to grow three times and reach more than 6 million by 2022 (NEDA 2016). Moreover, in 2015, there remain more than 2.7 million occupied temporary housing units, with highly urbanised cities (HUCs) in Luzon having an average share of 1.24% and HUCs in Visayas and Mindanao with 3.07% and 7.89%, respectively. Cities with the highest share of temporary housing units are Butuan City in Region XIII (19.15%); Puerto Princesa in Region IV-B (18.79%); Zamboanga City in Region IX (18.76%); and Muntinlupa City in NCR at 12.12% (Philippine Statistics Authority 2015).

8 This

represents the households living in unacceptable housing, households doubled-up in acceptable housing and the households that are expected to seek their own housing units in the near future.

180

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

7.4.4 Inefficient Land Administration The absence of an efficient and coordinated land administration system and the prevalence of haphazard agricultural land conversion continue to confront the country’s land management sector (ADB 2013). The databases of LGUs, particularly on land parcels and land uses, have not been digitised and used across all relevant local departments. In some LGUs, there is an absence of spatial data at the city or municipality level. Mapping resources are also criticised as being highly concentrated among national government agencies, with LGUs relying only on occasional grants or consultancy work in preparing local thematic maps (ibid.). The framework of coordination among LGUs concerning land management is also ineffective. Many ecologically and culturally linked localities remain independent of each other in terms of land use planning. LGUs tend to harmonise local land use plans with higher order plans but with little coordination. This lack of interlinkages contributes to highly fragmented settlement and transport development among many localities.

7.4.5 Finance LGUs are described to have “limited fiscal capacity” in managing urban development (ADB 2013). It suffers from incomplete disclosure of financial assets, poor creditworthiness, inefficient tax administration, weak financial mobilisation capacity, short knowledge on private–public partnerships and lacklustre capacity for project management (ibid.). These factors have also discouraged the private sector from engaging local government units (LGUs) in collaborative engagements that could have stimulated development. Currently, LGUs have huge potential for revenue generation as they are empowered to generate revenues from real estate taxes, regulatory fees and local enterprises. However, these continue to be underutilised, with national government transfers still constituting a large part in regular income of many LGUs (ibid.). Fiscal policies have also been remiss among LGUs, with as much revenues spent on annual government operations and short-term projects. There is also limited capital outlay for strategic infrastructure and long-term urban services delivery.

7.4.6 Health The inadequate number of public health professionals, particularly in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas (GIDAs), hampers the provision of universally accessible health services (ABD 2013). There remains a concentration of health professionals in Metro Manila, in relation to the country average (Fig. 7.7). More

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

181

Fig. 7.7 Government health professionals for every 20,000 inhabitants, 2015. Source Philippine Statistical Yearbook, Philippine Statistics Authority (2017)

importantly, the number of doctors at the national level remains below the mandated doctors to population ratio of 1:20,000. Inadequacy of local funding for health is also common among LGUs. For instance, between 2013 and 2014, LGUs only accounted for about 7% of the total government funding for health despite having the mandate for primary and secondary health services. Health initiatives also tend to be politicised, with high dependence on the short-term plans of local chief executives (Philippines Statistics Authority 2017). Many programmes have become short-sighted and fragmented. In addition, the quality of health information at the local level has also remained problematic and has affected much of the policy decisions concerning health and nutrition (ibid.).

7.4.7 Education The main challenges on the country’s education sector revolve around quality and competitiveness. Despite ongoing reforms, basic education, technical, vocational education and training (TVET) and higher education remain subpar on international standards. The private sector is actively engaged in education services delivery complementing the government, but efforts to improve quality have not yielded fruit yet. For instance, in 2016, the Philippines ranked 74 out of 128 countries in producing innovators, despite having more higher education institutions based on the Global Innovation Index (NEDA 2016). It also performed dismal in terms of number of researchers, having yielded only 81 researchers per million population compared to Indonesia’s 205 and Vietnam’s 115 (ibid.). Moreover, in 2014, the government aimed a 73% achievement rate for elementary education and a 57% rate for secondary education, but it only yielded 69.1% and 49.48%, respectively (ibid.). The quality of education services in the country has been closely linked to the competence of teachers, the ratio of students-to-teachers, the quality of classrooms and the presence or absence of education facilities (ibid.).

182

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

7.4.8 Labour and Unemployment More than 5% of the labour force of the country was unemployed in 2016. This is most prevalent in predominantly urban regions of National Capital Region, Central Luzon (Region III) and Calabarzon (Region IV-A)—having exhibited 6.7%, 6.6% and 7.2% unemployment rates, respectively (Labour Force Survey 2017). In the same period, underemployment reached more than 18%. This is most pronounced in the Bicol Region and Eastern Visayas Region, both regions having 30% underemployment rate. Figures 7.7 and 7.8 show the rates for unemployment and underemployment in 2016, respectively (Fig. 7.9). High unemployment and underemployment have pushed the diaspora of many Filipinos to overseas. As of 2017, estimated 2.3 million Filipinos are working overseas, with many of them compelled to pursue lower-skilled jobs, and are at high risk of exploitation (NEDA 2016). Furthermore, this diaspora entailed a brain drain

Fig. 7.8 Unemployment rate in the Philippines, by region, 2016. Source Philippine Statistical Yearbook, Philippine Statistics Authority (2017)

Fig. 7.9 Underemployment rate in the Philippines, by region, 2016. Source Philippine Statistical Yearbook, Philippine Statistics Authority (2017)

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

183

Fig. 7.10 Poverty incidence in the Philippines, by region, 2015. Source Philippine Statistical Yearbook, Philippine Statistics Authority (2017)

effect, in which the local labour force lost many professionals and skilled workers for better opportunities abroad.

7.4.9 Urban Poverty The 2009–2016 National Urban Development and Housing Framework pursued poverty alleviation as a major thrust. It harnessed urban areas as venues to improve household incomes and mitigate poverty. Nonetheless, poverty has still remained a critical issue in many urban areas. For instance, in 2015, more than 80,000 families in Metro Manila lived below the poverty threshold. These households are generally located in disaster risk slums and informal settlements under poor sanitary conditions. Meanwhile, the poverty incidence in regions closest to Metro Manila is also significant, as more than 220,000 families in Central Luzon (Region III) and 216,000 in Calabarzon (Region IV) live below the poverty threshold in the same period (Fig. 7.10).

7.4.10 Environmental Degradation Urban activities inevitably impose substantial pressure on the natural environment. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions from heavy traffic, the loss of land and forest cover from land development and the level of solid waste generated from economic activities, among others, pose threats to an area’s ecological stability.

184

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

For instance, in the 1990s, the 27-km Pasig River traversing Metro Manila from Laguna Lake to Manila Bay was declared biologically dead, owing to decades of urbanisation and industrialisation in neighbouring localities of Manila, Mandaluyong, Makati, Pasig and Taguig. Fortunately, the government has recognised the environmental impacts of urbanisation and has since advocated sustainable interventions, such as mainstreaming climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and management in planning and the conduct of specific environmental rehabilitation projects. Recently, the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission (PRRC) with the support of the Planning and Development Research Foundation, Inc. (PLANADES) has prepared the 2017–2032 Pasig River Integrated and Strategic Master Plan (PRISM) with the main aim of rehabilitating the river, restoring life and reviving the pride that used to be the benefits of the people being enjoyed from this natural resource (PRRC and PLANADES 2018).

7.4.11 Migration The more evident type of internal migration in the country is that of the movement from rural areas to urban areas particularly in cities that are in their nascent stage of urbanisation (Fig. 7.11). Many factors have recently triggered in-migration to cities. For instance, the case of Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) and its adverse impact on the availability of land resources for residential use show how elements of nature affect migration. Similarly, unfavourable political conditions in an area would adversely affect the flow of migration. There were cases of exodus in areas that are war-torn or are areas known for insurgencies. The recent case of the City of Marawi showed how a man-made calamity has caused migration of residents to other areas.

7.5 Urban Planning and Policies in the Philippines There is a policy framework for urban development and planning already in place, enshrined in a number of laws and policies in various development frameworks and strategic development plans. The Philippine Constitution, the country’s fundamental law, is replete with social justice provisions that concur with urban development agenda—address extreme poverty, create gainful employment opportunities, eradicate hunger incidence, increase access to education, ensure gender equality, address prevalence of diseases and avert environmental degradation, among others. The 1987 Philippine Constitution lays down the basic and fundamental legal framework for urban development and planning in the Philippines. Sections 9 and 10 of its Article XIII are of particular importance to urban development and planning as these sections highlight urban land reform and housing with bias in favour of the poor dwellers. Equally important is the provision of the constitution that ensures local

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

185

Fig. 7.11 Philippine internal migration pattern. Source Habitat III (2016), p. 11 (Fig. 2-2)

autonomy of governments in the Philippines.9 The constitution directed the Philippine Congress to enact a local government code, which, among others, would provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure that allocates among the different LGUs their powers, responsibilities and resources.10 Hence, on 10 October 1991, Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991, was approved and was first implemented in January 1992. Through the Local Government Code of 1991, it was declared a state policy to afford LGUs genuine and meaningful local autonomy to make them more effective partners

9 CONST.,

Art. X, Secs. 1 and 2. Art. X, Sec. 3.

10 CONST.,

186

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

in the attainment of national goals.11 More particularly, LGUs shall, among others, ensure and support the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment and preserve the comfort and convenience of their residents.12 Having strategic and direct contact with the people at the grass-roots level, LGUs are expected to provide more responsive and accountable services. Against this backdrop, we saw the devolution and decentralisation of functions and responsibilities of national government agencies to the LGUs in 1992. Another equally important law is the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, also known as Republic Act No. 7279, which serves as the primary legal basis and policy framework for urban development and housing in the Philippines. The law provides for the rational use and development of urban areas in order to promote, among others, the “equitable utilization of residential lands in urban and urbanizable areas, with particular attention to the needs and requirements of the underprivileged and homeless citizens and not merely on the basis of market forces”.13 More recent policies recognise the LGUs as the principal stewards of the programmes on urban development. In addition to the major policies on urban development, the Philippines has a plethora of laws and policies that if and when effectively implemented would result in the improvement of the living condition in urban areas. However, the presence of these laws could also be considered as a bane, especially that many LGUs cannot cope with the responsibilities that have been given to them as a result of the devolution of the delivery of basic services. Many LGUs, in particular those that are classified as low-income LGUs, are overwhelmed by the magnitude of responsibilities that the LGC of 1991 has devolved to them and the ever-increasing requirements that subsequent laws have asked of them. Many policies, albeit loaded with excellent goals, are not funded while others have unclear source of funding. Implementation of policies and programmes that aim to alleviate poverty condition necessarily requires source of funding—both at national and local levels. Several laws, however, rely on the national budget, the General Appropriations Act (GAA)—for funding. But the GAA is usually given only to national government agencies that are mandated to provide policy coordination and monitoring while, in most instances, LGUs are only given subsidies or partial financial support. Considering that the national government’s budget is not limitless, many programmes and projects that aim to implement these laws have to be relegated to the background if the sole source of funding would be the GAA. The LGUs are having a difficulty in finding ways to comply with the mandates of these unfunded laws. To illustrate, well-meaning laws such as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2003 and the Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 require LGUs to invest in capital-intensive infrastructures such as sewage/septage facilities and sanitary landfills. Because of the huge capital investment necessary and the absence of effective 11 Rep.

Act. No. 7160, Sec. 1. Act no. 7160, Sec. 16. 13 Rep. Act No. 7279, Sec. 2[b][1]. 12 Rep.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

187

financial mechanisms through which these are to be funded, many LGUs risk being sued for their non-compliance with these laws. Consequently, instead of facilitating the development of local governance, these laws add burden to many LGUs who are at the forefront of implementing these nationally mandated programmes and projects. In some instances, these unfunded laws result in the failure of LGUs to autonomously decide on what projects are actually needed the most by their respective constituents. The passage of many laws that are unfunded virtually removes from the LGUs the authority to decide what is best for their respective constituents. In addition, the number of laws that have been passed in the last couple of decades has put several responsibilities to the LGUs that the latter is now confused as to which among these responsibilities are to be given the highest priority, considering the financial constraints that they experience. Similar to the multiplicity of laws and policies on urban development, the country’s administrative arrangements for urban planning and development indicate a case of too many cooks. Several national government agencies continue to play immense roles in the delivery of urban services notwithstanding the devolution of these services to the local governments. Urban planning in the Philippines is a responsibility of both national and subnational levels of government, but local governments are considered to be the key in urban development. Urban planning follows a hybrid of top-down and bottom-up approaches. The national government lays down broader policies and national goals, while local government identifies specific interventions in the context of national development goals (Fig. 7.12). As the delivery of basic services—health, environment, social welfare, public works and agriculture—has been devolved to local and sub-national levels of government, urban planning in the Philippines has become the primary responsibility of local and sub-national levels of government. The local governments, in order to realise their role as catalyst of sustainable urban development, are vested with broad range of powers in keeping with the principles of subsidiarity in the context of local autonomy.

7.6 National Urban Policy in the Philippines The UDHA of 1992 mandates the formulation of the National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF), which shall be the comprehensive plan for urban and urbanisable areas.14 This framework still serves as the national urban policy of the Philippines. The current NUDHF adopts the vision of having a better, greener and smarter urban system in a more inclusive Philippines (Fig. 7.13). It has the following key principles, aimed to frame urban development and housing strategies: • Urbanisation as catalyst for inclusive growth; 14 Rep.

Act No. 7279, Sec. 6.

188

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

Fig. 7.12 Institutional structure for delivering urban development. Source Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (2017)

Fig. 7.13 The national urban development framework and its linkage with the 2017-2022 Philippine Development Plan. Source Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (2017)

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

189

• Climate change resilience as a base for spatial structuring and sectoral development; • Spatially and thematically integrated settlements within coherent and efficient urban systems and forms across scales; • Urban areas as accessible platforms for social and economic opportunity, cultural expression and innovation; • People’s participation and empowerment as foundations of urban governance, facilitating sustainable resource use, planning, management and finance; and • Sustainable urban environment (Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board 2017). Table 7.4 provides a comparison of the strategies and vision of the four frameworks and a discussion of how these frameworks integrated the concept of green cities15 and smart cities16 based on the existing literature. The first NUDHF was crafted in 1993, and since then, it has had three iterations. The 1993–1998 NUDHF was the first framework and has emphasised the need for a well-defined national urban strategy. It focused on having a defined spatial policy with clear settlement hierarchies and functions. The roles of primary, secondary, tertiary cores and the satellite municipalities were identified and mapped out by region. The framework identified metropolitan areas and ascribed them catalytic roles—localities serving as regional centres, urban centres, minor urban centres and satellite municipalities were identified. The second framework—the 1999–2004 NUDHF—did not delineate any region or area for a specific urban role. Instead, it defined directions for key urban policy 15 Asian

Development Bank’s Green City Development Toolkit (2015) considered the following as components of green cities: (a) Urban resilience (b) Integrated urban development (c) Green urban development (d) Urban sectors i. Water ii Solid waste iii. Transport iv. Energy v. Buildings and the built environment (a) Integration (enabling factors of green cities)

i. Policy and regulatory framework ii. Strategic planning iii. Links to finance. 16 United Nations University’s Smart Sustainable Cities: Reconnaissance Study (2016) considered the following as dimensions of a smart city, as adopted from the Smart City Model in Giffinger et al. (2010): (a) Smart economy (b) Smart governance (c) Smart mobility (d) Smart environment (e) Smart living (f) Smart people.

1993–1998

To facilitate urban development that • Harnesses cities and key urban areas for industrialisation • Provides for livable places access to basic services • Puts prime on public participation • Ensures improved quality of life

Vision and goals

Table 7.4 Comparison of NUDHF iterations Urban development strategies • Focused on a defined spatial policy with clear settlement hierarchies and functions. Roles of different core and support regions were identified across the country. • Defined a national urban hierarchy system of settlements at the region and city level • Adopted complementary urban development approaches at the national and regional levels

Green city dimension • Green urban development – Favoured strategic integration between environment and development and reiterated the need to undertake impact assessment in any proposed urban development project – Pursued a policy of developing an urban forestry programme – Pursued the provision of green belts as functional buffer zones and enhancement for neighbourhoods. • Integrated urban development – Recognised the necessity of urban finance, including the need for a national urban development fund that can be tapped by LGUs, and for active engagement of the private sector through PPP schemes

(continued)

Smart city dimension • Not apparent

190 M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

1999–2004

Table 7.4 (continued)

To develop an urban structure that • Facilitates economic production • Harnesses local comparative advantages • Ensures improved quality of life • Supports national development objectives

Vision and goals

• Did not delineate any region or area for a specific urban role. Instead, it defined directions for key urban policy areas at the national level

Urban development strategies

• Green urban development – Favoured incorporating environmental considerations into all stages of planning – Pursued a policy of urban forestry – Pursued the provision of green belts – Emphasised the protection of natural reserves in development planning – Pursued a policy of greening urban open spaces

– Pursued a policy multi-sectoral capability building, knowing that sectors will be able to contribute much if their capacities are enhanced • Urban sectors – Reiterated the role of local plans on the provision of urban services and infrastructure

Green city dimension

(continued)

• Smart governance – There is a discussion of the use of information technology, at least, in population management among local government units

Smart city dimension

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving … 191

Table 7.4 (continued)

Vision and goals

Urban development strategies

Green city dimension • Urban resilience – Declared a policy of requiring LGUs to formulate disaster mitigation plans and to provide information and maps of disaster-prone areas in LGUs • Urban sectors – Pursued a policy of adoption and implementation of comprehensive and integrated waste management system – Recognised the importance of installation of water supply, sanitation, and sewerage infrastructure, as well as strategic infrastructure interventions for growth management • Favoured the formulation of a comprehensive infrastructure plan as basis for investments

(continued)

Smart city dimension

192 M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

• Emphasised the social component of urban development. For instance, there is a section in the framework that focused on housing provision as well as on poverty reduction. • The interplay among economic development, social development and governance is clear in the framework.

• Urban resilience – Pursued the integration of disaster risk management and climate change adaptation into the local planning guidelines • Integrated urban development – Mentioned the use of innovating financing schemes for socialised housing and urban finance

Retained the vision of the preceding framework (1999–2004) as it has remained “valid”

Green city dimension • Integrated urban development – Adopted an integrated area approach to infrastructure and delivery of services, placing importance on coordination among sectoral agencies and local government units

2009–2016

Urban development strategies

– Enumerated specific roles of the civil society, private sector, local government and national government in urban governance – Emphasised the role of urban finance and upholds local revenue mobilisation

Vision and goals

1999-2004(Continued)

Table 7.4 (continued)

(continued)

• Smart mobility, smart people and smart governance – There is a strategy to support IT-enabled services especially in transport infrastructure, and have the same integrated into the local government service systems, as well as in education curricula

Smart city dimension

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving … 193

Table 7.4 (continued)

Vision and goals

Green city dimension • Urban sector – Provided for an assured long-term supply of clean power – Identified specific infrastructure projects with the goal of “demonstrating that our cities work”, such as on transport and on water supply – Encouraged the development and use of energy efficiency practices, renewable energy and water conservation • Green urban development – Pursued the improvement/ – provision of amenities, including parks and promenades that are pedestrian-oriented – Provided for the integration of “green planning and building standards and appropriate sustainable zoning and green building practices

Urban development strategies • Was structured into three major themes, each with its own set of modules: – Urban system – Housing and communities – Governance • Approach included a combination of the delineation of a particular development region/area and the directions for key policy areas: – Urban competitiveness – Poverty reduction – Housing affordability and delivery – Sustainable communities – Performance-oriented governance

(continued)

Smart city dimension

194 M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

2017–2022

Table 7.4 (continued)

Aligned its vision onto the Philippine Urban Agenda, which is to facilitate a “better, greener, smarter urban systems in a more inclusive Philippines”

Vision and goals

• Integrated resilience, inclusive development, sustainable mobility, energy efficiency and urban governance • Described as a framework for a mature urban system—one that does not focus entirely on poverty alleviation and social welfare services. It sees urban areas as platforms for the people’s socio-economic, cultural and innovative activities. • Its approach to urban development is holistic and multi-sectoral. Its principles did not focus on spatial policy alone. • Structured into key framework principles and a set of strategies to pursue the vision. It has also included a hierarchy of settlements by population—highlighting the more populous localities.

Urban development strategies

Green city dimension

• Integrated urban development and urban resilience – Pursues full operationalisation of the ridge-to-reef approach and integrated ecosystem planning, as well as disaster risk reduction and management and climate change adaptation and mainstreaming – Reiterates the need for integration of urban transport planning in land use planning • Green urban development – Pursues the provision of open space network – Promotes resilient and resource-efficient housing

• Integrated urban development – Recognised the importance of governance and the coordination among agencies in managing urban development.

(continued)

• Smart governance – It ensures access to government data, particularly geospatial information, among others, that can aid planning • Smart environment – It encourages the adoption of modern technologies in waste management, such as in monitoring of waste disposal and tracking of waste volume • Smart people – It calls for the capacity building of workforce • Smart economy – It pursues a policy of opening up ICT sector to investments – It aims to establish a national broadband network infrastructure

Smart city dimension

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving … 195

Table 7.4 (continued)

Vision and goals

Green city dimension • Urban sectors – Water—It has strategies on putting up efficient and resilient water and sanitation infrastructure – Energy—It promotes energy sourcing from renewable sources and clean energy technologies – Energy—It encourages small-scale renewable energy generation through research and funding – Waste—It encourages the development of community-based waste management programmes – Waste—It encourages the adoption of modern technologies in waste management, such as in monitoring of waste disposal and tracking of waste volume

Urban development strategies • The strategies cover the following sectors: – Urban population – Urban planning and design – Housing – Urban infrastructure and basic services – Urban economy and finance – Urban governance

– It supports the growth of entrepreneurship, MSMEs (incl. product design) and of green industries (green low-carbon, resource-efficient economy and also the stronger implementation of the Green Jobs Act) – It advocates the connectivity of economic activities and the provision of support infrastructure

Smart city dimension

196 M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

197

areas. There was a focus on national policies for urban land resource management— highlighting the importance of a national land use code, updated local land use plans and a functional land administration system. The framework also emphasised the roles of globalisation, inter-urban and inter-regional integration under the context of equity. When the 2009–2016 NUDHF was formulated, it adopted the vision of the preceding framework and declared it to have remained valid. The framework combined the approach of the two preceding frameworks. It identified the development of particular region/area (e.g. development of Calabarzon, Cebu, Davao and Central Luzon), and it provided directions for key policy areas (the development “modules”). The framework also emphasised the social component of urban development. For instance, there is a whole section in the framework that tackled the issue of poverty reduction. The interplay among social development, economic development and the role of governance is underscored in the framework. The latest iteration of the NUDHF was formulated in 2017 and spans the period until 2022. Compared with earlier NUDHF iterations, the 2017–2022 NUDHF has the most apparent integration of resilience, inclusive development, sustainable mobility, energy efficiency and urban governance in its strategies. It can be described as a framework for a mature urban system—one that focuses on the role of urban areas as a platform for the people’s socio-economic, cultural and innovative activities, not just on poverty alleviation and social welfare services. The framework also recognises that people are active members of the urban system and not just passive recipients of interventions. As an illustration, it has highlighted planning at human scale, encouraging the development of walkable cities and compact neighbourhoods. All components of a green city as identified by the Asian Development Bank have been considered in the NUDHF 2017–2022, while at least four dimensions of United Nations University’s framework for smart sustainable cities are expressed in the same framework.

7.7 Towards a Successful National Urban Policy Based on the Philippines’ National Urban Policy (NUP) experiences and learned lessons, there are at least six areas of consideration for the success of the NUP. These are participation or stakeholder consultation; capacity development; demonstration projects; database management system; institutionalisation; and monitoring and evaluation, all contributing to the overall sustainability and effectiveness of the policy (Delos Reyes and Espina 2016). One of the key areas to encourage support and proper engagement that should be integrated throughout the policy process is the participatory and consultative nature, in which the stakeholders are engaged. This will change the degree to which the needs are ultimately reflected in the policy. It should also ensure that the vulnerable and marginalised groups are included. In doing so, it is important for the NUP process to be inclusive.

198

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

Developing the capacity for stakeholders and government staff is necessary to be integrated for building a sustainable policy. It is possible to ensure that NUP can be successfully developed, implemented, monitored and evaluated through the assessment and development of human, financial and institutional capacity. Assessing and providing necessary capacity development for NUP is one of the most integral components of the policy development process. The NUP should be grounded to ensure that policy action is translated into direct action through various demonstration projects. It is important to translate policy into direct action to make policy directives relevant and implementable. Also, it provides concrete examples that recommendations can be translated into actionable projects. In the process of preparation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of NUP, database management systems (DBMs) for purposes of gathering, keeping, disseminating and updating of information relative to the NUP should be established. All documents generated as part of the NUP should be accessible to the public upon request, except those information protected under the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173), and to a certain extent applicable to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293). Information about the NUP should be disclosed to the public through the Internet, if possible. The institutionalisation of the NUP from the preparation to implementation and monitoring stages should be enhanced. There should be an organisational structure and systems established for the execution of its mandate. Advice and assistance could come from the national government agencies (NGAs), non-government organisations (NGOs), academic and research institutions, and the private sectors. The mandate and functions of the institutionalised NUP should mainstream the agreements such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), New Urban Agenda (NUA), Paris Agreement and Sendai Framework, among others. It should exercise policy coordination to ensure the attainment of goals and objectives of NUP. Finally, monitoring existing policies and evaluation of both the previous and the existing policies are a must to improve performance and achieve results. These will provide action-oriented recommendations and can lead to transformative actions. However, it is an acknowledged fact that the monitoring and evaluation of the NUP have a number of challenges. In particular, the Philippine government agencies, especially the LGUs, often lack the data, knowledge and tools needed to effectively monitor the progress and evaluate the outcomes of NUPs. This is partly due to the fact that NUPs can take such diverse forms (explicit or partial), legal status, contents, processes (the extent of stakeholder engagement, etc.) and stages of development (consensus building, designing, implementation, etc.) that no comprehensive framework for monitoring and mechanism which can be applied globally exist (UN-Habitat 2017). It is anticipated that NUPs need an extensive and evaluation programme of research to accompany implementation.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

199

7.7.1 Impacts and Drawbacks of NUDHF as the Philippines’ NUP The NUDHF, being the Philippines’ primary national urban policy, suffers from the same fate as other frameworks in the country that are meant to guide local government units. It provides for grand vision and ideal strategies but is short of providing details as to how these are translated into action. As with the earlier NUDHFs, it would not be a surprise if the local governments continue to invest in programmes and projects that are in total disconnect from the strategies espoused in the current NUDHF. Being a non-binding planning document, several local governments may consider the current framework as mere recommendations for addressing their respective urban issues and challenges. It is also difficult to determine whether the improvement in the conditions of urban areas is actually a result of the implementation of the NUDHF or is mere indications that local governments’ initiatives could become successful in addressing urban issues even in the absence of the NUDHF. By its very nature, a framework is not expected to provide details down to the level of investment and budgeting processes of local governments, but guidance as to how the NUDHF will be scaled down to local government level is particularly crucial as local government units are considered partners by the national government in urban governance. Local governments play a critical role in this aspect, but much is to be desired in terms of how these urban problems are addressed. As the delivery of urban services is shared by both the national and local governments, there is a continuing challenge of horizontal (i.e. urban service delivery between and among local governments) and vertical (i.e. of urban service delivery between national and local governments) integration of plans and programmes. The absence of such guidance is aggravated by the lack of a comprehensive and systematised monitoring and evaluation of NUDHF implementation, by the concerned agencies. Each sectoral concern in an urban area has its own monitoring and evaluation mechanism resulting from the sheer number of government agencies mandated to deal with a specific urban issue. It is therefore difficult to make any conclusion on the impacts of the NUDHF in dealing with urbanisation issues and challenges. At best, observations on islands of best practices in dealing with urban issues and challenges and showing effective management of urbanisation could be made.

7.8 National Urban Agenda, SDGs, Natural Hazards and the NUP The NUP responds to current and recently emerging urbanisation issues and development opportunities, particularly relating to pressing concerns on disaster risk reduction and management (DRRM), climate change adaptation and mitigation (CCAM)

200

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

and resilience; efficient, clean and renewable energy, and to current principles relating to urban planning—densification, mixed-uses, inclusivity and social integration, metropolitanisation, mobility, informal settlement family (ISF) issues, urban heritage preservation and revival, to name a few. There are also gaps in strategies of implementation of the existing and previous NUPs, particularly in linking the framework to LGU planning and budgeting processes, rationalising and synchronising it with the planning cycles of both the national government agencies and LGUs. Moreover, there is a need to strengthen the institutional coordination and the mechanism for monitoring of compliance with the NUPs at all levels. The continuing rapid urbanisation of Philippine cities urgently demands for the readiness of local authorities and communities to achieve sustainable urban development through informed planning and efficient implementation of strategic policies and programmes. A pro-active, holistic and strategic approach to increasingly complex urban issues will equip cities to reap the benefits of agglomeration of economies, create economic opportunities and protect themselves from environmental risks. Unless properly managed and harnessed, urbanisation would result in increasing informalities, unplanned settlements, worsening social exclusion, insecurity, tension and conflicts, safety issues and urban blight (Delos Reyes and Francisco 2014–15). The Philippines’ NUP promotes all the 17 SDGs especially the SDG 11 that promotes cities that are environmentally safe, socially inclusive, economically productive and resilient. In parallel, discussion of Habitat III in Quito, Ecuador, during the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development opens the opportunity to articulate the country’s NUA for the next 20 years. The country’s NUA is summarised into better, greener and smarter cities, in an inclusive Philippines. Greener cities should be environmentally sustainable, climate resilient and safe. Smarter cities are connected physically, spatially and digitally, while an inclusive country is equitable and participatory and provides universal access to quality basic services. Likewise, CCAM and DRR are sensitised in the Philippines’ NUP. In the country’s Climate Change Act (Republic Act No. 9729) and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act (Republic Act No. 10121), the LGUs are considered as the frontline agencies in the formulation, planning and implementation of climate change action plans and disaster risk reduction management plans in their respective areas, consistent with the provisions of the Local Government Code, the national CCAM and DRRM frameworks, and the national CCAM action and DRRM plans. Barangays shall be directly involved with municipal and city governments in prioritising climate change and disaster risk issues and in identifying and implementing best practices and other solutions. Municipal and city governments shall consider climate change adaptation and mitigation and disaster risk reduction and management, as their regular functions. Provincial governments shall provide technical assistance, enforcement and information management in support of municipal and city CCAM action and DRRM plans. Inter-local government unit collaboration shall be maximised in the conduct of climate-related activities. The LGU is hereby expressly authorised to appropriate and use its Internal Revenue Allotment (IRR), necessary to implement

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

201

said local plans effectively. The provisions in the law should identify approaches in mainstreaming CCAM and DRRM into the Philippines’ NUPs.

7.9 Conclusion and Future Implications Urbanisation presents a huge potential for the Philippines. The process brings economic growth in several cities and metropolitan areas in the country, and these serve as the growth poles. However, rapid urbanisation poses a challenge to both national and local governments alike, as they continue to grapple with the increasingly daunting task of managing and addressing urban issues and challenges. The current NUDHF, the country’s national urban policy, is considered to be an improved version of its earlier iterations as it now explicitly embraces the dimensions of a green and smart city. It responds to the emerging demands of managing urbanisation. In addition, and more importantly, the current framework recognises the right of the people to the city by emphasising in its policy statements and strategies the concept of inclusive urban development that leaves no one behind and that is felt by ordinary people without waiting for the promise of “trickle-down” to work. It underscores people’s authority to deal with urban issues and challenges by bringing back a planning process that is people-centred. There is however a continuing challenge for national urban policymakers and decision-makers to strike the right and effective balance between preparing a policy that applies across levels of government on the one hand and providing details about what interventions and investments needed by local governments on the other. The question persists regarding how to best balance national government intervention with the guarantee of local autonomy and the principle of subsidiarity. A clear implementing structure and mechanism is the first step towards making the framework effectively work not just for the country’s urban areas but also for rural and rural–urban areas as well. Acknowledgement This paper was written as part of the work of the Centre for Sustainable, Healthy and Learning Cities and Neighbourhoods, which is funded via UK Research and Innovation, and administered through the Economic and Social Research Council, as part of the UK Government’s Global Challenges Research Fund.

References Asian Development Bank. (2013). Philippines: Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Assessment, Strategy, and Road Map. Retrieved July 2018, from Asian Development Bank: https://www. adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33810/files/philippines-water-supply-sectorassessment.pdf.

202

M. R. Delos Reyes et al.

Asian Development Bank. (2013). Republic of the Philippines National Urban Assessment. Retrieved July 2018, from https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/42817/philippinesnational-urban-assessment.pdf. Asian Development Bank. (2015). Green City Development Tool Kit. Retrieved August 2018, from Asian Development Bank: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/ 173693/green-city-dev-toolkit.pdf. Chen, M., Zhang, H., Liu, W., & Zhang, W. (2014). The global pattern of urbanization and economic growth: evidence from the last three decades. PLOS One, 9(8). Cobbinah, P., Erdiaw-Kwasie, M., & Amoateng, P. (2015). Rethinking sustainable development within the framework of poverty and urbanisation in developing countries. Environmental Development , 18–32. Cohen, B. (2006). Urbanization in developing countries: Current trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainability. Technology in Society, 28(1–2), 63–80. Collier, P., & Venables, A. (2017). Urbanization in developing economies: the assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(3), 355–372. Delos Reyes, M. R. (2017). Waste Not! Community Actions for Cleaner and Greener Environs. Social Science Asia, 3(2), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.14456/ssa.2017.1380. Delos Reyes, M. R., & Espina, N. B., Jr. (2016). Analysis and lessons from decentralization and its implications to local environmental planning and management in the Philippines. In E. Dick, K. Gaesing, D. Inkoom, & T. Kausel, Decentralization and Regional Development: Experiences and Lessons from Four Continents over Three Decades (pp. 107–129). Switzerland. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-29367-7_7. Delos Reyes, M. R., & Francisco, A. N. (2014-2015). Building Sustainable and Disaster Resilient Informal Settlement Communities. Public Policy, 13, 173–200. Department of Health. (2010). Philippine Sustainable Sanitation Roadmap. Eckert, S., & Kohler, S. (2014). Urbanization and health in developing countries: a systematic review. World Health & Population, 15(1), 7–20. Harris, J., & Todaro, M. (1970). Migration, Unemployment and Developmnent: A Two-Sector Analysis. The American Economic Review, 60(1), 126–142. Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. (2000). National Urban Housing and Development Framework 1999–2004. Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. (2016). HABITAT III: The Philippine National Report. Retrieved July 2018, from http://www.hudcc.gov.ph/sites/default/files/styles/ large/public/document/Habitat%20III%20-%20Philippine%20National%20Report.pdf. Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. (2018). National Urban Housing and Development Framework 2017–2022 (Abridged Version). Retrieved July 2018, from http://hlurb. gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/services/lgu/clup-guidebook/NUDHF_2017_2022%20_Abridged_ Version.pdf. Housing and Land Use Development Coordinating Council. (2018). National Urban Housing and Development Framework 2017–2022 (Abridged Version). Retrieved July 2018, from http://hlurb. gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/services/lgu/clup-guidebook/NUDHF_2017_2022%20_Abridged_ Version.pdf. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. (2017). National Urban Development and Housing Framework 2017–2022. Quezon City: Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board. Jedwab, R., Christaensen, L., & Gindelsky, M. (2017). Demography, urbanization and development: Rural push, urban pull and … urban push? Journal of Urban Economics, 98, 6–16. Jones, P. (2017). Formalizing the Informal: Understanding the Position of Informal Settlements and Slums in Sustainable Urbanization Policies and Strategies in Bandung, Indonesia. Sustainability, 9(8). National Urban Development and Housing Framework. (2010). National Urban Housing and Development Framework 2009–2016. National Urban Development Coordinating Council. (1994). National Urban Development and Housing Framework 1993–1998. National Urban Development Coordinating Council.

7 The Philippines’ National Urban Policy for Achieving …

203

National Economic and Development Authority. (2016). Philippine Development Plan 2016–2022. Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission and Planning and Research Development Foundation. (2018). 2017–2032 Pasig River Integrated and Strategic Masterplan. Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission. Philippine Statistics Authority. (n.d.). 1990 Urban-Rural Population Report. Retrieved July 2018, from: https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/1990%20Urban%20Rural%20Population.pdf. Philippine Statistics Authority. (n.d.). Report No. 4 - Urban Population of the National Statistics Office. Retrieved July 2018, from: https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2000%20CPH-Report% 20No.4%20Urban%20Population.pdf. Philippine Statistics Authority. (n.d.). Urban/Rural Classification. Retrieved from PSA Website: http://nap.psa.gov.ph/activestats/psgc/articles/con_urbanrural.asp. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2013). Urban Barangays in the Philippines (Based on 2010 CPH). Retrieved July 2018, from: https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/article/Table% 201_2.pdf. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2015). 2015 Census of Population and Housing. Quezon City: Philippine Statistics Authority. Retrieved July 2018, from: https://psa.gov.ph/population-andhousing/node/120080. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2017). 2017 Philippine Statistical Yearbook. Retrieved July 2018, from Philippine Statistics Authority Website: http://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/PSY_2017_ Jan%2016%202018.pdf. UN-Habitat. (2017). New Urban Agenda. United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III). United Nations. UN DESA. (2018). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. New York: United Nations. Yi, Z., Liu, G., Lang, W., Shrestha, A., & Martek, I. (2017). Strategic Approaches to Sustainable Urban Renewal in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Shenzhen, China. Sustainability, 9(8).

Chapter 8

Overview of Urban Policies in China Debolina Kundu, Tania Debnath, and Baishali Lahiri

Abstract Over the past few decades, China has experienced unprecedented urbanisation and economic growth, in terms of its both scale and pace. However, this economic boom has not resulted in equitable growth. Due to the housing registration (hukou) system, rural migrant workers are excluded from social welfare systems in cities. Many migrant workers have to leave their children and elderly behind in the rural areas. The negative consequence of family separation is becoming a pressing social problem. Land ownership is another issue of urban–rural social linkages. According to the law, rural land cannot be used for urban development without state expropriation. However, a substantial share of urban housing is built on rural land informally and without full legality providing affordable urban housing to the low- to middle-income groups. To address these problems, the government initiated a ‘New Urbanisation Plan’ (2014–20) which aims to achieve a more people-oriented urbanisation process. Also, there has been a recent shift in the focus of the policies from market-oriented approach to people-centric development towards achieving sustainability. Based on a review of urban policies and programmes, this article advocates that the priorities of national urban policy should be improvement of urban–rural socio-economic linkages and integration of the migrants in the mainstream policy framework. Keywords Urbanisation · Challenges · Hukou · NUP

8.1 Introduction At least two-thirds of the world population is expected to be living in the urban areas by 2050, and countries such as China and India would be the major contributors to this boom (Wulfhorst 2018). While the share of urban India to the global urban population would experience a 3 percentage points increase between 1950 and 2020, China’s contribution is expected to be more than double from 8.7% in 1950 to 20% D. Kundu (B) · T. Debnath · B. Lahiri National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, India e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_8

205

206

D. Kundu et al.

in 2020, positioning these two countries as the largest contributors to the world urban population (WUP 2018). Over the past few decades, in the post-reform period, China has achieved an unprecedented economic growth. For much of this period, until the most recent years, the national GDP has grown over 10% per year. The growth propelled the country to the upper middle-income status, with fast reduction in poverty. Accompanying the growth was an unprecedented urbanisation. The cities in China have been major drivers of economic growth over the past decades and are expected to continue to be the same in the years to come. Projecting the current trend forward, they are expected to contribute around 95% of the China’s GDP by 2025 as compared to 75% in the recent times (McKinsey Global Institute 2009). Complementing this economic growth, China is also experiencing massive urbanisation with more than half of its population living in urban areas since 2011 (Zhu and Tian 2016; Bracken 2012; Ma 2002). The new leadership in China, post-2012, has also expressed interest in scaling up urbanisation to 60% by 2020 (Chan 2014) which would in turn improve the country’s consumption demand and sustain the economic development. The rapid pace of urbanisation, shaped by a legacy of institutional provisions (like hukou, danwei, etc.), has also fuelled large-scale national socio-economic and environmental alterations. Though the economic development achieved over time has improved the living conditions for many, yet, this has significantly disturbed the social equality, as majority of the working class contributing to the increased productivity do not enjoy economic benefits reaped from it. Adding to this challenge, water pollution induced by the industrial effluents and the untreated urban waste water and air pollution induced by smoke and vehicular emissions have made the country an important contributor to pollution and global warming (Chaoui et al. 2009). The rapid pace of urbanisation and the concomitant economic development raise some serious concerns which need to be addressed in order to make urbanisation in China a sustainable experience. It is, however, important to understand the context in which urbanisation happened in order to highlight the concerns and challenges of the urbanisation in the country. With this background, the present paper tries to trace the pattern of urbanisation in the country, highlighting the major policy shifts over time, and the circumstances that paved the way for the formulation of the new-type national urbanisation plan (2014–2020) to address the crucial concerns of urbanisation in the years to come. While the overall progress is impressive, per capita income gap between urban and rural population remains wide. The social development gaps between urban and rural residents are even worse. For example, migrant workers from the rural areas do not have access to many urban public services enjoyed by urban residents, and many have to leave their children and aged parents behind in the rural villages. Their incomes may have increased due to urban jobs, but their families suffer from separation, isolation, loneliness, and even breakdown. To this end, following the introduction, the second section situates China in the global urban scenario, and the national trend of urbanisation, along with the understanding of city-size distribution. The third section discusses the major urban challenges in China. The fourth section discusses the shifting policy focus in the growth of

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

207

cities as well managing the challenges including the recent policy background which led to the formulation of the national New-type Urbanisation Plan (2014–2020). The last section concludes by highlighting the issues and challenges of urbanisation in China and critically examines the urban policies including New-type Urbanisation Plan.

8.2 Urbanisation in China 8.2.1 Defining Urban Defining urban is a major challenge in China, which leads to varying levels of urbanisation in the country. The scholars have termed it ‘enigma’ of urbanisation (Liu et al. 2003). In China, the urban centres are administrative units classified either as ‘designated cities’ or as ‘designated towns’. Cities in China are categorised into four-tiered division, i.e. (1) provincial-level municipalities, (2) prefecture-level cities (PLCs), (3) county-level cities (CLCs), and (4) administrative towns. The provincial-level municipalities are the largest cities, i.e. Shanghai, Tianjin, Beijing and Chongqing, that report directly to the central government. The PLCs are quasi-administrative units, mostly controlled by provincial government. The CLCs are subordinate to the PLCs, and the administrative towns are at the lowest level of this hierarchy (Chaoui et al. 2009). The definitions of cities and towns in China have changed over the period. The first definition came in 1955, which defined cities (up to CLC level) as a place with population more than 1,00,000 and towns with more than 2000 population along with its predominant share of non-agricultural employment. This definition of town changed in 1963, increasing the population criteria to 3000 with 70% non-agricultural workers, whereas the definition for city remained unchanged. The post-reform period noted a change in the definition of cities. Instead of total population criteria, the 1986 definition defined cities using two economic criteria: place with more than 60,000 non-agricultural population and with GDP more than 200 million RMB. In addition, the counties with more than 5,00,000 population and more than 1,00,000 non-agricultural population were also designated as cities. Currently, China defines its ‘statutory cities’ at county level using population density and population engaged in non-agricultural activities as two main criteria. A place with more than 400 persons per km2 and more than 80,000 non-agricultural population (exceeding 30% of its total employment) is classified as ‘statutory city’ at county level. In addition, the places with 100–400 persons per km2 are also defined as cities if it has non-agricultural population more than 1,20,000 which makes 25% of its total population. The delineation criteria of prefecture-level cities are the non-agricultural population of 1,50,000 with 1/3rd of GDP share in the tertiary sector (OECD 2015). The current definition is inadequate to capture the growth of population living in the

208

D. Kundu et al.

urban peripheries. Therefore, the OECD functional urban area method could be used to calculate the level of urbanisation in China to include the peripheral areas (ibid.) (Fig. 8.1). Following the recommendations of the draft on ‘Regulations on Statistical Classification of City and Town Areas’ (NBS 1999), the concept of the ‘city and town area’ replaced the previous concept of city/town to calculate the urban population. The urban areas had been delineated on the basis of contiguity of urban construction and population densities, within the municipal districts. The 2006 regulations are the last regulation till date in defining ‘city and town area’.

Fig. 8.1 Administrative divisions in China. Source https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/china_ administrative_map.htm retrieved on 7th Feb, 2019

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

209

8.2.2 Urbanisation and Urban Growth As discussed earlier, China holds a significant position in terms of its contribution to the global population. It contributed close to one-fifth of the total population in the world in 2015, and has become the country with maximum number of people living in the urban areas in the world (Ruibo and Linna 2013; Chaoui et al. 2009). In 2015, China’s urban population (775 million) even surpassed the number of the total population of Europe (740 million) (WUP 2018). Projections suggest that with the urban population base of 875 million people in 2020, urban China will be double than that of the total population of South America (428 million), projected for the same year (ibid.). In the 1950s, the share of urban population of China to global urban population was 8.7%. It has increased to 19.83% in 2018. The projected estimates show that China is expected to contribute 20% of the global urban population in 2020 but thereafter the share of China will reduce to 16.3% by 2050 (Fig. 8.2). It is debated that China is urbanising at a slower rate compared to its level of industrialisation and development (Liu et al. 2003). In 1950, total urban population in China was only 65.4 million, which increased by more than 10 times between 1950 and 2018, reaching 837 million. China experienced rapid growth of urban population in its post-reform period, and the urban population has doubled since 1990, from 310 million to 837 million in 2018 (Table 8.1). Correspondingly, the rural population in absolute terms started declining in post-reform period after reaching its maximum of 862 million in 1990. It declined to 578 million in 2018. The rural population is expected to further decline to 272 million by 2050 (WUP 2018). This trend indicates Share of China in World Population, 1950-2050 35

Share of Total (%)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1950

1960

1970

1980

Rural

1990

2000

2010

Urban

2018

2020

2030

2040

2050

Total

Fig. 8.2 Share of China in world population, 1950–2050. Source World Urbanization Prospect, UN DESA (2018)

210

D. Kundu et al.

Table 8.1 Urbanisation dynamics in China, 1950–2050 Year

Total population (million)

Population growth rate (average annual exponential growth rate)

Level of urbanisation (%)

Rate of urbanisation (average annual exponential growth rate)

1950

65.4

1960

106.6

4.88

16.20

11.80 3.17

1970

143.5

2.98

17.40

0.71

1980

192.4

2.93

19.36

1.07

1990

310.0

4.77

26.44

3.12

2000

460.4

3.95

35.88

3.05

2010

669.4

3.74

49.23

3.16

2018

837.0

2.79

59.15

2.30a

2020

875.1

2.68

61.43

2.21b

2030

1017.8

1.51

70.63

1.40

2040

1083.5

0.62

76.44

0.79

2050

1091.9

0.08

80.03

0.46

Source World Urbanization Prospect (2018) Note a The growth rate is between 2010 and 2018. b The growth rate is for 2010–2020

structural shift in China’s population composition—from rural to urban, with absolute decline in the rural population. The urban growth trajectory of China has experienced a first phase of sine curve and now is at the peak of the second phase. China experienced higher growth of urban population during post-war period in the 1950s due to promotion of industries by the state. Further in the period of 1958–1960, the trend of rapid growth continued, mainly due to high rural–urban migration in response to the ‘Great Leap Forward’ campaign (Shin 2015; Quan 1991). This period of rapid growth is followed by the periods of restricted urban growth, known as ‘anti-urbanisation’ period. The housing registration system, disastrous outcomes of ‘Great Leap Forward’, urban unemployment, and the post-famine anti-urban drive due to shortage of food grains in the urban areas resulted in sudden decline in urban population during 1961–1965 that marked the period of first anti-urbanisation (1961–65). Concerted administrative efforts were made to mobilise a rural-ward movement, which is dealt in the subsequent sections. In the second anti-urbanisation period (1966–77), led by the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), the urban population grew, but at a decelerating rate, resulting from the ‘sent-down effect’. During this period, urban growth declined from 4.0% in 1960–65 to 1.8% in 1965–70 (WUP 2018). It revamped in the posteconomic reforms in 1978. The growth rate of urban population picked pace in the post-urban reform period. During the 1980s, the growth rate reached 4.77% (Liu et al. 2003) and remained above 3% till 2010. It started declining afterwards and projected to dip to 0.08% during 2040–50 (WUP 2018). Importantly, China registered negative

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

211

growth of rural population in post-reform period, since the 1990s, conforming to the hypothesis that China’s urban population is growing at the cost of rural areas. China’s urbanisation is policy-driven and has registered several contrasting trends under different policy regimes. In 1950, China’s level of urbanisation was very low at 11.8%. At the end of anti-urbanisation period, the level of urbanisation reached the level of merely 19.4%. The post-reform period experienced rapid increase in the level of urbanisation. In 2000, it reached 35.9%, which increased to 59.2% in 2018 (Table 8.1). The rate of urbanisation became very high after economic reforms. During the 1980s, it crossed 3% level and continued to remain high until 2010. This phenomenon of ‘accelerated urbanisation’, across China, may be attributed to the market-oriented reforms in the early 1980s induced by the availability of cheap labour and land, underpricing of environmental externalities and huge demand in the export market (OECD 2015). After 2010, the rate of urbanisation started declining. During 2010– 18, the rate of urbanisation has declined to 2.3%. Even with the decline in the pace, the level of urbanisation is projected to grow to 61.4% by 2020 and close to 80% by 2050 (Table 8.1). However, Kundu (2014) mentioned that a large share of population living in urban areas is living there illegally, without a proper urban residence permit. As per the UN estimates, the level of urbanisation in 2012 was 52.7% in China, but 17.3% Chinese population who are living in the cities are without urban hukou.1 She adds that the share of urban population in China would be only 35.4% (p. 182) if this section of the population is excluded.

8.2.3 Large City-Driven Urbanisation in China It is seen that China’s urbanisation policies mostly promoted the growth of large cities, especially after the reforms in 1978 (OECD 2015). There has been a substantial increase in the number of large cities (population more than 3,00,000) post-1949. In 1950, there were only 32 large cities with population more than 3,00,000. The total number increased to 355 in 2010, and is expected to be 504 in 2035. In 1950, there were only 8 metropolitan cities with population more than 1 million. Even the antiurbanisation period experienced rise in the number of million plus cities, though the major focus was on the growth of small and medium towns. By 1980, immediately after reform period, the number of million plus cities doubled and two of these entered the category of large metropolitan city (cities with population more than 5 million). Post-reform period in China was focused on the growth of large cities; hence, the number of million plus cities doubled within a decade, with many cities entering this category in the next decade (2000–2010). The decade of the 1990s noted the birth of megacities (cities with 10 million or more population) as two cities entered this category and the number of large metropolitan cities (5–10 million population) 1 Hukou

8.2.

is a residential registration system in China which is described in detail in Boxes 8.1 and

212

D. Kundu et al.

also increased to 5. In 2015, there were 17 million plus cities, among which 6 were megacities and 11 were large metropolitan cities (WUP 2018). The trend of growing number of large cities indicates the fact that China’s urban population is becoming more and more concentrated in large urban centres. In 1950, the cities smaller than 3,00,000 population were home to almost two-thirds of urban population. Interestingly, almost one-fourth of urban population used to reside in million plus cities, even back in 1950. Till 1990, though the number of million plus cities grew slowly, the share of population they contained remained the same. The share of population living in small and medium-sized cities started declining fast in the post-1990 period and dropped to 35.2% in 2015. It is expected to decline further. Between 1990 and 2000, the share of population living in million plus cities registered an addition of 13.4% points. In 2015, a total of 44.29% people in China lived in million plus cities. The projected estimates show that by 2020, almost half the urban population is expected to live in million plus cities only. Since 2000, there were two megacities (10 million plus) in China, for the first time in history. Since then, their number as well as size started growing, and in 2015, 11.7% urban population live in such cities. It is projected that by 2030, megacities and metro cities only will house almost 30% of the urban population in China (Fig. 8.3). Such top heavy structure in China is the main reason for existing urban challenges like congestion, rising inequality and environmental degradation. Share of Population in Different Size-classes of Towns in China, 1950-2020 100% 90%

Share of total Urban

80% 70% 10 million or more

60%

5 to 10 million

50%

1 to 5 million

40%

500 000 to 1 million 300 000 to 500 000

30%

Fewer than 300 000

20% 10% 0% 1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2015

2020

Fig. 8.3 Share of population in different sizes of classes of towns in China, 1950–2020. Source World Urbanization Prospect, UN DESA (2018)

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

213

8.3 Urban Challenges China has made substantial progress in building world-class cities. China invests almost half of its GDP on infrastructure such as building roads, power generation, railways, dams, ports, telecoms, factories and buildings (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). The country experienced good progress since the reform period along with rise in income level. However, Chinese cities still face challenges. It is debated that China’s urbanisation is not people-centric, with overemphasis on economic infrastructure, lacking considerations of social justice and equity. Policies such as ‘housing registration system’2 have furthered perpetuated inequality. Exploitation of resources and industrial development have not only reduced the arable land but also degraded the quality of environment. This section brings out the predominant urban challenges that disrupts the urban development in China.

8.3.1 Rural–Urban Migration and Hukou System Rural–urban migration is the major contributor of urban growth in China. This is far more important than the natural growth and reclassification of the rural settlements. This trend of rapid rural–urban migration dates back to post-war period of the 1950s. After this, the period of the 1960s and 1970s noted the change in policies that restricted rural–urban migration and even led to the return of migrants to villages. The hukou system (Box 8.1) was introduced to restrict the flow of rural migrants in order to check the pressure on urban infrastructure (Okamoto 2017). It is the post-reform era, which encouraged the rural–urban migrants, especially low-skilled migrants to migrate to the cities. This was done to fill up the positions of manual work or cheap labour which were 7 million per year. Therefore, this period noted mass rural–urban migration and supply of cheap labour to the factories. This process was responsible for the 72% of the urban growth (Liu et al. 2003). Box 8.1. Hukou System in China It is the unique housing registration system present in China, an exclusive residential registration system. In 1955, the Chinese government introduced the hukou or population registration system to keep a track on the magnitude of migrants and restrict the growth of cities. In 1958, a strict implementation of hukou took place which became the basis for household identification in China.

2 The

housing registration system (HRS) classifying each resident as urban or rural is a major means of controlling population mobility and determining eligibility for state-provided services and welfare. The HRS separates urban residents based on their place of birth. The HRS has also excluded many migrants from housing ownership in urban areas.

214

D. Kundu et al.

There were two types of hukou i.e. ‘agricultural hukou’ and ‘non-agricultural hukou’ based on the occupation division of households, which started in 1950s. Again, based on the location of residence, local hukou holders are differentiated from the non-hukou holders. The hukou status of a person remain unchanged unless the person goes for formal hukou conversion procedure. In the pre-reform period, changing agricultural hukou to non-agricultural hukou was very difficult. However, in the post-reform period the change in hukou status became more flexible, with introduction of rural-urban inter marriage as one of the criterion for changing the hukou status. But hukou system still presents challenge in China, which puts the rural–urban migrants at a disadvantageous position. Since the 1950s, with China’s focus on the industrial development in the cities, the government provided the urban residents with food supply at a subsidised rate, state-sponsored housing and other basic services. With the strict implementation of hukou system, most of the rural (agricultural) hukou holders were excluded from the state-sponsored development. Chang (2009) argued that in the 1950s, such population comprised 85% of the total population. Still today, most of the rural migrants possess a rural hukou, even if they have stayed in the urban area for a substantially long duration. In the absence of the urban hukou, these migrants are considered as non-hukou migrants and are counted as ‘floating population’ (ibid.). Sun and Liu (2014) noted the share of such rural hukou holders started increasing since the 1990s. According to OECD (2015) estimates, in the 2000s, almost four-fifths of the newly arrived migrants in the urban area were unofficial in nature, i.e. they did not possess urban hukou. This excludes them from the access to basic facilities and services such as state-provided housing, education, health facilities and other social security benefits. The post-reform era promoted migration of cheap labourers from rural areas, with low education level. These people got absorbed in the second tier of the labour market—in the mining, manufacturing and construction industries (OECD 2015). Most of the rural–urban migrant workers do not possess any legal contract, thus employed as informal workers, devoid of any social security provisions (Sun and Liu 2014). This led to segmentation in the labour market, and a large income gap between the urban residents and the rural migrants emerged. Again, without the social security benefits, the urban living becomes costlier for them. In the absence of state support, often migrants cannot afford to bring their family with them due to high cost of living in the city. It is seen that very few (slightly higher than 10%) migrants have brought their family (dependent members) with them. There are a considerable number of children, women and elderly population left behind at their place of origin. In 2010, the total numbers of ‘left-behind children’,3 ‘left-behind women’ and ‘leftbehind elderly’ were 60 million, 47 million and 58 million, respectively (ibid.). The 3 ‘Left-behind

children’ are defined as children below the age of 18 who remain at the place of origin, while one or both parents have migrated to the city. ‘Left-behind women’ are those whose

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

215

‘left-behind children’ suffer from poor health and academic performances due to lack of usual parental care. On the other hand, the ‘left-behind women’ suffer from increasing responsibility and workload, lack of emotional satisfaction and sexual repression. Lastly, the ‘left-behind elderly’ also suffer from lack of care (Sun and Liu 2014; OECD 2015). Again, those who bring their family along them, most of the time cannot provide good-quality education for their children that reinforces the segmentation process (OECD 2015; Okamoto 2017). All these create pressure on the social fabrics of China, both in the cities and in rural areas. However, China has started relaxing its hukou system after 2001. Now, the migrants could move to small and medium-sized cities, under certain conditions of housing and employment. However, settling in the large cities in China remains restricted for the rural migrants (Okamoto 2017). Therefore, China needs an inclusive policy framework for the welfare of all of its citizens including migrants, for a sustainable urban future.

8.3.2 Rising Inequality Spatial inequality is rising in China as the urban policies in the country are promoting the growth of large cities, especially located in the southern and eastern coast. Due to economic development and growth of job opportunities, the cities in these regions are growing at much faster rate compared to those in the inland areas (Liu et al. 2003; Un-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014; OECD 2015). Therefore, inter-regional, intercity and interpersonal inequalities are rising. A detailed discussion on these inequalities is attempted in the following subsections: (a) Inter-regional inequality After the reform of 1978, Chinese government policies focused on the growth of underdeveloped eastern coastal region at the cost of inland cities of central and western China. The state started building special economic zones in this region to attract foreign investment. This led to the growth of megacities in this region with the concentration of resources, and these cities became the magnets encouraging rural–urban migration. These cities now have become the engines of growth along with huge infrastructural investment (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014) (see Fig. 8.4). Conversely, the western part of the country has a sparse distribution of the cities owing to the differential policy focus in plan periods. This led to increase in inequality between inlands, i.e. central and western part of China and eastern coastal region. This requires an urgent attention of policymakers to promote balanced development of Chinese cities and regions.

husbands have migrated to city for work. On the other hand, ‘left-behind elderly’ indicate those aged above 60 years who have at least one of adult children who have out-migrated.

216

D. Kundu et al.

Fig. 8.4 Distribution of urban settlement points in China, 2015. Source http://sedac.ciesin. columbia.edu/data/collection/grumpv1/maps/gallery/search?facets=region%3Aasia&facets= theme%3Apopulation&facets=country%3Achina retrieved on 10 October 2018

(b) Interpersonal inequality Like spatial inequality, interpersonal inequality is also rising in Chinese cities and increasingly becoming a concern. The main reason behind this is the differential treatment towards the rural–urban migrants though the implementation of hukou system as mentioned in the earlier section. The hukou system excludes the migrants even from the basic services. Most of the less educated migrants are concentrated in the secondary labour market, which further increases the social inequality. The interpersonal inequality measures in terms of Gini index in China are higher than the average figure for OECD countries. Even the urban–rural inequality in terms of disposable income and per capita GDP is increasing (OECD 2015). The rising urban–rural disparity can create further pressure on the cities by mass migration to cities. Again, intra-city social disparity can lead to tension, affecting the social harmony of the country.

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

217

8.3.3 Land Market and Housing China’s urbanisation, especially since the beginning of the twenty-first century, became land-driven. It was characterised by the rapid conversion of agricultural land to vast industrial parks and residential zones in the surroundings of the large urban centres. This has led to the rise of black market with rising price of land and displacement of farmers from their farmlands (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). There is also a huge gap between the actual price of land and the compensation received by the farmers, which further increases the illegality of the matter (OECD 2015). The conversion of agricultural land to other uses is also affecting the food security of the people (ibid.). The urban expansion also leads to the changes in the land use pattern in the fringe villages. Further, the prime focus of the state is to build infrastructures such as roads and industrial parks which leads to rising environmental degradation of the cities. Two major concerns related to land market need special mention. These are as follows: (a) Illegal land and housing market Illegal land and housing market is a major area of concern in Chinese cities. The land market is segmented between rural collectives and urban municipalities. Due to rising demand of housing, the surroundings of large cities experienced illegal housing construction, violating the height and density criteria. The narrow roads and the non-existing public and green open space are characteristics of this kind of settlements. These settlements known as ‘Small Property Right Housing’ (SPRH) accounted for one-third of housing construction area in 2009, mostly concentrated in large cities like Beijing. There are around 100 such illegal settlements called as ‘urban villages’ present in Beijing (Sun and Liu 2014). These areas, which are cheaper than formal urban housing, lack legal documents. This cheap housing generally targets the rural–urban migrants and other low-income groups, further increasing the inequality (OECD 2015). (b) Mismatch in demand and supply of affordable housing In addition to the illegal land and real estate market, shortage of affordable housing is a main issue in the overcrowded large cities, especially megacities and large metropolitan cities. This reinforced the land market illegality in these cities. These large cities tend to attract more rural–urban migrants, especially non-hukou migrants who are excluded from the benefits of state-sponsored housing. It is seen that onethird of the rural–urban migrants live in dormitories and another one-third live in the rented rooms, mostly located in the poor localities especially the SPRH, without basic facilities. It is noted that the average per capita floor space is one-third for a migrant compared to an urban resident (OECD 2015). Besides, most of the affordable housing is meant for the middle-income groups, leaving most of the low-income city dwellers (ibid.). Also, the rise in middle class and booming real estate led to the boom in the construction sector, especially in the smaller towns. This is done only for investment

218

D. Kundu et al.

purpose, giving rise to the ‘ghost towns’ (Batty 2016). These vacant real estates and ‘ghost towns’ are characters of China’s urbanisation (Un-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). Therefore, there is huge mismatch between the demand and supply of the real estate in China.

8.3.4 Environmental Degradation The consistent rise in congestion in Chinese cities is increasing the burden on infrastructure. Also, lack of efficient public transports in several cities leads to environmental degradation. Chinese cities are characterised by the high air pollution by concentration of PM2.5 , especially in the large cities like Beijing. On the contrary, the concentration of SO2 is higher in the cities of central and western China. High levels of air pollution are responsible for increase in acute respiratory diseases, especially among infants. Industrial output and construction-related activities are the major reasons behind the rising pollution. Again, industrial activities are leading to water pollution (OECD 2015). With the rise in the income level, China is moving towards consumer-driven society. This is likely to increase the domestic consumption demand of energy-intensive goods such as private-owned cars. This will affect the environmental sustainability adversely.

8.4 Urban Development Policy in China: Timeline Analysis Chinese urbanisation is largely policy-driven. This section discusses the major policy shifts affecting urban development in China and the factors that led to the formulation of its National New Urbanisation Plan (2014–20). In the post-war China in the 1950s, the socialist ideology of the supreme leadership before Mao Zeodong largely guided the growth of cities in China, especially those of large cities. The regulations under this regime emanated not only from the anticapitalist Marxist viewpoint that propagated against concentration of resources and wealth in particular niches but also from the popular perspective on diseconomies of scale—transportation and congestion, crime and pollution, management challenges—that may arise because of concentration of economic activities and population in large cities. De-urbanisation policies dominated the national framework between the early 1960s and the mid-1970s. Over 20 million of urban residents, including urban youth, were forcefully relocated to rural areas, and the Chinese government started converting the non-agricultural hukou to agricultural ones (Wei 1994). Since 1978, two years after the death of Mao in 1976, economic development had been pursued as a major agenda under national development, to raise the bar of living standard. Policies for controlling large city growth often conflict with and are weakened by economic policies. While pursuing economic growth was considered

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

219

essential for development, restricting large city growth was also considered important. It was effected through promotion of dispersed regional development, controlling movement of population into large cities, and developing secondary towns and secondary cities, as anti-magnets for large cities along with introduction of severe hukou system, to restrict and regulate rural to urban migration. Hukou provided a tool for social and geographic control and enforced an apartheid structure that denied the rural residents and the rural-urban migrants the same rights and benefits enjoyed by urban residents. Subsequently, such system has kept China’s urbanisation divided, with around 260 million migrants to urban areas, lacking urban hukou, that regulates the access to urban public services and social security (World Bank 2014). Cities of China have undergone four distinct phases of urbanisation with different characteristics and policy focus during the past six decades, as discussed in the following subsections (Table 8.2).

8.4.1 Pre-reform Period (1949–1977) The beginning of the period, between 1949 and 1952, marked the recovery of the industrial bases destroyed by the Civil War and gave the foundation to First Five-Year Plan (1953–1957). This period under the leadership of Mao embarked on an intensive economic reform programme designed to emulate the Soviet model. It was based on heavy industries and the state investment largely concentrated to existing major cities and newly expanding industrial bases in the interior. This phase also witnessed dramatic increase in industrial output and employment. During this pre-hukou period, urbanisation grew steadily from 10.64% in 1949 to 15.39% in 1957. The period between 1958 and 1960 marked the ‘Great Leap Forward’ programme that focused on exaggerated industrial growth with the establishment of numerous small iron and steel plants but largely ignored the living conditions of the people. Large-scale migration with consequent increase in the number of cities and urbanisation level (19.7%) were the immediate associates in this process. However, the disastrous outcome of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ programme, combined with political unrest and natural calamities, greatly weakened the Chinese economy (Wei 1994). It resulted in economic crisis and a widespread famine causing millions of deaths. Due to influx (Ruibo and Linna 2013) of rural labour and proliferation of cities, the demand for financial assistance from the government to urban areas increased dramatically. As a response to this situation, the economic readjustment plan was launched in 1962. Rampant unemployment and food grain crisis in urban areas prompted the government to stricter enforcement of housing registration and forced return of migrants to rural areas resulting in elimination of some cities (number declined from 209 in 1961 to 169 in 1965) and decline of urban population to 18% in 1965. The next decade (1966–1976) witnessed the Cultural Revolution, marked by widespread political and

220

D. Kundu et al.

Table 8.2 Four phases of urbanisation in China (1949-present) Phase

Period

Nature of urbanisation

Characteristics of URL

Major characteristics

Pre-reform period

1949–77

Slow to moderate rate of urbanisation except for the first phase of rapid urbanisation (1958–60)

Policy-forced urban–rural cleavage (mostly due to the introduction of hukou)

Closed economy with focus on development of heavy industry Rural sector subsidised the urban sector Restricted labour mobility to cities

Post-reform period (early)

1978–2000

Rapid urbanisation, mostly the growth of large cities

Labour-driven urban–rural interface

Market-oriented approach for economic growth Cheap rural labour flooded into the cities, but gained little access to urban services due to hukou system Increasing regional disparity

Post-reform period (late)a

2001–13

Rapid urbanisation with huge urban sprawl

Land-driven urban–rural tension

Rapid, large-scale conversion of rural land for urban use through state expropriation Land-driven municipal finance Booming real estate and illegal housing construction as a part of economic growth

New urbanisation plan

2014–20

Declining rate of urbanisation

Attempted rural–urban integration

People-oriented urbanisation with a focus on welfare improvement for rural–urban migrants Consumption-oriented approach for economic growth

Source Modification of Table 1 (Sun and Liu 2014, p. 199) Note a According to Sun and Liu (2014), the period was 2001–12

social upheavals,4 with economic and urban development remaining stagnant, with the exception of emergence of new cities in the central and western China. These 4 Workers

participated in mass in class struggle, and many factories ceased production. Millions of urban youths were sent back to rural areas under the programmes ‘up to the mountains and down to the villages’, ‘downward transfer’ and ‘third front’. Forced displacement was the result of economic stagnation, urban unemployment, national defence considerations, the ideologies of learning from

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

221

cities were developed primarily for military and national security purposes under the Third Line Programme that was promulgated in 1964. The thrust of this programme was to shift the industrial bases from coastal locations (first line) and core areas (second line) to western regions (third line). In 1978, opening up of the economy with associated reforms marked the end of Mao’s regime and ushered in a new era of economic and urban revival. Box 8.2. How Hukou shaped urban development in China? Formulated in 1958, the hukou system had been instrumental in promoting industrialisation and simultaneously restricting labour mobility in the postCivil War China. This housing registration system has not only played a crucial role in spatially separating China into rural and urban, but also bringing about socio-economic segregation among the citizens living in the country. Hukou is systematically passed on to the next generation, and therefore, educational entitlements, employment opportunities and access to a variety of crucial services are restricted by birth in China. Being a major cause of socio-economic disparity, this system is indeed a pressing obstacle to urbanisation in China and the growth of its consumerdriven economy. For the 287 million5 rural migrant workers in 2017, who have acted as the real drivers of economic growth in the country, the institutional discrimination levied by the system of hukou has posed severe challenges to their living conditions in the cities in which they work (Cao 1995; Zhong and Gu 2000). The system has pushed them to a zone of discomfort by restricting their access to essential services like health care, government-sponsored housing schemes and other basic facilities, which are entitled to urban hukou holders. Proposals have been put forward in favour of relaxing the entitlements that the hukou guarantees, which would require reformation in the sectors of housing, social security, labour and employment policies (Cai 2000; Qiu 2000; Fan 2008).

8.4.2 Revival Phase (1976–1996) In 1979, Deng Xiaoping’s pragmatic leadership led the process of economic reform that aimed to modernise the Chinese economy. The first phase of the reform included the introduction of the household responsibility system (HRS), which implemented production quotas for households, that allowed them to trade surplus production of peasants and the elimination of ‘three big differentials’ (between urban and rural areas, between industry and agriculture and between intellectual and manual workers). 5 Retrieved from https://www.clb.org.hk/content/migrant-workers-and-their-children on 14 October 2018.

222

D. Kundu et al.

their individual plots against the then existing farming for the collective. This move motivated the farmers to increase productivity but led to the increase in surplus rural labour as well. In the drive to strengthen the rural economy, concerted efforts were made to fortify the town and village enterprises (TVEs). These TVEs-employed people were redundant in farming, and by 1994, their output constituted 38% of the national industrial output against a meagre 7% in the late 1970s (Chang and Wang 1994). Development of TVEs led to spurt of small but prosperous towns that were instrumental in urban and economic development. Between 1978 and 1996, the rapid urban growth was attributed to the smaller urban areas or county-level cities (compared to prefecture counterparts), as the contribution of such smaller urban areas or county-level cities to urban population increased from 13% in 1980 to 21% in the early 1990s. In the post-reform period, however, the number of existing cities remained almost the same, but they grew in size. The National Urban Planning (NUP) Law, formulated in 1989, emphasised the three core concerns (Chaoui et al. 2009): (a) Controlling the growth of big cities (b) Moderating the development of medium cities and (c) Encouraging the growth of small cities. China’s economic reforms were carried through a series of actions, and in 1979 China adapted the ‘Open Door Policy’ to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) and promote international trade. Subsequently, to such open market policies, the town and village enterprises (TVEs) faced tough challenge from the technologically innovative private enterprises, bringing down their contribution to the national industrial product to as low as 1% in 2011 (NBCS 2011), and were privatised or went bankrupt (Vemeer 1999; Che and Qian 1998). Recognising the strategic advantages of coastal cities, the Chinese government established special economic zones (SEZs) in Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Shantou and Xiamen. Success in these SEZs attracted further growth of economically prosperous cities, triggering the first wave of renewed urbanisation (Ruibo and Linna 2013). After integrating its economy internationally, China endeavoured to transform its economy from a centrally controlled socialist to a market-led economy but under government regulation. During this time, bottom-up market-oriented reform replaced the top-down central planning and local actors in the emergent land markets replaced the central control resulting in 36,000 km2 rural land being converted for urban usage (Zhu and Tian 2016). However, concurrent to this inadvertent urban growth, the per capita availability of arable land reached the lowest in the world (Dung 1992), pushing rural residents to depend only on subsistence agriculture. A vast body of the literature collates the fact that post-reform era of urban transformation has been moderated by the local governments in coalition with the real estate developers, bankers and other entrepreneurs (Zhao 2006; He and Wu 2005; Zhang 2002; Zhu 1999). In 1979, government’s ‘One-Child Policy’, though raised concerns over its negative social consequences, actually was successful in curbing population growth (Ruibo and Linna 2013). By managing China’s population growth, the government avoided exacerbating social issues and economic hurdles of slum development, demand for basic services (health, education, law enforcement) and ecological

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

223

strains. With the relaxation of state control and the operation of market reforms, the period of economic revival (1978–1996) witnessed the expansion of small and medium-sized cities that grew 203% in population size between 1978 and 1998 (Fang et al. 2017). Control on large cities led to their moderate growth (by only 58% within the same period). Also, measures like agricultural restructuring and rural industrialisation greatly increased productivity and improved the standard of living for most of the Chinese population, which garnered further development.

8.4.3 Transition Phase (1996–Present) China entered into a new transitional phase, and economic reforms continued through the Ninth (1996–2000), Tenth (2001–2005) and Eleventh Five-Year Plans (2006– 2010). Urbanisation policies and the configuration of the urban system shifted from the old system of status designation to a newer, migration-based structure. In 1998, the government explicitly proposed ‘increasing the level of urbanisation’ as central to the urban development policy. Since then, the controls on large cities were also gradually relaxed. Coordinated urbanisation along with improvement of functionality of regional central cities and development of surrounding suburban regions became core of the new urban development policy. Under this new policy, the role of large cities in promoting economic development was recognised, as the advantages of scale of larger cities could no longer be ignored. Many control instruments were removed, rural–urban migration became easier, and market forces became important in shaping its urban system. Between 2000 and 2010, huge rural–urban migration took place, with urban population increasing from 459.06 million to 669.78 million, and China’s urbanisation rate increasing from 36.22 to 49.95%, during the same period (Fang et al. 2017).

8.4.3.1

Urban Structural Transition

Post-1998, China witnessed increasing numbers of medium-sized, large, extra-large and super-large cities, with a corresponding decline in the number of small cities, reflecting the relaxed control on growth of large cities and restructuring of the city system (Fang et al. 2017). Despite decline in the number of small cities, the overall urban structure in China remains unbalanced due to the extraordinarily large number of small cities as compared to medium and large cities (Ruibo and Linna 2013). During this period, China recognised the importance of megalopolises for the first time in history and tried to critically plan several new megalopolises with less land utilisation, more employments and rational population distribution to promote planned growth and strengthen the rural–urban linkages (Fig. 8.5). The Chinese economy is probably the best example which has very well integrated with the global economy, taking the advantage of the new international division of labour and global value chain. The country now accounts for one-third of the global

224

D. Kundu et al.

Fig. 8.5 Statistics of the Chinese economy. Source CEIC, National Bureau of Statistics of China Statistical Yearbook. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2018/08/china-seconomic-outlook-in-sixcharts

growth. China’s per capita GDP continues to increase sharply and converge to that of the USA, albeit at a more moderate pace in the last few years. Over 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty, and the country has achieved upper middleincome status.6 The big cities played an important role in increasing the country’s production. China realised the benefits of agglomeration economies. Although China experienced huge growth in this era, inequality was perpetuated through the hukou system that entailed separatist approach for granting basic services to rural and urban residents based on their hukou status. As noted earlier, there exists a wide gap in the proportion of urban population and those possessing nonrural hukou, further aggravating the living conditions of the rural migrants and their families coming to the cities to get absorbed into the labour market. Again, the unprecedented growth of the Chinese economy has also led to substantial increase in the carbon footprint in the cities. The rapid rate of urbanisation has put major pressure on the resources, thereby increasing their ecological vulnerability. In this context, the National New Urbanisation Plan (2014–2020) and the Thirteenth FiveYear Plan for Economic and Social Development (2016–2020) guide China’s new urbanisation commitments.

8.4.3.2

National New Urbanisation Plan (2014–2020)

A National New Urbanisation Plan (2014–2020) and the Thirteenth Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2016–2020) reveal China’s commitment to stepping up the pace of new urbanisation. To ensure planned urban growth, a variety of policy and planning measures are underway. It is expected that China’s level of urbanisation (i.e. proportion of population living in urban areas) will grow from 58.52% in 2017 to nearly 70% by 2030. 6 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/china-s-economic-outlook-in-six-charts

03/02/2019 at 18:06 h.

accessed

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

225

The National New Urbanisation Plan (NNUP) emphasises ‘people-centric urbanisation’, addressing issues of equity, environmental concerns and urbanism, and aims to integrate the four major aspects of ecological process, urbanisation quality, expanding domestic demand and rural–urban coordination (Chenshmehzangi 2016). Concerted efforts have been put to facilitate migrants by limiting the range of criteria applied to those migrants seeking urban hukou, ensuring equal access at least to compulsory education for the migrant children, enhanced public services for skill development, wider coverage of social security and access to services (Box 8.3; National Plan 2014). Similar impositions have been put in place for regulating land market by developing a unified market for construction land (in both rural and urban areas), encouraging stringent protection measures of farmland and construction in large cities and reforming the system of land expropriation. Box 8.3. Focus of the National New-type Urbanisation Plan (2014–2020) Entitlements for the migrants 1. Limiting the range of criteria to be applied to the rural migrants seeking urban residential registration 2. Ensuring equal access to education for migrant children for (at least) the period of compulsory education and gradual reduction in the conditions for attaining vocational and tertiary education 3. Enhancement of public services connected to occupational skills and greater incentives to companies providing such training 4. Expanded coverage of the social insurances including old age security and health coverage 5. Provision of affordable housing and 6. Efforts to integrate the participation of the migrants in the social life in the cities. Entitlements for land reforms 1. Development of a unified market in construction land encompassing rural and urban areas to ensure that the farmers can avail fair share of the rising land values 2. Stringent protection of farmland keeping in mind the notion of food security 3. Put cap over the constructional activities in the large cities and increase supply of land in the satellite cities 4. Strengthening the land rights of the rural dwellers and 5. Reforming the system of governing land expropriation. Source Adopted from the OECD Urban Policy Reviews: China (2015)

226

D. Kundu et al.

The major thrust areas of this New-type Urbanisation Plan include: (1) Urban residency: This allows rural migrants to settle in urban areas with families and access the public services and rights as other urban residents, which they were not entitled to previously (ibid.). (2) Development of city clusters and unlocking urban area potential: Around 19 city clusters have been identified for development, strategy and investment. These city clusters based on smart and innovative solutions shall integrate innovative, industrial and financial resources available in the region, so that enterprises benefit, improving the overall competitiveness of city cluster, as in USA and Japan. Measures are also adapted to unlock the potential of small towns and cities (Ruibo and Linna 2013). (3) Building new style of cities and green solutions: Over 200 smart city pilot projects are underway in China to enhance urban living and management through smart technology and artificial intelligence. Massive data is being collated, and smart solutions are being adapted in sectors of housing, health care, education, water, energy, security, traffic, agriculture, food safety and environment. For instance, Xinjian’s water system is based on cloud computing and Internet of things (IoT) that allows for monitoring river water flow and water quality and advanced management of problems like flood and pollution (Aijaz 2018). (4) Improving land market and housing: Urban housing remains one of the most pressing issues in developing countries including China. To solve the distress of housing, the city administration is taking measures by allocating new land for house construction and establishing state-owned leased companies.7 Efforts are also being taken to develop an organised rental market (OECD Urban Policy Review 2015). A total of thirty per cent of the new land supplied would be allocated for rental housing and housing with shared ownership. An effective price control mechanism has been adapted to maintain price stability and curb speculative gains. Emerging Critique of New Urbanisation Plan (2014–20) However, this plan remains problematic in its approach as well as implementation. Many areas remained outside the policy concern, and some areas though covered formally in the policy, neglected otherwise, for example, the hukou relaxation policy. It is seen that, though there is relaxation in hukou system, the disparities still loom large, have taken newer forms and are more localised—different regions having different policies. Moving to Beijing versus moving to any small city is very different. Though the scale of disparity may have reduced, the complexities have increased than ever before. Instead of just one great divide between rural and urban hukou, many city walls have been erected, in the form of local hukou versus outside hukou.8 Also, despite the policy reforms, it is difficult for many rural migrants to obtain urban 7 https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/41760-china-urban-transformation-strategy/

accessed on 03/02/2019. 8 https://thediplomat.com/2017/07/chinas-hukou-system/ accessed on 03/02/2019 at 22:00 h.

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

227

residency (housing registration) and welfare entitlements particularly in large cities, reflecting their extensive struggle. The local governments have introduced tough regulations for granting residency status that are vetted on criteria such as education level, tax payments and work experience. Steps are being initiated towards relaxing such strict norms to improve the quality of people’s life and promoting urbanisation. City administrators are attempting to manage the growth of Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou through measures such as relocation of some government agencies (offices) and functions to newly created cities, to maintain standard of living (or manage ‘big city disease’) and reduce pressure on city resources. Such cities are earmarked to be globally influential cities. However, this move to contain growth has been widely criticised as irrational. Critics argue that Shanghai actually would need a young and highly skilled workforce to maintain its current competitive and innovative edge and such measures if implemented would also reinforce exclusionary urbanisation, where the migrant workers and the city’s poor would be the worst sufferers. Again, the new focus of the policy has shifted from the market-oriented towards consumer-driven urbanisation. Chenshmehzangi (2016) argued that industrialisation will be the main focus in future, as it was in the past. The shift towards tertiary sector will be slower than it is imagined. The NNUP emphasised the relocation of industries from the large cities. However, with the focus on industrial development, the relocation of industries will not be able to curb down the environmental degradation. Hence, the sustainable and green urban development in near future still remains a question. Again, the consumer-driven development approach is also problematic as it promotes the use of energy-intensive goods such as private vehicles and electronic goods at mass scale and it will also add to the environmental degradation. The top-down planning approach of NNUP in this new era is believed to integrate various institutional levels, but in reality is likely to create conflict at central, provincial, municipal and local levels.

8.5 Conclusion The urbanisation outcomes in China bear significance not only in its national context but also in the international as well. This is because by 2020 China would account for one-fifth of the world’s urban population and the country has integrated itself very well with the global economy, especially in the post-economic reform period since 1978. However, until recent years, urbanisation in China has been policy-driven largely because of the implementation of the hukou or housing registration system. The hukou system is a tool of apartheid, devised by the state to enforce social and geographic control, to deny the rural residents and the rural to urban migrants the same rights and benefits as enjoyed by the urban residents. It is argued that such system has kept China’s urbanisation divided and under-reported. It is estimated that around 260 million migrants to urban areas lack urban hukou, denying their access

228

D. Kundu et al.

to urban public services and social security (World Bank 2014). Scholars maintain that China’s urbanisation presents an enigma. This is because despite being policydriven and subjected to anti-urbanisation drive in different phases of regional and urban planning, urban China holds the position of having the maximum number of people living in urban areas of the world (Ruibo and Linna 2013; Chaoui et al. 2009). Chinese urban policy has historically supported the growth of small and medium towns and de-urbanisation drive. Part of it was emanated from Mao’s socialistic perspective to promote balanced regional growth, and part of it resulted from the events such as the disastrous performance of ‘Great Leap Forward’ programme (1958– 1960), Great Famine (1959–1961) and Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) that led to further crack down and forced displacement of short-term and rural migrants from urban areas. However, with the change of leadership, Xiaoping’s the first National Urban Planning (NUP) Law was formulated in 1989. This policy recognised the importance of urbanisation, particularly for small towns and cities, to promote faster economic growth. Like the previous policies, this policy also controlled the growth of big cities. This was also the time when China adapted its ‘One-Child Policy’ (1979), to curb its fast growing and huge population base. The outcomes of both these policies were soon reflected as decline in population growth and increase in the number of small and medium towns. In the early 1990s, Chinese leaders realised the importance of big cities, having the structural advantage of agglomeration economies, to garner economic growth. The strict regulations on the large cities were slowly relaxed (but still maintaining the focus on small and medium towns) along with the norms of hukou, to take advantage of the cheap and abundant labour that China had. By 1997–98, China had well integrated with the global economy, with an average GDP growth of 9.55%, during 1989–2018,9 successfully lifting 800 million people out of poverty. However, China has witnessed fluctuations in its GDP growth in 2018. In the third quarter of 2018, GDP growth was 6.4%, which was the slowest since global financial crisis in 2008. A combination of crucial factors such as intense trade dispute with the USA, weakening domestic demand and excessive borrowings by the local governments resulted in slowdown. In 2018, the Chinese economy grew only at the rate of 6.6%, the weakest pace since 1990. Hukou induced discrimination, unaffordable urban housing and fragmented land market, inter-spatial and interpersonal inequalities, pose some of the pressing challenges, which China needs to overcome to harness the opportunities of urbanisation. Scholars suggest that China requires to move from an origin-based to a residencebased identification system, to continue the growth trajectory. A residency registration would provide the migrants access to location-specific services such as education, health care, welfare and affordable housing, whereas hukou could be maintained to provide rights such as access to land and related profits. The National New Urbanisation Plan (2014–2020) and the Thirteenth Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2016–2020) are drawn to reflect upon

9 https://tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-growth-annual

accessed on 2/6/2019 at 16:00 h.

8 Overview of Urban Policies in China

229

China’s commitment to step up the pace of urbanisation and progress towards a sustainable and inclusive future. The NNUP emphasises ‘people-centric urbanisation’, addressing issues of equity, environmental concerns and urbanism, and aims to integrate the four major aspects of ecological process, urbanisation quality, expanding domestic demand and rural–urban coordination. Relaxing of hukou norms, regulating land market by developing a unified market for construction land (in both rural and urban areas), encouraging stringent protection measures of farmland and construction in large cities, smart and green urban solutions and reforming the system of land expropriation are some of the Chinese strategies towards an inclusive and sustainable urban future. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Dr. Arvind Pandey, National Institute of Urban Affairs, for his research inputs.

References Aijaz, R. (2018). China’s urban transformation strategy. Urban Future. Observer Research Foundation. Published online on 20.06.2018. Retrieved from https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/ 41760-china-urban-transformation-strategy/. Accessed 03.02.2019. Batty, M. (2016). Empty buildings, shrinking cities and ghost towns. Environment and Planning, 43, 3–6. Bracken, G. (Ed.). (2012). Aspects of urbanization in China: Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guangzhou (Vol. 6). Amsterdam University Press. Cai, F. (2000). China’s floating population. Henan People’s Publishing House. Cao, X. (1995). Summary of research on rural labour flows and population migration in China. Rural Agricultural Research, 2, 23–33. Chaoui, L. M, Leman, E., & Rufei, Z. (2009). Urban trends and policy in China. OECD Regional Development Working Papers. 2009/1. Chang, K. W. (2009). The Chinese Hukou System at 50. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 50(2), 197–221. https://doi.org/10.2747/1539-7216.50.2.197. Chan, K. W. (2014). China’s urbanization 2020: A new blueprint and direction. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 55(1), 1–9. Chang, C., & Wang, Y. (1994). The nature of the township-village enterprise. Journal of Comparative Economics, 19, 434–452. Che, J., & Qian, Y. Y. (1998). Insecure property rights and government ownership of firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 467–496. Chenshmehzangi, A. (2016). China’s new type urbanisation plan (NUP and the foreseeing challenges for decarbonisation of cities: A review. Energy Procedia, 104, 146–152. Fan, C. C. (2008). Migration, Hukou and the city. In S. Yusuf & T. Saich (Eds.), China urbanizes: Consequences, strategies, and policies. Directions in development. Countries and regions. Washington, DC: World Bank. Fang, L., Li, P., & Song, S. (2017). China’s urban development policies and city growth dynamics: Analysis based on the Gibrat’s Law. International Review of Economics and Finance. Retrieved from. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2017.01.017. He, S., & Wu, F. (2005). Property-led redevelopment in post-reform China: A case study of Xintiandi redevelopment project in Shanghai. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27, 1–23. Kundu, D. (2014). Emerging perspectives on urban-rural linkages in the context of Asian urbanization. Regional Development Dialogue, 35, 180–197.

230

D. Kundu et al.

Liu, S., Li, X., & Zang, M. (2003). Scenario analysis on urbanization and rural-urban migration in China. Interim Report IR-03-036. CHINAGRO PROJECT: Report of WP1.2. Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Ma, L. J. (2002). Urban transformation in China, 1949–2000: A review and research agenda. Environment and planning A, 34(9), 1545–1569. McKinsey Global Institute. (2009). Preparing for China’s urban billion. McKinsey and Company. National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBCS). (2011). China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistical Publishing House. National Plan. (2014). National plan on new urbanisation (2014–2020). Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and State Council. OECD (2015). OECD urban policy reviews: China. Paris: OECD Publishing. retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/regional/oecd-urban-policy-reviews-china-2015-9789264230040-en. htm. Accessed August 26, 2018. Okamoto, N. (2017). What matters in the urbanisation of China?. Northeast Asian Economic Review, 5(12), 1–13. Qiu, H. (2000). Return labour migration and the development of labour-intensive industry. Population Journal, 3, 52–55. Quan, Z. X. (1991). Urbanisation in China. Urban Studies, 28(1), 41–55. Ruibo, H., & Linna, W. (2013). Challenges and opportunities facing China’s urban development in the new era, China perspectives. Retrieved from http://chinaperspectives.revues.org/6149. Shin, H. B. (2015). Urbanization in China (6th ed., Vol. 24, pp. 973–979). International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 291547133_Urbanization_in_China. October 7, 2018. Sun, L., & Liu, Z. (2014). Examining the urban-rural linkages in China. Regional Development Dialogue, 35, 198–212. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2018). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. Online Edition. Retrieved from https://population.un. org/wup/Download/. UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance. (2014). The evolution of national urban policies: A global review. Nairobi. Kenya. Vemeer, E. B. (1999). Shareholding cooperatives: A property rights analysis. In J. C. Oi & A. G. Walder (Eds.), Property rights and economic reform in China (pp. 123–144). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Wei, Y. (1994). Urban policy, economic policy, and the growth of large cities in China. Habitat International, 18(4), 53–65. World Bank (2014). Urban China: Toward efficient, inclusive, and sustainable urbanization. Washington, DC: Development Research Center of the State Council, the People’s Republic of China. World Bank Group. Wulfhorst, E. (2018). World’s urban growth will surge most in India. China and Nigeria—UN: Thomson Reuters Foundation. Published online on Wednesday, 16 May 2018 19:18 GMT. Retrieved from http://news.trust.org/item/20180516191835-kqb2m/. 2.02.19. Zhang, T. (2002). Urban development and socialist pro-growth coalition in Shanghai. Urban Affairs Review, 37, 475–499. Zhao, X. (2006). Fiscal decentralization and political centralization in China: Implications for growth and inequality. Journal of Comparative Economics, 34, 713–726. Zhong, S., & Gu, S. (2000). Development of urban service sector and employment of floating population. Population and Economics, 5, 35–38. Zhu, J. (1999). Local growth coalition: The context and implication of China’s gradualist urban land reforms. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23, 534–548. Zhu, J., & Tian, L. (2016). Editorial: Inclusive urbanization in the 21st century China. Cities. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.07.005. 8.10.2018.

Chapter 9

Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran Sara Habibi, Maysam Basirat, and Mohammad Hassan Razavi

Abstract The urbanisation process in Iran presents both opportunities and challenges. Similar to the characteristics of many countries in the world, Iran’s urbanisation faces major challenges such as rapid growth of urban population, urban sprawl and climate change. The urban planning system in Iran follows no specific NUP; however, there are some plans and programmes at different levels that reflect the overall urban policies. A significant gap is noticed between national plans and local plans. In this regard, adopting National Urban Policy (NUP) can help establishing a framework for the overall process of urbanisation. The existing plans and programmes and their roles in responding to the urban challenges are evaluated to understand the existing gaps. The chapter underlines the necessity of preparing NUP and discusses the role of NUP towards development of smart and green cities, and presents some policy recommendations for its implementation in Iran. Keywords National Urban Policy · National Spatial Plan (NSP) · National/ Regional Physical Plan (N/RPP) · Smart Cities · Green Cities

9.1 Introduction It is increasingly realised by nation states that as a global tool for the implementation and monitoring of global urban agendas, NUP can help countries to provide a framework for transformative change to support sustainable urbanisation locally S. Habibi (B) Ph.D., National Urban Policy Officer and Project Manager, UN-Habitat, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran e-mail: [email protected] M. Basirat Assistant Professor, School of Urban and Regional Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran e-mail: [email protected] M. H. Razavi Ph.D. in Geography and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_9

231

232

S. Habibi et al.

and globally. After Habitat III Conference, global efforts focused on the preparation of NUPs across the world and situation analysis of different countries show the importance of developing NUPs to guide the process of urbanisation. Iran is one of the oldest civilisations in the world (Arefian and Iradj-Moeini 2016). The level of urbanisation in Iran is much higher than global average, and the growth rate of urban population is at part the global average (UN-Habitat 2016a). The urbanisation periods can be classified into two categories, before and after the revolution and war. The revolutionary and post-revolutionary periods could be divided into three phases of revolution (1979–1988), reconstruction (1989–1996) and reform (1997–2004) (Madanipour 2006). This classification is the result of changes in urban development and population policies in Iran after the revolution. The characteristics of urbanisation in the post-revolution period were characterised by high rate of population growth, high costs of housing in major cities, migration to the big cities and emergence of informal settlements. As a result of this, level of urbanisation in Iran is much higher than the global average. With 1245 cities in 2016, 74% of the population live in urban areas. With such high level of urbanisation, cities of Iran face many challenges in areas such as housing, water and sanitation, and environment. So, developing an urban policy at national level, would be helpful to achieve an integrated urban planning system. This chapter attempts to analyse the country’s urbanisation trends, major challenges and its urban planning system. It reviews various existing urban policies and programmes to understand the necessity to adopt a National Urban Policy (NUP). It sets the path to implement NUP which will help Iran for a integrated and sustainable urban development.

9.2 Urbanisation 9.2.1 Share of Population in Urban Areas Over the last decades, urbanisation in Iran, as in some countries of Asia and the Middle East, has been high due to both natural increase and migration (Mohammadi 2010)-related factors. Table 9.1 shows facts on urbanisation in Iran based on World Cities Report 2016. It is noted that total urban population in Iran increased from 36.4 million to 58.3 million between 1995 and 2015. It will increase by another 10 million in the next 10 years. The level of urbanisation also increased from 60.2 to 73.4% between 1995 and 2015. According to the projection, it is likely to become 77.8% in 2025. For all these years, the level of urbanisation in Iran is highest among Asia and much higher than global average. According to the last census data (2016), it is seen that the country is faced with a negative growth rate of rural population (−0.73%). A high share of urban population (74%) and the urban population growth rate of 1.97% will lead to change in the sectoral distribution of population (Table 9.2).

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

233

Table 9.1 Urbanisation in Iran over the time Year

Urban population ‘000)

Rate of change of the urban population (%)

Level of urbanisation (%)

Rate of change in percentage urban (%)

1995

36,424

–

60.2

–

2005

47,393

2.63

67.6

1.15

2015

58,316

2.07

73.4

0.83

2025

68,473

77.8

Source (UN-Habitat 2016a)

Table 9.2 Key facts about urbanisation in Iran in 2016

Number of provinces

31

Number of cities

1245

Country’s population

79,926,270

Urban population

59,146,847 (74%)

Rural population

20,730,625 (25.9%)

Urban population growth rate

1.97%

Rural population growth rate

−0.73%

Country’s population growth rate

1.24%

Source Statistics Centre of Iran (2016)

9.2.2 Growth Rate The urban population of Iran has increased from 19.3 million in 1980 (49.7%) to 42.2 million in 2000 (64%) and 58.3 million in 2015 (73.4% of the total population) (UNPD 2014). During the period of 1995–2015, urban population increased with an average annual growth rate of 2.35%, higher than the global average. But the growth rate of urban population has decreased during 2005–2015 compared to the previous decade (Table 9.1). The number of cities also increased from 201 to 612 between 1956 and 1996. It further increased to 1012 in 2006 and 1245 in 2016 (Fig. 9.1). There were eight major cities in Iran which were hosting more than one million inhabitants in 2016.

9.2.3 Components of Urban Growth 1. Natural Growth Iran’s current total fertility rate (TFR) is estimated about 1.9–2.1 births per woman which is even higher than the average of more developed countries. The latest Iranian census conducted in 2016 shows that the annual population growth rate in Iran

234

S. Habibi et al.

Fig. 9.1 Number of cities in Iran from 1956 to 2016. Source Statistics Centre of Iran (2016)

has fallen to 1.24% from 1.29 between 2011 and 2016. The highest growth rate of population occurred during 1980–1985 that was about 4% per year (Roudi et al. 2017). Even the average annual growth of urban population growth rate dropped from 2.14 to 1.97 between 2011 and 2016 (Statistical Centre of Iran 2016). 2. Rural to Urban Migration Within the 2011–2016 period, the total internal migration was about 4.7 million. Nearly 3.9 million of this population migrated to urban areas, while the number of people who moved to rural areas was only 0.73 million (Statistics Centre of Iran 2016). This indicates towards the importance of urban-ward migration in Iran. 3. Other It is noted that in the last five years, internal migration as well as natural causes (such as births and deaths) has had a marginal role on the increase in the level of urbanisation. However, the two factors, i.e. “changing rural to urban areas” and “integrated rural within urban areas”, were major decisive. As city’s population increased in the recent decades, Iran faced city expansion and urban sprawl over the country, so some rural areas around the city have been merged to the main city and led to more documented urban population. Again, as a part of administrative changes, many villages were converted into cities which further increased the number of urban population. According to Statistics Centre of Iran (2017), the number of Iranian cities in the first census (1956) was 201 which rose to 1245 in 2016 (Fig. 9.2). Previously, the 1986 census also identified the transformation and inclusion of rural settlements into urban areas as key contributor to the increase of urban population. Obviously, within this change of definition, the villages with large populations, infrastructural and welfare amenities were established as cities. The quintessential nature of modern cities is not similar to cities which change from villages into cities.

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

235

Fig. 9.2 Components of urban growth in Iran. Source Authors based on Haeri 1989

9.2.4 Urban Structure and Changes Over the Decades As per the 1976 census, Tehran was the only city with a population of over half a million inhabitants. Now, there are eight cities with more than one million population. Still majority of the urban population is concentrated in the large cities. It is seen that about one-third of urban population, i.e. 37% of the country population, live in top 20 largest cities, other live in four hundred smaller cities (Roudi et al. 2017) (Fig. 9.1) and the other half (52%) of them live in cities with less than 500,000 inhabitants (UNPD 2014). In 2016, Tehran, the capital city, comprises 14.7% of total urban population and shows its primacy in the country. The second largest city, Mashhad, consists only 5.1% of total urban population (Fig. 9.3).

9.2.5 Regional Concentration of Urban Growth Population distribution among provinces varies significantly. The most populous provinces are Tehran (16.6%), Razavi Khorasan (8.1%), Esfahan (6.4%), Fars (6.1%) and Khuzestan (5.9% of the total). Semnan, Ilam and Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad are the least populated provinces with less than 1% of the population living there (Fig. 9.4). The 2016 census demonstrated that the highest annual rate of population growth was in South Khorasan (3.0%) (Roudi et al. 2017).

236

S. Habibi et al.

Fig. 9.3 Contribution of the population centres with more than one million people to the urban population in 2016. Source Statistics Centre of Iran (2016)

Fig. 9.4 Provincial distribution of population (left) and average annual rate of population growth between 2011 and 2016. Source Roudi et al. (2017)

9.3 Major Urban Challenges Like many countries in the world, urbanization is of the main concerns in the country and Iranian cities are faced with challenges in terms of housing, water and sanitation, energy, and environment. These issues are discussed in detail in the following section. It should be mentioned that the urban planning system has also had an outstanding achievement in recent decades in Iran that would be discussed at the end of this section.

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

237

9.3.1 Water and Sanitation In Iran, access to safe drinking water is almost universal (99%) in urban areas (Iran National Habitat Committee Secretariat 2016), much higher than 80% in rural settlements. The most important challenges and opportunities of the water sector are listed below (UN-Habitat 2018a): • Iran is one of the most vulnerable countries regarding water scarcity, being located in one of the driest regions of the world. • Water harvesting is very high compared to water resources. • Most of the harvested water is used in agriculture with very low efficiency. • Excessive consumption is one of the key causes of anticipated water crises. • Water use efficiency in Iran is among the lowest in the region. • Iran has one of the lowest urban water tariffs compared to the region and the world, which in turn leads to lack of efficient management and inefficient consumption by users. Although the water supply in Iranian cities is in a very good condition, the sewage management system is not very well functional. Based on the statistics, 47% of the population in the country have access to water waste collection network and in Tehran province, only 42% of its population is under the coverage of this network (Statistical Centre of Iran 2016).

9.3.2 Land and Housing One of the challenges in urban planning projects is the lack of a rational connection between urban land laws and those for urban planning. The lack of such a connection, in addition to the ineffectiveness and isolation of land law and policies, has led to the inability to enforce land-based regulations (Keivani et al. 2008; Azizi 1995). The expenditure on housing in urban areas is high. As Table 9.3 shows, the share of housing expenditures in the household income increases from 28 to 33% between 2015 and 2015 in urban areas. It was much higher than the rural figure of 18% in 2015. The housing provision capability index (the average time ratio of a conventional housing unit to household income) was 12 years in 2012 compared to 11 years in Table 9.3 Changes in the share of housing in the households’ income—percentage

Areas

2005

2012

2015

Urban

28

34

33

Rural

15

18

18

Country

26.1

26.7

28

Source UN-Habitat (2018a)

238

S. Habibi et al.

2015. Therefore, the housing provision and finance, due to population and housing characteristics in Iran, continues to be one of the serious issues in urban planning (UN-Habitat 2018a). In Iran, urbanisation and inefficient functioning of land and housing markets have intensified speculative activities resulting in rising real estate prices. In Tehran, the average price of land (per square metre) increased by almost 40 times in the last two decades. Even in its nearest cities like Qom and Karaj, land prices have increased very sharply (Statistical Centre of Iran 2016). Again, in the absence of adequate and decent formal housing, the urban poor seeks affordable informal shelter—whether outside formal city boundaries or within the city in deteriorated fabrics—where substandard and unconventional land divisions and lack of basic services are its outstanding characteristics (Zebardast 2006; Hajyousefi 2002; Irandoost and Sarafi 2007). Relatively good estimates are available on the size and population of the two official types of slums (informal settlements and deteriorated fabrics). Urban Development and Revitalization Company (UDRC) has identified about 76,442 ha as deteriorated fabrics in August 2014. The total population of these areas was 11 million across 495 cities. It has also identified 52,443 ha as informal settlements with a population of around 6 million persons across 77 Iranian cities (UN-Habitat 2018a). The proliferation of informal settlements in cities in Iran has several causes. The new living space seems not to be addressing the demand of the urban poor. This is due to several reasons such as: affordability of housing (high costs of housing unit, limited access to housing finance, few rental housing), inadequate location, provision of underserviced housing and slow land registration system. The lack of policy and programmes to address these issues is leaving the urban poor with little no option other than to seek housing from the informal market (UN-Habitat 2015).

9.3.3 Urban Finance Based on the existing situation, the big challenge in urban finance is mainly related to local governments. There is no clear basis for income in municipalities. Revenue sources of municipal show that the resource structure has not stabilised and the proportion of each income source has been constantly changing. Surveys show that more than 75% of their revenue was unsustainable and dependent on the construction sector (Nasr 2017). Evidence suggests that the limited availability of a suitable revenue system in municipality and the lack of accountability of state aid for fulfilling the requirements and responsibilities of urban management (following the self-sufficiency of municipalities) have led to a strong dependence on revenues from construction permits and penalties related to the violations of urban development plans (Hashemi and Basirat 2013). In such a situation, the design of a sustainable income system that guarantees sustainable urban development for Iranian cities is necessary.

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

239

9.3.4 Energy According to the Iran Statistical Centre 2016 and the 2016 Urban and Rural Electricity Statistics of the Ministry of Energy, 100% of the urban population and 100% of the households in villages with over 20 households had electricity by the end of 2016. The coverage of gas distribution network in the country (urban and rural) is also remarkable. The ratio of cities covered by the national gas service to the total number of cities across the country is 86.91%, much higher than the ratio of rural households covered by the national gas service (66.75%) (UN-Habitat 2018a). However, Iran’s energy sector suffers from problems such as limited energy efficiency planning and design measures for urban development; limited initiatives and instruments in building industry; and high and growing electricity consumption, high cost of production and low selling price of electricity. Even, the energy intensity has increased in Iran. The energy intensity index in Iran has increased by an average of around 3.4% per year over the past 40 years. The index is 50–100% higher than that in the Middle East and European Union countries, respectively (Moshiri and Lechtenbohmer 2015). The notion of energy efficiency is almost unknown to the building and construction industry in Iran which is not sustainable in nature. Thus, it needs to seriously manage the energy consumption.

9.3.5 Environment The Middle East region is considered as one of the most vulnerable regions from the climate change aspect (Mansouri Daneshvar 2016). It seems that further technological research and development in renewable energy applications and mitigation of GHG emissions would be necessary for future (Amiri and Eslamian 2010). The changing trend of CO2 emission over last one and half decade (2000–2014) and Iran’s ranking in CO2 emissions throughout the world in 2013 are indicated in Table 9.4 and Fig. 9.5, respectively. It is noted that Iran’s CO2 emission has increased from 5.63 metric tons per capita to 8.28 metric tons per capita between 2000 and 2014 (Table 9.4). Iran has always supported the international efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and to adapt to the impacts of climate change. The Iranian government policies on climate change concentrate on mitigation in the energy sector. Iran benefits from having one of the world’s highest amounts of solar insolation. So, the government-sponsored Renewable Energy Organization of Iran has been Table 9.4 Iran’s CO2 emission (metric tons per capita) Year

2000

2005

2010

2014

Level

5.63

6.66

7.69

8.28

Source The World Bank (2018)

240

S. Habibi et al.

Fig. 9.5 Iran’s position in ranking of the world’s countries in 2013 by total CO2 emissions (in million tons of CO2 ) based on Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC 2013). Source CDIAC (2013)

developing applications for using renewable energy (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment 2015).

9.4 Urban Planning and Policies With both challenges and opportunities, urbanisation is the main concern in the planning process of Iranian cities. In response to this rapid territorial and demographic transformation, the government has implemented various urban and housing policies and created several institutions to manage the urban transition and ensure sustainable urban development. The hierarchy of planning in Iran can be categorised into four levels, namely national, regional or provincial, sub-regional or county and local levels. The urban plans are placed at the local planning level. The first level of the Iranian planning hierarchy consists of national plans which are prepared and approved by different government departments and organisations. Each of these plans has a different focus and contains various elements of development. Although the urban planning system in Iran is not guided by any specific policy, there are some plans and programmes at different scales that determine general urban policies. In fact, they act as a part of a National Urban Policy and putting them together acts as a whole strategy. Reviewing a full range of national upstream documents shows that some of them such as Islamic Republic of Iran’s Twenty-Year Vision Plan and the Sixth Development Plan contain national policies and national spatial policies that address the major urban issues. This section reviews the National Spatial Plan, National/Regional Physical Plan, Country/Regional Master Plan and Development

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

241

Table 9.5 Hierarchy of planning system in Iran Plan

Scale

National Spatial Plan

National

Housing Master Plan

National

National Strategy Document on Revitalising, Upgrading, Renovating and Enabling Deteriorated and Underutilised Urban Fabrics

National

National/Regional Physical Plan

National/regional

County Master Plan

Regional

Development Plans of Metropolitan Area

Sub-regional

Plans of Metropolitan Areas which set a base for National Urban Policies of Iran. Furthermore, Housing Master Plan and National Strategy Document on Revitalising, Upgrading, Renovating and Enabling Deteriorated and Underutilised Urban Fabrics which were approved in recent years, have unique significance and play a major role in defining National Urban Policies are also been reviewed (Table 9.5).

9.4.1 National Spatial Plan (NSP) Five decades ago, planning for urban development was based primarily on master plans. In 1974, a new experience emerged by introducing National Spatial Plan. The aim of this plan was to define long-term goals for the country, in order to design and outline development and population distribution. It was a new trend to create more appropriate frameworks and contexts for urban and regional development. Issues such as the balance between urban and rural environment, inter-regional migration, economic growth, social inequality, environment and natural resources and cultural heritage, decentralisation, international environment and foreign relations, organising rural community, urban growth and urban systems were given priority in this period (Setiran Consulting Engineering 1976). Since this plan did not receive enough support at that time, its implementation was faced with many challenges. The plan was not implemented until 1992, when a new resolution of “NSP” emphasised the strategic intervention for spatial distribution of population and activities. At that time, Plan and Budget Organization was mandated to provide and ratify “NSP”, parallel to the existing physical plans, in order to formulate future economic and social development plan according to the following objectives: • To determine the regions with priority in development in terms of activities and population; • To determine the role of different regions in terms of national labour division and the establishment of agricultural activities, industry, services and infrastructure;

242

S. Habibi et al.

• To determine the employment vision and its distribution in different economic sectors at the national level (High Council of Architecture and Urban Development 1992). It is remarkable that this resolution separates the responsibilities of “NSP” and Iranian National Physical Plan, which resulted in separation of the socio-economic policy-making from physical–spatial policy-making. Regardless of all the efforts, it has not been implemented properly. Some of the main reasons include lack of integration between different spatial plans, lack of consensus among national actors, changing priorities in the country due to Iran–Iraq War and instability in planning culture.

9.4.2 National/Regional Physical Plan (N/RPP) Problems caused by rapid population growth, especially in urban areas, led to developing of National/Regional Physical Plan (N/RPP) for sustainable development planning of settlements. As a consequence, National Physical Plan was approved in 1996 by the High Council of Architecture and Urban Development of Iran. In this regard, providing physical plans with the purpose of locating future expansion of existing cities, creating new cities and towns and proposing future urban network for the country and a framework for construction regulations were emphasised. Initial studies were organised at three levels: national, regional and local. The country was divided into ten regions for regional studies beginning in 1995 as the second level of physical plans. Each region also has its specific regional plan (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development 1996).

9.4.3 National Strategy Document on Revitalising, Upgrading, Renovating and Enabling Deteriorated and Underutilised Urban Fabric (NSDRURE) The rate of population increase, especially in urban areas, caused concentration of the population around major cities. Informal settlements have been key providers of housing, mainly to the urban poor who seem to have no other option. Consideration this issue, people are living on the outskirts of major cities in informal settlements (Zebardast 2009). Considering the important role of deteriorated and underutilised urban fabrics, one of the documents that has been approved in recent years is NSDRURE. The objective was to safeguard citizen rights, enhancing living quality, regaining urban identity, effecting local governance and moving towards the establishment of leadership, integrated management and unified procedures concerning all relevant stakeholders at national and local levels. This strategy document was approved in 2014 (Iranian Cabinet 2014).

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

243

The National Strategy Document on Revitalising, Upgrading, Renovating and Enabling Deteriorated and Underutilised Urban Fabrics was approved in 2014 to secure the collaboration and participation of all relevant agencies in the process of sustainable regeneration of urban areas and neighbourhoods by urban revitalisation, rehabilitation and renovation plans. These plans aimed at protecting citizen rights, enhancing living quality, regaining urban identity, effecting local governance and moving towards the establishment of leadership, integrated management and unified procedures concerning all relevant agents at national and local levels through an approach based on Iranian Islamic urban planning and architectural guidelines. The areas located in urban historical districts, irregular inner city zones built up in recent periods, city zones created by municipal incorporation of rural settlements through urban sprawl and informal settlements found within city limits are selected to be improved by revitalisation, upgrading and renovation plans (Iranian Cabinet 2014). As of August 2014, Urban Development and Renovation Organisation of Iran (UDRO) has identified some 76,442 ha of deteriorated fabrics with a total population of 11 million across 495 cities. It has also identified another 52,443 ha as informal settlements with a population of around 6 million across 77 Iranian cities (UN-Habitat 2018a).

9.4.4 Housing Master Plan (HMS) Housing has always been a problem for low-income households in urban areas. The provision of housing in accordance with Article 31 of the Constitution, recognising the “Right to Adequate Housing”, has been a long-standing objective of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This has been pursued through Housing Master Plan. The first HMS approved in 2003 aimed at formulating a coherent road map to improve the condition of housing sector in all aspects based on nine strategies and 55 action plans. After 2005, a revision and update to the Housing Master Plan were proposed for the years 2014–2026. The plan revised and updated the previous HMS, with changes and needed structural reforms in the methods of studies and principles of policy-making in the housing sector. The revision was meant to achieve the objective to access to appropriate housing for all; increase the capacity of market to construct affordable houses; create a harmony between housing plans and urban and regional development plans; create new required institutions for housing development; and reduce regional disparities. The Housing Master Plan is one of the most important pillars of NUP in Iran. It is important not only in terms of housing but also from NUP view, because it also is well connected to New Towns Policy (see Table 9.6) in Iran and deteriorated and underutilised urban fabrics. In fact, housing is considered a key element in all planning programmes and policies. Some of the forecasted needs mentioned in Housing Master Plan are: • Needs: 5,828,000 housing units for of new families;

244 Table 9.6 Some indicators of housing situation in Iran (2013)

S. Habibi et al. Housing situation in 2013

(Million)

Number of urban households

16.2

Housing units in urban area

15.55

Shortage of housing in urban areas

0.645

Number of rural households

5.9

Housing units in rural areas

5.38

Shortage of housing in rural areas

0.517

Total shortage

1.162

Source Ministry of Roads and Urban Development (2015)

• Shortage houses to reach 1 house per 1 household: 1.162.000 house number; • Deteriorated fabrics renovation: 5.313 house number; • 1.6 million vacant houses.

9.4.5 Development Plans of Metropolitan Areas (DPMA) DPMA plays a role as a downstream plan for National Physical Plan in Iran. In 1995, in order to prepare a unified planning for Tehran city and other major cities, a planning and management framework was proposed. This plan serves the objectives of organising future population settlements; planning urban and rural network on land; guiding and controlling the use of land; housing low-income groups (slum upgrading); and improving urban management system (Iranian Cabinet 1995). Following the approval of this resolution, the High Council of Architecture and Urban Development approved the preparation of development plans for Tabriz, Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz and Qazvin cities. Box 9.1: Policy of Iran New Towns Planning in Iran can be assessed in two phases of the pre-revolution and post-revolution periods. In the post-revolution period, high rate of population growth, high costs of housing in major cities, migration to the big cities, emergence of informal settlements and the necessity to improve the quality of citizens caused to approve the act of making new towns in 1986. According to the Iran laws, a new town is a populating location out of the suburb of cities for settling down at least 30,000 people, building and public services, social and economic installation. In the beginning, key aims for development of new towns were redistribution of the spillover population of large cities, decentralisation, reducing the population density and preventing the increase of land and housing price and urban sprawl (Zamani and Arefi 2013).

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

245

Therefore, 19 new towns for 3,960,000 population were designed and all authorised. At present, these new towns have attracted approximately about 800,000 inhabitants. The manner of implementing these objectives and the process of settlement in new towns has not been fulfilled according to the time scheduled, and they cannot be considered as real cities from a functional point of view. In demographic terms, the impact of the new towns on national urbanisation is therefore limited. But these new towns intend to provide urban models, including high-quality spaces and services, efficient infrastructure and affordable housing. Using past experience and lessons learned, New Towns Development Company (NTDC) tries to use new approaches like: • Sustainability and energy conservation; • Planning and design of smart towns and eco-cities; • Using local and Islamic Iranian styles in architecture and planning; • Participation of private sector (public–private partnership); • Providing a variety of housing typologies for diverse social groups; • Affordable, fast and safe mass public transport; • Attention to the social and cultural identity; • Providing investment opportunities; • Enhancing the role of new towns. NTDC policy-makers are working on the idea of “second generation” of Iran new towns. The second generation of new towns will develop as economic and entrepreneur eco-cities according to national spatial planning policies with the purpose of decentralisation, active involvement in the preservation of precious natural and attractive tourist zones, eradication of deprivation and promoting balanced development across the country (Basirat 2019).

9.4.6 County Master Plan (CMP) Approved in 1994, the CMP was defined as an intermediate-level plan between regional and local planning. This plan aimed at formulating policies and providing strategies for managing development of activity centres and protected areas, as well as the proportional distribution of services for urban and rural dwellers in natural and geographical areas that have interactive communications in economy, social and physical characteristics (Iranian Cabinet 1994). After reviewing all the existing plans and policies, it is seen that the 50 years of planning system in Iran has made considerable efforts of planning its urban areas. There are many strengths of the Iranian urban planning system such as (Hanachi and Moradi Massihi 1999): • Improvement in the financial and technical capabilities;

246

S. Habibi et al.

• Strengthening of the regional and sub-regional organisations with regard to urban development and resource allocation; • Increase in budget allocated to urban studies; • Improvement in the level of expertise and profession; • Increased participation of research centres and universities in the urban studies; • Increased authority of the regional and sub-regional urban planning committees in preparation and approval of development plans; • Increased participation of non-governmental financing and banks in the provision and improvement of urban services; • The government’s general positive attitude towards decentralisation and strengthening of local governments; • Conducting elections for Islamic City Councils and establishment of such institutions. One of the major drawbacks of the plans and policies of Iran is the presence of hierarchy in the planning process, because this hierarchy is a lack of coordination between the national and the local levels and because regional and sub-regional levels do not properly connect these two levels (Hanachi and Moradi Massihi 1999). In other words, these four levels do not work in coordination. Thus, a significant gap exists between national and urban plans (Mohammadi 2010) in terms of their formulation and implementation.

9.5 NUP: Why, When, What and How? In order to address the challenges of urbanisation, NUP provides a vision that is beyond the traditional framework. Planning and policy of Iran need to consider a wider range of questions, which requires a comprehensive approach in urban planning and policy-making and also a higher level of both vertical and horizontal coordination between different urban policies. The development of this policy needs a holistic and coordinated approach. The pilot phase of National Urban Policy Programme, i.e. developing NUP and smart city strategies in Iran, has started in 2017. “It is a collaboration between UN-Habitat, Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran through the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development. It aims to develop National Urban Policies and smart city strategies in Iran, to offer a platform to foster synergy, coherence, capacity development and mutual learning, and to exchange global experiences on National Urban Policy. Through this approach, it is hoped that the government and other stakeholders can use NUP as an instrument to achieve sustainable urban development. NUP would contribute to addressing identified urbanisation challenges and also consolidating global knowledge sharing on urban policy. It would provide tools to the government and stakeholders, a framework for a coordinated approach for policy development with clear policies, priorities and goals. The pilot phase of this programme will provide:

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

247

• A forum for policy transfer, learning and exchange for the development of urban policies; • A central data bank for resources and tools on urban policy that can be used and shared between organisations and governments; • The facilitation of connections between national government, local authorities, international organisations and other stakeholders to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and experience on urban policy” (UN-Habitat 2018b). NUP policy programme for Iran will focus on a number of key areas: NUP development in Iran, capacity development for NUP, development of smart city strategies, implementation of NUP through demonstration projects identified using the smart city approach and knowledge-sharing activities and opportunities. Therefore, the pilot phase of the NUP in Iran aims to achieve the following: • Enhanced capacity of government to develop, implement and monitor an evaluation of National Urban Policy and develop smart city strategies; • Increased centralisation of knowledge and tools on the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of urban policy and smart city strategies; • Augmented opportunity for knowledge-sharing and peer-learning activities on urban policy and smart city strategies (UN-Habitat 2018b).

9.5.1 Towards Green Cities “In spite of the desire to move towards low-carbon economy and to implement and achieve its objectives, young population and national development requirements on the one hand, and availability of hydrocarbon resources on the other hand, have made the national development to rely on the energy-intensive industries. These have made upward trend of GHG emissions in the country inevitable. Dependence of the national economy on revenues from production and export of oil and its by-products—that are high carbon intensive—have made the economy, public welfare, resources and technology of the country, vulnerable to mitigation of GHG emission” (Department of Environment 2015). Iran contribution to the Sustainability and Green City Agenda could be summarised as below: International commitment: Iran has a specific principle of the constitution on the environment which requires that natural environment should be preserved for future generation (Article 50 of the Constitution) (Pourkarimi 2015). Iran also signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2005 and established the Designated National Authority (DNA) to implement Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in 2006. The National Rules of Procedure for Implementation of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol (approved in 2009 and revised in 2012) (Nachmany et al. 2015), and Paris

248

S. Habibi et al.

Agreement on Climate Change in 2016 and “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC) (Department of Environment 2015) are among other international agreements. General National Environment Policies: In 2015, Iran’s supreme leader introduced the “Environment Policies”, developed in consultation with the Expediency Council. These policies include creation of an integrated national environment system; preventing the spread of pollutions and degradation of environment; developing a green economy based on clean energies; organic agricultural products and management of wastewater; and confronting environmental threats. There is also a call for forming and strengthening regional institutions for combating dust, air and water pollution and developing environmental diplomacy at the national and international levels. More specifically, it has focused on management of environmental change, development of green economy with emphasis on low-carbon industry and the use of clean energy. It emphasised the strengthening of environmental diplomacy for effective use of international opportunities and incentives to move towards a low-carbon economy and facilitating the transfer and development of technologies and related innovations (Expediency Discernment Council 2015). Despite this global and local importance, no formal national urban strategy in the field of environment-friendly and low-carbon settlements has been developed yet. But in this context, there is a new significant consensus among environmental researchers, planners and urban managers for paying attention to environmental aspects of urban development and create eco-friendly human settlements and cities.

9.5.2 Smart Cities in Iran At present, different descriptions on smart or intelligent city are available in the literature. Regardless of all different definitions, the smart city concept is a multidisciplinary field, constantly introduced by advancements in technology and urban development (Angelidou 2015). From UN-Habitat viewpoint, the smart city approach aims to integrate urban planning, physical infrastructure, urban facilities, service provision and ICT infrastructure into management and provision of critical public services and utilities in rural and urban setting. The new model of urban planning and design in smart cities focus on high-quality streets and public spaces, proper and well-designed density, mixed urban uses and limited land-use specialisation, connectivity, mixed social structure, urban resilience, energy and resource efficiency and higher quality of life (UN-Habitat 2016a, b). Iran is progressing in the development of related ICT infrastructure and legislation to support the free flow of information. According to International Telecommunication Union (Table 9.7), the Iran ICT Development Index (IDI)1 overall ranking in

1 ICT

Development Index.

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

249

Table 9.7 Iran’s position in IDI rankings compared to Korea (first in ranking in Asia and the Pacific), 2017 Economy Korea (Rep.) Iran

Regional Rank 2017

Global Rank 2016 (from 176)

IDI 2016

Global Rank 2017

IDI 2017

1

1

8.80

2

8.85

12

85

5.04

81

5.58

Source ITU (2017)

2017 was 81 in the world. It improved progressively from 99 in 2010, 91 in 2015 and 85 in 2016 (ITU 2017). A significant infrastructural investment has already developed a widespread nationwide coverage of mobile networks and a national fibre-optic backbone in Iran. There is a high level of basic mobile access, and mobile broadband has been growing rapidly since its recent deployment. In this context, the following development took place in Iran: • High Council of Architecture and Urban Development approval of “The future smart cities technology and three-dimensional spatial data” (July 2015); • Establishment of Tehran Urban Observatory as Tehran best practice (Danaee and Alishiri 2013); • Development of municipal e-services across metropolises (Bayat Turk 2013); • Approval of “Law on free access of citizens to information” (Iran Parliament 2007).

9.5.3 A New Strategy: Green and Smart Cities in Iran As noted above, despite the existence of some regulations and various efforts, there is no integrated national approach towards development of green and smart cities. According to global and local concerns, applying these principles seems necessary. New national regulations and guidelines about energy consumption reduction, using natural ventilation in urban planning and creating smart cities across the country, are inevitable. This requirement may be considered at different levels of planning and urban design, but it seems that a NUP could lead to a more appropriate level of intervention. As described before, developing NUP in Iran was at its initial stage in 2017. This is a critical step in providing distinct action for national urban development by providing an overarching national urban coordination framework that addresses urban planning issues. A NUP, although often led by the central government, it would be developed in partnership with all levels. So, it would be a complete tool to achieve a higher vertical and horizontal coordination and thus enable the country to use their opportunities while mitigating the risks.

250

S. Habibi et al.

As explained before, in Iran, after 1979 Islamic Revolution, no National Spatial Plan has been approved. In the approved Sixth National Five-Year Development Plan (2017–2021), the Plan and Budget Organization has been obliged to prepare the National Territorial Plan by 2019. Moreover, the National Physical Plan was prepared by the Ministry of Roads and Urban Planning in 1996 and simultaneously approved by the High Council of Architecture and Urban Development. The evaluation of this plan has been carried out in 2016 and the resolution of the National Physical Plan revision and the mentioned resolution approved by High Council of Architecture and Urban Development on January 2017. Plan revision is underway with new set of goals which includes NUP development as one of its main objectives. It provides a legal framework for preparing NUP in Iran (High Council of Architecture and Urban Development 2017). NUP can encourage transformative change for policy development in the country. It encourages all levels of government and relevant stakeholders. This makes the process more sustainable and ensures that the voices of all stakeholders are heard. In Table 9.8, different plans at three levels of national, regional and sub-regional in Iran have been compared with their intended targets.

9.6 Alignment with NUA In many countries, there is often a lack of support for policies and frameworks that can leverage the urbanisation process for increased development gains and guide it towards sustainable patterns. International agendas have recently acknowledged that the challenges and opportunities of urbanisation for sustainable development reach beyond the city scale, making it a global priority that calls for more coordinated and integrated policies. The development of NUP answers this recommendation, as it supports governments in implementing the New Urban Agenda (NUA). It will ensure the implementation of global urban agendas and help to address the country’s urbanisation challenges sustainably and equitably (UN-Habitat 2018b). The NUA proposes NUP as one of the fundamental drivers of change: “We will take measures to establish legal and policy frameworks, based on the principles of equality and non-discrimination, to better enable prevailing governments to effectively implement National Urban Policies, as appropriate, and to empower them as policy-makers and decision-makers, ensuring appropriate fiscal, political and administrative decentralisation based on the principle of subsidiarity” (UN-Habitat 2016c). Also, the New Urban Agenda proposes a smart city approach for environmentally sustainable and resilient urban development (UN-Habitat 2016c). In Iran, NUP addresses issues such as spatial planning, balanced distribution of the population and activities in the country, integrated urban management, climate change, resiliency, urban finance, housing, informal settlements, vulnerable groups, citizen participation and smart cities (UN-Habitat 2018a).

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

251

Table 9.8 Comparing current urban plans in Iran with the goal of “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” Targets

National

Regional/provincial

Sub-regional

11.1 on adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services

Housing Master Plan NSDRURE

Provincial Housing Master Plan

NA

11.2 on safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all

Comprehensive Transport Master Plan

Provincial Transportation Master Plan

Urban Transportation Master Plan

11.3 on inclusive and sustainable urbanisation and capacities for participatory planning and management

NA

Provincial Spatial Plan

City Master Plan

11.4 on protecting and safeguarding the world’s cultural and natural heritage

Iran’s Cultural Heritage and Tourism Development Vision

Provincial Tourism Master Plan

County Tourism Master Plan City Tourism Master Plan

11.5 on impact of disasters

Comprehensive Disaster Management Plan

NA

Urban Comprehensive Disaster Management Plan

11.6 on environmental impact (air quality, municipal and other waste management)

General National Environment Policies Waste Management National Plan

NA

Urban Waste Management Master Plan Comprehensive Air Pollution Reduction Plan

11.7 on safe, inclusive and accessible green and public spaces

NA

NA

Green Space Master Plan

11.a on urban–rural links

National Spatial Plan National Physical Plan

Development Plans of Metropolitan Regions

Rural–Urban Fringe Master Plan

11.b on resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change

National Climate Change Strategy General National Environment Policies

NA

Comprehensive Air Pollution Reduction Plan

11.c on sustainable and resilient building local materials

NA

NA

Comprehensive Rural Housing Renovation Plan

252

S. Habibi et al.

9.7 Conclusion Urban development in Iran has been both planned and spontaneous as in many developing countries. Today, Iran is an urbanised society and national policy-makers used different planning mechanisms to control changes in Iran’s urban systems. Investigating the changes in Iran’s spatial plan during the last decades reflects the evolution of this plan in national planning system. Although the NSP and N/RPP have a strong legal support, they have never been completely adopted and implemented. With respect to the current needs and issues of urban planning system, establishment of appropriate mechanisms to overcome challenges in planning and territorial management was the focus of this chapter. Based on the ideal type of integrated urban planning system, coordination of spatial policy and creating a balance between the cities and regions are the most important procedural needs of Iranian planning system. In this context, giving attention to the environmental and climate commitments of national actors is necessary. The creation of a unified planning system is important and inevitable. The chapter highlighted the importance of NUP in providing an integrated policy and acts as an umbrella over different spatial plans in Iran at all levels. Particular attention to the smart and green city indicators is necessary in the process of preparing Iran’s NUP. It can solve the challenge of fragmentation in national plans, as well as consultation with stakeholders. Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge valuable comments made by Mr. Siamak Moghadam and Mr. Farzin Fardanesh.

References Amiri, M. J., & Eslamian, S. S. (2010). Investigation of Climate Change in Iran. Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 3(4), 208–216. Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106. Arefian, F. F., & Iradj-Moeini, S. H. (2016). Urban Change in Iran, Stories of Rooted Histories and Ever-accelerating Developments. London: Springer. Azizi, M. M. (1995). The provision of urban infrastructure in Iran: An empirical evaluation. Urban Studies, 32(3), 507–522. Basirat, M. (2019). First Generation of Iranian New Towns, Road, Housing, and Urban Development Research Center, Tehran. (in Persian) Bayat Turk, A. (2013). Performance assessment of electronic offices of municipality services by a combined approach comprising balanced scorecards (BSC) and data envelopment analysis (DEA), Case of Tehran Municipality. Shahrnegar Journal, 12(60–61), 44–63. (in Persian). Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). (2013). Carbon dioxide emissions time series. United States Department of Energy’s (DOE). Available via online at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov, May 1, 2018. Danaee, G., & Alishiri, H. (2013). The urban observatory: From concept to construction. Shahrnegar Journal, 12(60–61), 141–148. (in Persian).

9 Towards National Urban Policy in I.R. of Iran

253

Expediency Discernment Council. (2015). The announcement of the overall environmental policies. (In Persian). Financial Tribune. (2017). Internal migration becomes an issue, Financial Tribune Newspaper, Saturday, April 08, 2017. Available at: https://financialtribune.com/articles/people/61950/internalmigration-becomes-an-issue. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. (2015). Climate Change legislation in Iran, an excerpt from the 2015 global climate legislation study a review of climate change legislation in 99 countries, www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/legislation/. Haeri, M. R. (1989). A scheme of physical aspect of Iranian city; studying typology of traditional urban texture. Tehran, Iran. (In Persian). Hajyousefi, A. (2002). Suburbanisation and transformation process of it (before the Islamic Revolution). Haftshahr, 3(8), 12–24. (In Persian). Hanachi, S., & Moradi Massihi, V. (1999). Participatory urban planning and management (Vol. 1). Tehran: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Urban Planning and Architecture, the Centre for Urban Planning and Architecture. (in Persian). Hashemi, S., & Basirat, M. (2013). Strategies to achieve the suitable municipal revenue system with orientation of urban sustainable development. In The Fifth Conference of Municipal Finance, Problems and Solutions, Tehran. High Council of Architecture and Urban Development. (1992). National spatial plan act, Tehran. (in Persian). High Council of Architecture and Urban Development. (2017). Resolution of the national physical plan revision, Tehran. (in Persian). International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2017). Measuring the information society report 2017. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunication Union. Iran National Habitat Committee Secretariat. (2016). Islamic Republic of Iran National Report for the Third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III), Ministry of Roads and Urban Development. Irandoost, K., & Sarafi, M. (2007). Despair and hope in informal settlements, case study: Kermanshah city. Social Welfare Quarterly, 7(26), 201–222. Iranian Cabinet. (1994). County Master Plan Act. Tehran. (in Persian). Iranian Cabinet. (1995). Development Plans of Metropolitan Region Act. Tehran. (in Persian). Iranian Cabinet. (2014). National strategy document on revitalising, upgrading, renovating and enabling deteriorated and underutilised Urban Fabrics Act, Tehran. (in Persian). Keivani, R., Mattingly, M., & Majedi, H. (2008). Public management of urban land, enabling markets and low-income housing provision: The overlooked experience of Iran. Urban Studies, 45, 1825–1853. Madanipour, A. (2006). Urban planning and development in Tehran. Cities, 23(6), 433–438. Mansouri Daneshvar, M. R. (2016). Climate change facts and statistics in Iran, Report of the environmental challenges of I. R. Iran to UNEA-2, 1, 1–14. Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. (1996). National/Regional Physical Plan, Tehran. (in Persian). Ministry of Road and Urban Development. (2015). Housing Master Plan, Tehran. (in Persian). Mohammadi, H. (2010). Citizen participation in urban planning and management: The case of Iran. Kassel: Kassel University Press. Moshiri, S., & Lechtenbohmer, S. (2015). Sustainable energy strategy for Iran. Germany: Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy. Nachmany, M., et al. (2015). The 2015 global climate legislation study a review of climate change legislation in 99 countries. Downloaded from available at: http://www.lse.ac.uk/ GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Global_climate_legislation_study_20151.pdf, May 1, 2018. Nasr, E. R. (2017). Finance model based on the economic strength for sustainable urban development, Review the current methods of municipalities finance and urban development finance

254

S. Habibi et al.

model based on the Economic Strength. Critical Studies in Text & Programs of Human Science, 16, 145–168. National Climate Change Committee; NCCC. (2015). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. Department of Environment. Available at: http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/ Published%20Documents/Iran/1/INDC%20Iran%20Final%20Text.pdf, May 1, 2018. Pourkarimi, E. (2015). Environmental rules and policies in Iran, UNEP, http://www.unep.org/delc/ Portals/119/documents/Iran-presentation.pdf. Roudi, F., Azadi, P., & Mesgaran, M. (2017). Iran’s population dynamics and demographic window of opportunity, Working Paper 4, Stanford Iran 2040 Project, Stanford University. Setiran Consulting Engineering. (1976). Long term strategy of spatial planning, Plan and budget organization, Spatial Planning Center, Tehran. (in Persian). Statistical Centre of Iran. (2016). Iran statistical yearbook 2015–2016. Tehran: Statistical Centre of Iran. Statistical Center of Iran. (2017). Iran Statistical Yearbook 2016–2017, Tehran: Statistical Centre of Iran Supporting Revitalisation, Upgrading, and Renovation of Deteriorated and Underutilised Urban Fabrics Act. (2014). Tehran (in Persian). The World Bank. (2018). Iran CO2 emission. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/country/iranislamic-rep?view=chart, May 1, 2018. UN-Habitat. (2015). UN-Habitat project document on Informal Settlements Collaboration with the Informal Settlements Programme of I. R. Iran, UN-Habitat, Tehran office. UN-Habitat. (2016a). World Cities Report 2016: Urbanization and Development - Emerging Futures, UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat. (2016b). Smart Cities, HABITAT 3 issue paper. Available at: http://habitat3.org/wpcontent/uploads/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-21_Smart-Cities-2.0.pdf, May 1, 2018. UN-Habitat.(2016c). The New Urban Agenda. Available at: http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/ NUA-English.pdf, April 14, 2020. UN-Habitat. (2018a). National Urban Policy in Iran, Diagnostic Report, UN-Habitat, Tehran office. UN-Habitat. (2018b). UN-Habitat draft project document on NUP. The pilot phase of National Urban Policy programme: Developing NUP and Smart City Strategy in I.R. Iran, UN-Habitat, Tehran office. United Nations Population Division (UNPD). (2014). World Urbanisation Prospects, the 2014 Revision. New York: UN Population Division. Downloaded from available at: https://esa.un.org/ unpd/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2014-Report.pdf, May 1, 2018. Zamani, B., & Arefi, M. (2013). Iranian new towns and their urban management issues: A critical review of influential actors and factors. Cities, 30, 105–112. Zebardast, E. (2006). Marginalization of the urban poor and the expansion on the spontaneous settlements on Tehran Metropolitan Fringe. Cities, 23(6), 439–454. Zebardast, E. (2009). The housing domain of quality of life and life satisfaction in the spontaneous settlements on the Tehran Metropolitan Fringe. Social Indicators Research, 90(2), 307–324.

Chapter 10

Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy, 2012 and Formulation of Sub-national Urban Policy and Smart City Strategy by Niger State Government, Nigeria Mustapha Zubairu Abstract This is an assessment of the preparation and implementation of the Nigerian National Urban Development Policy (NUP) 2012. The focus is to review the extent to which federal government of Nigeria got the states to participate in the preparation and implementation of the Policy. The federal government is yet to create the enabling environment and develop the requisite capacity at state level for effective implementation of NUP, 2012. This is despite the fact that provisions were made under the Institutional Framework of the Policy that assigned the, then, Federal Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development the responsibility of “capacity building of states and local governments”. However, at sub-national level, the Governor of Niger State expressed his dissatisfaction with the conditions of the cities and towns of the state. He was particularly concerned with the glaring top-down systems of financing, management and governance of the cities and towns that was neither effective nor transparent. The participation of the residents in the process of decision-making and governance had been limited. This was further compounded by the over-reliance of the state government and the twenty local governments on the monthly Federal Allocation, at the expense of harnessing their local economic potentials and with inadequate efforts to achieve internal resource mobilisation. The Governor decided to prepare a Sub-National Urban Policy (SUP) for the state; and requested for the assistance of UN-Habitat and other development Partners to, among others, prepare SUP for Niger State, based on the NUP, 2012. The objective of Niger State Government in preparing its SUP is to build a consensus among citizens on present and future sustainable development path for the state. A bottom-up and stakeholder-driven approach was adopted for the preparation of the SUP to ensure full participation and ownership of the SUP by the citizens of the State. Niger State Government had been able to secure a grant from the South Korean Government to prepare its SUP. Similarly, South Korean Government has requested World Bank, Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OEDC) and Cities Alliance, as International Development Institutions, to participate, as stakeholders, M. Zubairu (B) Niger State Urban Support Programme, Minna, Nigeria e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_10

255

256

M. Zubairu

in the Normative Planning and decide regarding the opportunity of financing related development projects from the SUP. A Law is likely to be enacted to make the SUP enforceable. Keywords National Urban Policy, 2012 · Sub-national Urban Policy, SUP, Urban Challenges

10.1 Introduction Nigeria is the most populated country, not only in West Africa, but in entire Africa. According to the World Urbanisation Prospect (WUP) 2018, its level of urbanisation is also higher than the regional average, with a very high growth rate of urban population. Nigeria’s largest city Lagos is also the largest city in Western Africa and one of the mega cities in the developing countries. But Nigerian urbanisation experience is characterised by its unplanned growth, overcrowding, poor infrastructure and living condition high incidence of poverty and lack of livelihood. These are particularly visible in the larger city with very high share of slum population. Even after a long period of rapid urbanisation, still date, there is no nationally accepted definition of an urban area. More often than not, the term “urban” is interpreted mostly in the cultural context. In Nigeria, generally two different definitions are often used to define urban. The first definition of urban is based on the threshold population of 20,000 people, as used by the National Population Commission in computing the 1963 Census. Unfortunately, successive censuses conducted in the country since 1963 omitted disaggregation of data by city levels, a practice that has made planning of cities very difficult in Nigeria (Mabogunje 2004). The second definition of an urban area derives from the provisions of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which stipulates that “all Local Government Headquarters (HQs) are urban”. Based on the above definitions, Nigeria had 843 cities in 2004, with no fewer than six of them having a population of 1 million and above (FGN 2012). According to UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance (2014), progress in the development of cities depends on the degree to which it is planned, coordinated and managed. These, in turn, are dependent on the skills, financial resources (money) and political will deployed by the leadership to improve the lives of majority of their people. Similarly, sustainable urban development is predicated on a coherent National Urban Policy which is a product of a government-led process that coordinates and rally’s the support and buy-in of the stakeholder groups “for a common vision and goal that will promote more transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban development for the long term”. Three years after independence in 1960, Nigeria adopted a Republican constitution consisting of a three-tier government structure comprising the Federal, State and Local Governments, made up of 36 States; the Federal Capital Territory; and 774 Local Governments Areas. Political administration is based on

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy …

257

the administrative boundaries of Local Governments, States and Federal Government. Due to the federal government system, the policy implementation in Nigeria is very weak at national level. Based on review of literature, the paper explores the hurdles faced in implementing the NUP, 2012 and initiates the way forward towards establishing a self-sustaining economic and social system.

10.2 Review of Experiences of National Urban Policy of Selected Countries A review of the experience of selected countries in the implementation of their National Urban Policies brings forth various levels of development and related challenges in respective countries. South Korea and China in Asia, Brazil in South America, South Africa in Africa are managing their urbanisation in a very efficient way to set examples for other countries (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). Therefore, China is selected from Asia where there has been the longest experience in National Urban Planning. This is followed by Brazil in Latin America which is also performing very efficiency compared to its neighbouring countries in South America. Lastly, the experience of Ghana, Africa is also reviewed where there is least experience in terms of integrated policy regime (ibid.). These will help to understand the policy perspectives of different governments with respect to various contexts and set path for Nigeria for adopting more efficient NUP.

10.2.1 The Chinese Experience The Chinese economic reforms of 1978 brought about accelerated urbanisation due to the relaxation of its anti-urban policy. The government pursued a policy of providing support to “particular locations and enterprises showing the greatest potential” (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014, p. 34). Special economic zones, located in less-developed coastal regions, were promoted to offer big incentives to attract foreign investment and export-led industrialisation. Such economic zones were obliged to establish linkages with local suppliers, which generated valuable spinoffs from the transfer of technology and managerial skills; encouraged other territories in the southeast to be opened-up; and coastal cities became China’s main economic engines (McGranahan et al. 2014 in UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). This led to the high level of urbanisation in the coastal areas, and these cities attracted huge flow of migration and investment. This is supported by huge spatial expansion as well as infrastructural growth in these cities. The mega cities emerge as a result. The main characteristics of China’s process of urbanisation were to convert agricultural land to industrial zones and residential areas to accommodate growing urban population. Infrastructural development was the prime objective of China, as it spends almost

258

M. Zubairu

half of its GDP in buildings roads, railways, dams, power plants, etc. But in terms of inclusiveness, it excludes certain sections of the society. For example, by implementing “hokou” system, it excludes the temporary migrants from their basic rights to the city. Even its National Urban Policy tends to promote only economic growth, not social security and environmental sustainability. From the China’s experience, the major lessons learnt were how to make cities engines of growth by emphasising on the infrastructural development.

10.2.2 The Brazilian Experience Brazil is also made an impressive mark for its innovative urban design and planning. Even it is a pioneer in terms of National Urban Policy. Historically, the issue of urban planning became the priority of the Brazilian government only after the advent of democracy in 1985. The new Constitution of Brazil provided a chapter on urban policy and right to housing (Fernandes 2011 in UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). Successive Brazilian governments prior to 1985 had made persistent efforts to resist urban population growth, only to emergence of exclusionary form of urbanisation, forcing poor communities to live in overcrowded, unplanned and unsafe favelas, despite the seeming rapid economic growth of the country. However, in 1990s there was a major turnaround when the Brazilian government started to take urban planning more seriously, with focus on participation and decentralisation; problem solving through dialogue rather than by government dictates. The government tried the following measures to ensure development: moving urban reform up the political agenda; by enactment of a law on the Statute of the City in 2001; creation of a Ministry of Cities in 2003, charged with the responsibility of designing and implementing a national policy on upgrading informal and precarious settlements in conjunction with state and municipal governments; institutionalising a bottom-up urban planning and participatory decision-making; establishing a variety of legal and financial instruments to safeguard the public interest on land; and the launching of the Growth Acceleration Programmes (PAC) to promote integrated slum upgrading projects. The Brazilian experience teaches the importance of Governments initiative in managing the cities with innovation.

10.2.3 The Ghanaian Experience Ghana seems to be among the very few African countries whose leadership appears to be fully aware of the importance of National Urban Policy. The President made the case for a NUP on the grounds that cities can drive national economies if they are properly planned and managed (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). The first National Urban Policy of Ghana, formulated by the National Development Planning Commission (an advisory body to the President), was launched in March, 2013.

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy …

259

The Implementation of the Policy is to be coordinated by the Urban Development Unit within the Department of Local Government and Rural Development (DLGRD). However, the Unit has neither the resources nor the statutory authority to compel other arms of the Ghanaian government to participate in the implementation of the Policy. The on-going effort by the Cities Alliance in assisting the Ghanaian Government to develop a framework for implementing the Policy is likely to yield a positive result in the future. The experience of China puts emphasis on investing on infrastructural growth to make the cities engines of growth. On the other hand, Brazil, being a developing country with similar conditions like Nigeria at the initial phase of independence, shows how Government initiative on integrated urban planning efficiently upgrade he poor housing condition and make cities more inclusive and sustainable. The experience of Ghana would be most useful as Nigeria also has similar urbanisation experience. All these three country’s experience emphasises on the role of national government at national level, instead of federal structure of the state. Both Brazil and Ghana’s experience point towards the strong commitment of national government to integrate all the state in the process of urban development. Before going to the review of policies, the nature of urbanisation and its challenges are evaluated.

10.3 Urbanisation Trends in Nigeria Nigeria is the most populated country in Western Africa with a total population 195.19 million and 98.6 million of urban population in 2018. According to National Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria (2015), the total urban population of Nigeria has increased from 145.42 million to 185.99 million between 2006 and 2016, as shown in Fig. 10.1. In 1950, total urban population was only 3.54 million, which increased by almost 30

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria, 2015

Fig. 10.1 Trends of increase in population (million) in Nigeria (2006–2016). Source National Bureau of Statistics, Nigeria (2015)

260 Table 10.1 Trend of total urban population (million) and level of urbanisation (%) in Nigeria (1950–2050)

M. Zubairu Year

Total urban population (million)

Level of urbanisation (%)

1950

3.54

9.35

1960

6.96

15.41

1970

9.94

17.76

1980

16.14

21.97

1990

28.28

29.68

2000

42.63

34.84

2010

68.95

43.48

2018

98.61

50.30

2030a

156.30

59.19

2050a

287.13

69.92

Source World Urbanization Prospects (2018), UN DESA a Denotes projected population

times, to reach the recent figure of 98.6 million in 2018. It is also estimated that the urban population will be almost three times in the next 30 years. Starting with a very low level of urbanisation, 9.4% in 1950, Nigeria level of urbanisation increased to 34.8 in 2000 and further increased by 13% points in the next 15 years. The current level of urbanisation rate is 50.3% in 2018, slightly higher than the average of Western Africa (46.4%). Though the urban population in absolute terms and level of urbanisation is increasing, the average annual growth rate of urban population is decreasing from 4.78 during 2005–2010 to 4.58% during 2010–2015, and will further decline 4.32% during 2015–2020. The rate of urbanisation in Nigeria has very irregular trend but shows an overall decline over the time period. Though the rate of growth of urban population as well as urbanisation rate is declining, it has been much higher than the growth of rural population in the past and continues to be in the future, which indicates the pressure will increase on urban areas in future (Table 10.1). The rapid growth of population in general and in urban areas in particular led to the expansion of existing built-up areas and the emergence of new settlements. This leads to further increase in share of urban population. Table 10.2 shows the projected increase in the number of urban settlements from 1960 to 2020. It is noted Table 10.2 Number of urban settlements in Nigeria, 1960–2020

Year

Africapolis

1960

133

1980

253

2000

438

2020

574

Source Bloch et al. (2015, p. 15)

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy …

261

that between 1960 and 2000, the number of urban centres had increased from 133 to 438. It is projected that by 2020, the number of urban centres will be 574.

10.3.1 Trends in Urban Spatial Expansion The most extensive urban spatial expansion, as established in the 2015, according to the research report of the Urbanisation Research Nigeria, has been around four massive urban fields: along Katsina-Funtua-Kano-Hadejia axis in the north; between Abuja and Jos in the middle of the country; along Lagos-Ilorin-Akure axis, in southwest; and Benin-Port Harcourt-Calabar-Enugu axis in the southeast (Figs. 10.2 and 10.3). Nigeria in the near future will experience low density urban sprawl. According to Bloch et al. (2015), as can be seen from Table 10.3, in 2000, total urban land cover was 464,192 hectares. Assuming annual density decline by 0, 1 and 2%, it is estimated that total land cover will increase by 172, 267 and 395% by 2030, respectively.

Source: Bloch R., Fox S., Monroy J., and Ojo A. (2015) Urbanisation and Urban Expansion in Nigeria. Urbanisation Research Nigeria (URN) Research Report. London), page 19

Fig. 10.2 People per square kilometre in 1990. Source Bloch et al. (2015, p. 19)

262

M. Zubairu

Source: Bloch R., Fox S., Monroy J., and Ojo A. (2015) Urbanisation and Urban Expansion in Nigeria. Urbanisation Research Nigeria (URN) Research Report, London)”, page 2

Fig. 10.3 People per square kilometre in 2014. Source Bloch et al. (2015, p. 2)

Table 10.3 Urban land cover estimates and projections Urban land cover in 2000 (ha)

Assumed annual density decline (%)

Projected urban land cover in 2030 (ha)

Percentage change, 2000–2030

464,192

0

1,262,215

172

1

1,703,812

267

2

2,299,905

395

Source Bloch et al. (2015, p. 18)

10.3.2 Reason Behind Growth of Urban Population As per the report, the underlying cause of rapid urban population growth and urban expansion in Nigeria is primarily driven by declining mortality along with persistently high fertility (Table 10.4). TFR in Nigeria declined marginally, from 6.0 to 5.5 during 1990–2013 (Bloch et al. 2015). Again, according to NDHS (2013), TFR in 2016 increased to 5.8. On the other hand, Under-5 Mortality Rate is declining sharply, from 191 to 144 between 1990 and 2013. Due to this phenomena, rapid growth of

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy …

263

Table 10.4 Fertility and child morality trends in Nigeria (1990–2013) Indicators

1990

1999

2003

2008

2013

Percentage change 1990–2013

Total fertility rate (TFR)

6.0

4.7

5.7

5.7

5.5

−8.3

Under-5 mortality rate

191

133

217

171

144

−24.6

Source Bloch et al. (2015, p. 32)

population is noted. Again Bloch et al. (2015) also mentioned, the higher TFR in urban areas. Therefore, due to natural increase, urban population increases and the densification of rural centres results in the creation of new urban centres. As per Bloch et al. (2015), rural–urban migration is also a major contributor to the growth of urban population in Nigeria. With the limited data availability on absolute figures on migration flow, it is very difficult to estimates the share of migration in the growth of urban population. According to Internal Migration Survey, 2010, 60% of the internal migration flow is rural–urban, which have contributed to the growth of cities, especially large cities like Lagos. The rapid urban population growth in Nigeria has also been due to the absorption of new population and urban land coverage; the appearance of new districts; decentralisation of both population and economic activity within low density metropolitan areas as discussed in the previous sections (Table 10.2). This phenomena is particularly found in the region between Lagos and Ibadan; Abuja FCT and its satellite towns; Kano-Katsina; and along Awka-Onitsha-Nnewi axis.

10.3.3 Urban System in Nigeria Bloch et al. (2015) mentioned that Nigeria’s urbanisation is very balanced in nature, well distributed between four last urban-agglomerations. To understand the urban system in Nigeria, it has to be understood in historical context. The colonial administration in Nigeria, under Lord Lugard, enacted the 1917 Township Ordinance that categorised Nigerian cities into three classes: first, second and third class. This reflected their varying capacity to mobilise the funds to provide themselves with needed services and infrastructure and consequently to be allowed certain degree of self-governance. Lagos was the only Grade 1 city throughout the colonial period, with 18 classified as second-class towns and 50 as third-class towns, mostly located in the south. Cities like Ibadan, Kano, Zaria, Onitsha, Calabar, Sokoto and Benin city were either Grade II or III cities. However, notwithstanding their status, the revenue raised by the “native administration” in these cities was the basis for providing them with infrastructure such as tarred roads, water supply and electricity. The temporal trend in distribution of cities based on size in Nigeria for 1952, 2000 and 2010, respectively, is shown in Figs. 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6. It is noted that, in 1952, there are only few cities with 50,000 or more population. The figures almost

264

M. Zubairu

Source: Bloch R., Fox S., Monroy J., and Ojo A. (2015) Urbanisation and Urban Expansion in Nigeria. Urbanisation Research Nigeria (URN) Research Report, London), page 27

Fig. 10.4 Cities with 50,000+ people in 1952. Source Bloch et al. (2015, p. 27)

doubled in 2000. It is estimated that there is be a sharp increase in the million plus cities in 2010, especially in the southwest part of the country. At independence in October, 1960, Nigeria had three regions, i.e. Northern, Western and Eastern, with capitals at Kaduna, Ibadan and Enugu, respectively, with Lagos as Federal capital. In 1963, a fourth, Midwestern region (with Benin City as capital) was added. The number of states was subsequently increased to 12 in 1967; 19 in 1976; and to 36 presently, with Abuja as the Federal Capital Territory (FCT). Politics was behind the creation of states rather than their ability to provide adequate infrastructure facilities and services.

10.4 Major Urban Challenges These are areas of narrow and sometimes winding streets and lanes generally poorly served by modern infrastructure and usually occupied by very poor housing. In most parts of Nigeria, cities and towns are urbanising rapidly without planning and control. As a consequence, majority of Nigerian cities and towns are facing multiple challenges such as high percentages of people living in slums; large and rapidly growing informal sector; inadequate urban basic services, like water supply, sanitation and power supply; and poor mobility systems, especially within the cities. Motorcycles

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy …

265

Source: Bloch R., Fox S., Monroy J., and Ojo A. (2015) Urbanisation and Urban Expansion in Nigeria. Urbanisation Research Nigeria (URN) Research Repor,. London), page 30

Fig. 10.5 Cities with 50,000+ in 2000. Source Bloch et al. (2015, p. 30)

and single-engine tricycle with petrol engines have become the dominant mode of public transportation. In addition to being prone to accidents, they have become significant contributors to the generation of greenhouses gases.

10.4.1 Water Supply: A Case Study of Minna, Niger State Capital Water supply is a major concern in Nigerian cities. According to JMP Report 2010, in 1990, 27 million inhabitants (79%) in urban areas were covered in terms of water supply. But the irony is that though the coverage has increased in absolute terms to 54 million, the share decreased to 75% in 2008. The coverage of piped water supply is even worse, covering only 11% of the population in 2008 as per the same source (WSP 2011). According to World Bank, in 2015, 81.9% population had access to basic drinking water facilities, which is a positive development. But in reality, most of the large cities are still unable to supply improved source of drinking water to a large share of citizens, majorly due to rapid rate of urbanisation. The case of Minna, Niger State capital is discussed as an example. The current population of Minna, Niger State capital is about 500,000. One of the two dams

266

M. Zubairu

Source: Bloch R., Fox S., Monroy J., and Ojo A. (2015) Urbanisation and Urban Expansion in Nigeria. Urbanisation Research Nigeria (URN) Research Report, London), page 31

Fig. 10.6 Cities with 300,000+ in 2010. Source Bloch et al. (2015, p. 31)

supplying water to Minna has become completely silted due to poor maintenance and lack of enforcement of the watershed policy recommended in the Master Plan of the city. The second has lost more than 50% of its capacity; while about 30% of the daily water supply to the city by the Niger State Water Board has remained unaccounted for. The situation in Minna typifies the condition of urban water supply in most Nigerian cities (Mabogunje 2004).

10.4.2 Sanitation: A Case Study of the Main Cities of Niger State Similar to the condition of water supply, the Nigerian cities are struggling to provide basic sanitation facilities to the urban residents. According to JMP Report, 2010, it is noted that in 1990, only 39% of population had access to sanitation facilities. The figure further decreased to 36% in 2008. Only 13 million people had access to sanitation facilities, and another 13 million had to used shared sanitation facilities (WSP 2011). Even the World Bank estimates also depict a decreasing share of population using basic sanitation facilities, from 39.2 to 38.8% between 2000 and 2015.

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy …

267

It is seen that the five major cities in Niger State generate a total of 1,001,788.66 kilograms of waste daily, out of which 186,661.80 kilograms are recyclables. However, less than 20% of the waste is collected daily by the Niger State Environmental Protection Agency (NISEPA) and disposed in designated dumpsites. None of the cities has a sanitary landfill site. Youth in each of the cities, mostly from the slums, are engaged in waste recycling from either the dumpsites or collection points in the wards. There is no organised liquid waste management in the cities of Niger State. Liquid waste is emptied into open drains on streets with lined drainage or into the septic tank within each house in planned housing estates.

10.4.3 Housing Shortage The production of affordable housing in Nigeria has remained problematic. According to the National Housing Policy, 2012, the rate of housing production is approximately 100,000 housing units per year to address the estimated 17 million housing deficit of the country. To meet the current demand, Nigeria must build at the rate of 1.2 million units annually. Numerous institutional weaknesses have made it difficult for Nigeria to develop and institutionalise an effective housing delivery system, despite the promulgation of the National Housing Policy, 2012. These include the fact that the Land Use Act, which is designed to make access to land easy and affordable at the three tiers of government, is embedded in the Nigerian Constitution. Two thirds of the states and local governments are required to amend the Act. The consent provision in the Act has made the transfer of land to third party expensive and time consuming. The National Housing Fund (NHF) established in 1986 to provide housing finance the poor and low-income families has so far, failed to deliver on its promise to the vast majority of Nigerians. Though contribution to the NHF is compulsory to all workers, a growing number of individual contributors have given up on the fund and have stopped contributing to it. Nigeria Mortgage Refinance Company was established in 2014 even though there were no mortgages for it to refinance (Zubairu 2015).

10.4.4 Slums Urbanisation has remained rapid, unplanned and uncontrolled in virtually all Nigerian cities. What particularly worrying is the high-risk nature of the physical expansion of these cities accompanied by inadequate or entirely absent infrastructure. A large and increasing number of city residents are forced by circumstance (affordability) or practicality (proximity to sources of employment) to live in the city’s most dangerous and health-threatening environments. According to World Bank estimates, in 2014,

268

M. Zubairu

50.2% of the urban population live in slum, though the figure has declined from 77.3% in 1990 and 69.6% in 2000. The slums of Nigerian cities are almost exclusively established in the most highrisk areas of cities, such as landfills, low-elevation coastal zones, flood-prone areas, areas exposed to toxic waste or pollution, or areas of least priority to the government (Mabogunje 2004). As a result, the urban poor tends to end up trapped in areas that are not recognised as legitimate; with the expansion and dominance of the informal sector; without a claim to legal ownership over land; where infrastructure is entirely absent; and services are not provided. As the slum settlements increasingly take over cities, and as a consequence, cities continue to grow in ways that further exacerbate poverty and increase inequality. It is no surprise that the presence of urban slums is spreading rapidly throughout Nigerian cities as millions flock to them despite their glaring ill preparedness to economically or physically accommodate them. A study of the slum settlements of Minna was carried in 1993, 2003 and 2013 by the planning students of Federal University of Technology, Minna, under the supervision of the Centre for Human Settlements and Urban Development. These revealed a steady increase in the size and density of the slum settlements across the city. Presently, about 75% of its residents of 500,000 people live in slums. Again, the number of slums has grown in number to 21 as at June 2013, from 9 in 1993 and 16 in 2003, as shown in Fig. 10.7 (Mabogunje 2004).

10.4.5 Electricity Nigeria generates electricity from hydroelectric dams—Kainji (960 MW), Jebba (540 MW) and Shiroro (600 MW). The fourth dam, located in Zungeru (700 MW), is under construction; and from a number of gas turbines. The country is presently only able to generate between 3000 and 5000 MW per day. As a consequence, blackout has remained a constant occurrence in virtually all Nigerian cities. People only have two to four hours of electricity daily. Power supply has been privatised while many state governments are partnering with power companies to improve the supply of power. The Nigerian National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) was developed in 2016, based on the National Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Policy (NREEEP) approved in May 2015. It intends to generate 30,000 MW of power by the year 2030 with at least 30% in the form of renewable energy. A pilot 500 MW solar farm is under construction in the town of Funtua in Katsina State.

10.4.6 Health Urban health crises arising from the unplanned and uncontrolled urbanisation include inadequate water safe supply, slum and squatter settlements, sanitation, solid

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy …

269

Source: Niger State Housing Corporation, 2015 Fig. 10.7 Slums of Minna (1993–2013). Source Niger State Housing Corporation (2015)

waste management and air pollution arising from inefficient and congested urban transportation. A snap shot of the health indicators in Nigeria is shown in Table 10.5. From a rural–urban comparison of key health indicators, it is seen that urban sector is better than rural areas in most of the indicators (Table 10.6). But the urban areas are showing increasing proportion of malnourished children. The share of underweight children (0–5 years) has increased from 18.8% in 2003 to 22.9% in 2013 (DHS,

270

M. Zubairu

Fig. 10.7 (continued)

2003 and 2013). Urban areas also show the higher share of obesity among women (11.3% compared to 4.4% in rural areas) (DHS 2013). Even the risk of tobacco use is also higher in urban areas. Though in terms of health coverage urban areas are better than their rural counterparts, still they are behind the universal coverage (Table 10.6). Again, the use of bed net to protect from communicable disease is much lower in urban areas. In the previous section, it is already discussed that the urban areas suffer from shortage of water supply, sanitation and high use of solid fuel. This led to increase the spread of disease like cholera, ARI and tuberculosis, major causes of deaths. In Nigeria, the share of expenditure on health sector was 3.6% of total GDP in 2015 and 72.2% of the total expenditure in this sector was out of pocket expenditure. With the absence of governmental support in healthcare expenses, the citizens are at higher risk of health burden.

10.4.7 Education Education scenario in urban Nigeria is good, compared to other poor infrastructural situations discussed above. According to National Literacy Survey (2010), literacy rate among population aged 15 years and above was 57.9% when based on only English language and 71.6 based on any language where in urban areas, the figures were much higher, 73.6 and 83.0%, respectively. In terms of youth literacy (literacy rate among population aged 15-24 years) in urban areas are very high, 94.3% based on any language criteria, much higher than overall figure of 85.6%. Even the educational

10 Assessment of the Implementation of the National Urban Policy …

271

Table 10.5 Key health indicators S. No.

Indicator

Value

Year

1

Life expectancy at birtha

53.4 years

2016

birtha

2

Male life expectancy at

52.7 years

2016

3

Female life expectancy at birtha

54.2 years

2016

4

Infant mortality rate (death between 0–12 months per 1000 live birth)a

66.9

2016

5

Under-5 mortality rate (death between 0–59 months per 1000 live births)a

103.8

2016

6

Maternal mortality rate (per 10,000 live births)a

814

2015

7

Death due to tuberculosis (per 100,000 people)a

219

2016

8

Death due to HIV/AIDS among aged 75 years) represents 8.5% of the total population and is expected to rise to 16% in 2050, calling for specific policies to address their needs (specific services, housing and new job opportunities, tourism, cultural and so on). Despite territorial differences, vulnerable populations (elderly, youth, nomads, homeless and very lowincome group) will be the main focus for housing, urban services and job creation. They will be priority targets of specific inclusive development policies for the next decades.

364

E. Huybrechts

15.4.1 Sustainable Urban Development to Review the Planning System Sustainable urban development is considered as a solution for urban economic, social and environmental challenges. Several sustainable urban development initiatives such as eco-districts projects and eco-cities have been implemented in France to provide solutions to the current urban challenges. Sustainable urban development including green economy and local implementations are pragmatic and integrated initiatives, addressing the multiple dimensions of the current urban challenges through promoting socially inclusive and ecologically efficient urban services. Urban mobility is becoming more comprehensive, taking into account new transport behaviours with mobility solutions that are more secure and inclusive, and ensuring good-quality open urban spaces.

15.4.2 A Territorial Approach Based on Local Participation The urban development and planning are based on a territorial approach, facilitating strong links with the surrounding rural areas. It needs a strong territorial engineering to support this approach. Specific bodies, such as public driven urban or territorial planning agencies,3 are crucial to support decision-makers on preparation, implementation and monitoring of their urban development policies. They also support decision-makers in the continuous changes in the legislative and institutional contexts. Cities are considered as a policy subject to be addressed in an integrated and global vision. It should be based on open governance that brings together local authorities, civil society, public and private sectors to develop a shared and holistic vision through an integrated and flexible approach. However, the extraordinary complexity of the existing governance system, due to the decentralisation process initiated in 1982, makes the coordination of policies difficult at the local level. For example, Paris/Ilede-France region has six levels of political decision-making bodies which include the national government, the region, the eight departments, the Greater Paris metropolis (that covers only a part of the core agglomeration), the intercommunalities and the 1276 municipalities. The overlapping of mandates in most of sectors makes decisions very complex and slow. For example, it hampers the coordination capacity to face the domino effect of natural risks that increase with climate change.

15.4.3 Ecological Transition for a New Planning Approach Environmental concerns are considered very important in the French urban policies with commitment to generate 20% of renewable energies uses by 2020. The «Grenelle

15 France National Urban Policies: Towards Sustainable …

365

de l’Environnement» is central in the government policy with specific policies regarding energy standards on buildings, support to renewable energy, development of innovative means of transport, zero interest rates to eco-loans for housing renewal, planning for denser urban areas, and green and blue grids policy developments. Today, this framework is completed with risk management, reducing urban congestion, energy renovation of buildings and better management of natural resources implemented. Good results have already been achieved in the field of air quality, stabilisation of energy consumption in building since 2012, and a higher use of public transportation (over 24% use public transportation as compared to about 13% using cars). However, major problems such as urban sprawl, vulnerability to climate change, environmental inequality and social segregation are still evident. The need for a clear political will, the integrated and participatory approach, the necessary behavioural change, the priority for climate change and mitigation need to be strengthened, if better results are to be achieved. In fact, the ecological transition has radically changed the way to build cities’ fostering need for more sustainable growth that is compact, robust, resilient and less segregated. The need for better performance in urban management, ensuring lower impact on biodiversity, encouraging more urban mix and renewal, and use of renewable energy have largely helped the cities to achieve sustainable growth. Cities need to be more desirable and attractive to live in. Such performance can be optimised with the help of smart city systems. The higher information and communication technologies can be used for better access to urban services, information and decisionmaking.

15.4.4 Reshaping Economic Development and Housing Production France can be divided into four economic development categories—(1) a productive one, mainly in the main cities where 36% of the population lives; (2) a nonproductive one, relying on tourism, public salaries and retirement with 44% of the population; (3) the old decayed industrial basins in the northern part of the country with 8% of the population; and (4) a nonproductive part, very decayed and supported by the government with 12% of the population. To adapt national policies at different local contexts, the government provides large subsidies to local authorities. In fact, local authorities are playing a major role to support economic development, spending at least 70% of the total public investments of the country. The housing sector production is representing 5% of the GDP, generating 1.5 million jobs and 500,000 housing units per year, with 20% of social housing. Subsidies from the government are about 2% of the GDP to support builders and low revenues in that sector. Specific areas are defined in the frame of the Politique de la Ville,4 a spatial oriented policy focusing on the more socially sensitive areas, to support the urban renewal and the economic development. Between 2004 and 2015, 490

366

E. Huybrechts

neighbourhoods were supported under this policy. The remaining challenge is to enhance better integration of these neighbourhoods into the cities. This policy is notably focusing on jobs for the young professionals in these neighbourhoods and supporting the NGOs to strengthen the social economy.

15.5 French Orientation for Sustainable Planning and Smart Cities 15.5.1 New Challenges, New Approaches Paris agreement (COP 21) changed the paradigm for the development. Cities need to be conceived in a more energy-efficient way that is resilient to climate change. The emergence of civil society and technology innovations foster to redefine the spaces for dialogue in development and management of cities. For these reasons, and in the face of demographic growth, planning of cities and notably of the intermediate and secondary cities is a major issue. The territorial approach, which integrates urban, suburban and rural areas into same development policies, fosters the development of exchanges between complementary spaces, notably in terms of energy, natural and food resources and negative spill production (solid waste, waste water, air pollution). Solidarity between those spaces is an intrinsic condition for the harmonious development of territories to strengthen their assets and to reduce their negative externalities. Strategic urban planning makes the link between the policies and planning, and operational tools (regulations, development projects and urban services). It is an essential condition for the harmonious development of cities, regions and rural areas.

15.5.2 Strategic Urban Planning, More Inclusive and Locally Based The urban planning system in France is based on a Code de l’urbanisme (Planning Act) that includes the National Urban planning standards (Règlement National d’Urbanisme), the different urban planning documents (DTA-DD, SDRIF, SRADDET, SCOT, PLU, local map), the law related to urban renewal, the ALUR law, the Grenelle laws and other laws (law on economic development, law on inclusiveness, climate energy, environment, water, transportation, land, habitat). Several spatial planning documents are also used in the process of urban planning: regional strategy (SRADDET with a specific document for Paris/Ile-de-France region: SDRIF), the intermunicipal development strategy (Schéma de coherence territorial), the local development plan (Plan local d’urbanisme) and several sector plans

15 France National Urban Policies: Towards Sustainable …

367

(housing, environment, green, flooding, mobility). The compatibility of lower document levels ensures the relevance of the global vision with the local regulation. The implementation of these plans relies on the transcription of the regulatory guidance in town planning documents. The hierarchy of planning documents is defined clearly in the Code de l’Urbanisme. European framework and national laws are superseding these planning documents. On the same, Water Master Plans, Hazard Risks Prevention Plans and Environment laws are stronger than the planning documents. Today, a quarter of the municipalities, representing 19.2% of the national surface and 3.2% of the population is not covered by any local development plan (they follows the National Urban Planning Standards/Règlement National d’urbanisme). The city planning is divided in a very complex system shared between elected representatives (municipal, intermunicipal, district, region and state levels) and nominated administrators (regions, departments). It is based on the principle of subsidiarity. The fragmentation and the overlapping of authorities in the different sectors (green, mobility, housing, economic development, environment) make the decisionmaking system very difficult to understand for the citizens and slow down the capacity to implement projects. The implementation of the planning system is operated through the local development plan (PLU), and public and private investments. Public investments are coordinated between the different levels through five-year investment plans negotiated between the state government and the region, with the district (“département”) on several sectors. Monitoring systems based on goals and targeted objectives ensure the follow-up of the territorial policies. Several actors are supporting municipalities and private actors to rehabilitate or undertake urban renewals such as the National Agency for the Urban renewal (Agence Nationale pour la Rénovation Urbaine),5 Social funders for housing, The National Agency for the Habitat upgrading (ANAH6 ), the Federation for Solidary in the Habitat (SoliHa7 ), Public Development Society (SPL), Investors, Mix Economic Development Societies (SEM), Caisse des Dépôts et Consignations and the Public Societies (Administrative or Industrial and commercial as RATP, SNCF, CEREMA, VNF, BRGM, ADEME).

15.5.3 Local Authorities as the Main Driver for Development The decentralisation laws facilitate vertical integration between different administrative levels, while still respecting the principle of subsidiarity. At the national level, a better coordination involves the deepening of institutional and financial reforms. National government thus ensures, in principle, that the local authorities have favourable legal frameworks and the financial, technical and human resources required to carry out their missions and, where necessary, takes measures to strengthen their powers and means of action. Large competencies have been given to local authorities, but financial means are still missing to cover all the expenses generated by the transfers of responsibilities. One of the challenges for local authorities is to develop their territories in coherence with the national development policies.

368

E. Huybrechts

For the national authorities, the issue is to support vulnerable authorities that do not have the capacities to address their challenges. Urban development policy is a political project that responds to a comprehensive understanding of the territory. To safeguard the common interest, strategic urban planning is led by the local authority alongside the adjoining territories according to participatory processes that encourage consultation with stakeholders from civil society, including the private sector. As the leader of the planning process and its implementation, the local authorities ensure the continuity of the project, even though the terms of office of local representatives may be time-limited. Urban planning aims to anticipate future changes and achieve following inclusive and sustainable growth: • It aims to improve the living condition of the inhabitants and service users and to strengthen inclusion and social cohesion. To do this, it is essential to consider local heritage and culture and to recognise the specificities of the various groups involved. Public facilities are key elements for social mixing and cohesion. • It is the frame of reference for the preservation and management of natural resources and the environment: It specifies the actions to be undertaken for the resilience of the cities and populations, as well as the mechanisms for prevention and management of risks. • It also spatialises the local economic development strategy. Urban planning is the science to adopt measures according to location with the special reference to vulnerable area, historic precinct, outstanding landscape, central or peripheral location and economic situation of households. The contextualisation is most essential for planning to be effective.

15.5.4 Involving Local Stakeholders Local authorities of France ensure the participation of all stakeholders in the urban planning process. The joint formulation of a territorial vision fosters the participation of actors from different cultural backgrounds, including the operators of urban services, the job creators and the inhabitants. The public debate takes place on a territorial level, supported by studies that reveal the potential and vulnerabilities of the territories. Various tools such as geographical information systems, social and economic surveys, local expertise or the local knowledge of the inhabitants are used. Strategic urban planning takes account of changes in the city and its environment. It anticipates urban transformations and responds to the present and future needs of the population. Thus, the local authority must seek, through territorial planning, to integrate the approaches by neighbourhood, city and the territory, and to promote coordination between sectors over time. The aim of this approach is to achieve better coordination and linkage between the various sectorial policies and involves the setting up of multi-disciplinary technical teams that will have a grasp of the

15 France National Urban Policies: Towards Sustainable …

369

cross-cutting issues such as the environment, the right against unemployment and exclusion, safety and security or social diversity. Ensuring planning over time requires the capacity to monitor and analyse policies and to adapt planning to urban changes. Territorial planning is adaptive and, as such, requires a constant dialogue between the formulation of policies and their implementation. This ensures accountability to the evolution of local priorities and needs.

15.5.5 Regulating Land Use for an Inclusive Urban Development Cities are facing increasing effect of finance in their land and real estate markets. It affects mainly city centres and generates gentrification that through the market forces evicts large part of the population. In fact, the land use crystallises conflicts of interest between landlords, right holders and the investors. With the financialisation of the economy, cities are facing new challenges for the regulation of these markets. Integrating the question of land into planning presents several issues regarding the diversity of land tenure systems, the arrangements for land use (leases, rental arrangements, transfer procedures, shared ownership, etc.) and procedures for administration of land and land registry that involve local stakeholders and local authorities. Local authorities have taken some measures to preserve the affordability of cities and their accessibility to all categories of the population through policies to formalise inclusive land rights and regulation of land markets, but probably these initiatives are not enough. Some city centres face reduction of their population, e.g. in Paris city centre. Setting up land agencies enables urbanisation to be prepared and to curb land speculation, but new fiscal tools are necessary to limit highly speculative foreign investments.

15.5.6 Smart Cities and Digital Technologies One of the key aspects of planning is the collection, management and dissemination of information at the local level. Geographic Information Systems increase the capacity to manage data and develop knowledge of the territories based on reliable statistics, and thus is able to produce genuine tools in support of local authority decisionmaking. To gather this data across territories, the local authorities or their partners in development support the setting up of urban planning agencies8 or observatories on urban development. Digital technologies are playing an increasing role in the urban development process. It creates synergies between infrastructural networks (communication, water or energy distribution networks, etc.) and helps pooling data from different sources in

370

E. Huybrechts

management platforms. They also utilise user-generated data, for example through their mobile phones, to develop applications that are urban function specific. The information produced is used to optimise the management of urban services and improving their quality, in order to meet the dual goals of sustainable development and increasing the economic attractiveness of cities. The French «smart» city aims to achieve following objectives: • Optimum economic use of natural resources (energy, water, raw materials) through better matching supply and demand, better forecasting of climatic phenomena, also optimise consumption and operation and maintenance of infrastructures and buildings. • Systemic and automated approach to the city through the digitisation of infrastructures (smart grids), enabling interoperation and integrated management («network of networks»). This is a change from the traditional sectorial view of urban services. • More inclusive and democratic urban governance, placing the citizens at the heart of the mechanisms by providing them with access to open information (open data, digital public spaces) and simplifying their online access, facilitating direct relation with the decision-makers through social networks. From the experience, it is seen that the issue of digital technologies should be addressed through its three interdependent components, i.e. infrastructures, services and usage. Furthermore, the innovating technological solutions deployed are conceived with the participation of local actors to better take into account the variations in demographic, social and cultural contexts and in technical, institutional and financial capacities of cities. Building electricity and telecommunication networks remains a prerequisite to the access to digital services for all, and high-speed Internet is also considered as a lever of economic growth. Connecting the most remote households and businesses (managing the last mile) remains a challenge that is both technical and financial. The use of digital technologies in urban and territorial development requires an investment effort on the part of local authorities to mobilise skilled operators. The use of new technologies (IT, GIS, database management, big data) calls for specific skills, as does the analysis of the data collected and its use at the service of urban projects.

15.5.7 A Collaborative Approach to Implement Digital Urban Systems The local authorities foster collaborative approaches and innovation by making “open data” available to all by sharing information and knowledge about territory (geoportals, collaborative land registry) and developing new tools in support of decisionmaking to enable better and more participatory urban management.

15 France National Urban Policies: Towards Sustainable …

371

The dematerialisation of administrative procedures (online public services, eprocedures, wireless banking, online payments) minimises the need for travel and contributes to increase their effectiveness and transparency. Local authorities promote online procedures that enable a more efficient recovery of taxes and payments for urban services (e.g. smart or pre-paid electricity meters). To encourage digital innovation in urban projects and services, the local authorities organise the setting up of a network system that favours synergies by enabling startups, research laboratories, large industrial groups as well as small and medium-sized enterprises and public services to come closer together in clusters, incubators or partnerships. Peer learning between cities enables the exchange of knowledge and experience. In order to protect users, the legal framework relating to the production of big data has been strengthened at the national and European levels. The legal framework ensures transparency on the uses of data, whether provided by users or collected by the operators in the delivery of the service. It promotes the public interest and protect user’s personal information against misuse which could pose threat to privacy of individuals. The smart city is a component of a local strategy stimulating or promoting innovation in the field of urban development. Several cities in France have adopted a strategic approach to digital innovation, in order to move towards smart city goals in a progressive manner.

15.6 Smart and Green Urban Principles for a More Sustainable and Inclusive Urbanisation The urban planning and digital development are well supported by the government and implemented at the local level. The orientation of these policies is mainly focused on inclusivity and environment with heavy support on renewable energies, green building, digital economy, decentralisation, access to urban services and affordable housing. It is probably too early to have a clear vision on the results of these green and smart policies for a more sustainable and inclusive urbanisation. The time necessary to define and adopt policies through laws and action plans, and the strong resistance of the existing systems of urbanisation regarding urban changes are limiting factors. At the same time, policies can have slow impact on behaviour change of the population. For example, urban sprawl due to individual housing and mobility behaviour changes could be more related to the ageing of the population than the policy effect of urbanisation. On the same time, the quick changes in the technological process may have strong impact on the behaviour, through access to information and social networking, and will modify the mobility pattern of the population in some ways that is very difficult to define. New technologies could have strong effect without adoption of policies. But, the role of policies, based on evidence and political will,

372

E. Huybrechts

foster practices and provide infrastructures necessary to accelerate the desired trends (adaptation and mitigation to climate change for example). But it is not obvious to assess what is the exact impact of the policies due to various factors that are not directly linked with policies such as behaviour, new technologies and external factors (i.e. climate change and financialisation of the economy). The results are not sufficient regarding the existing urban conditions as hundreds of neighbourhoods facing environmental and economic crisis. Despite the strong efforts, these policies still fall short to handle the crisis and social segregation in the cities. The policy orientations are dealing clearly with the goals of inclusivity, sustainability, resilience and lower vulnerability in cities. Moreover, inclusivity is one of the largest policies of the government through support to housing sector (2% of the GDP of subsidies and supports), the “Politique de la Ville”, and through the urban planning legislative framework with focus on housing as a driver of change. The national policy also tries to be holistic with a strong focus on the systemic approach that take into consideration the effect of environment and economic development based on the social issues. The complex framework proposed by the French policies is facing the question of multi-level governance with 13 regions, about one hundred districts (départments) and 35,000 municipalities. This political context is the result of the French history, that strengthens the local level, providing very close relationship between elected people and the citizens, but with a very disperse and complex sharing of competencies between administrative levels. Thus, a key challenge has been to create dynamics that gather all actors around a common direction for sustainable and inclusive development. It is the role of the local authorities, with the support of the national government and the tools provided to local authorities to develop territories for better quality of life for all citizens. Digital technology is also used and supported to optimise urban services, to give better access to information and facilitate relations between citizens and elected representatives. It strengthens the democratic process and have nonpredictable effects on the behaviour of the population. Cities are moving fast. Policies are giving the framework for better cities.

15.7 National Sustainable Development Strategy to Promote Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda The urban policies supported by the French government are diverse and connected with several sectors such as economic development, digital economy, environment, risks management, transportation, urban services, culture, water, sewage, education and health. To link all these policies together, a National Framework the “Grenelle de l’Environnement” was established after a national consultation.

15 France National Urban Policies: Towards Sustainable …

373

France has developed specific tools, adapted to its own context, to address sustainable development challenges including social inclusiveness and the ageing population. It is closely linked with its own social and political history that explains specificities of the French context (small municipalities, decentralisation process sided by a powerful national government, high technology, large cooperation network). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) foster state governments to strengthen their existing planning instruments as National Sustainable Development Strategies. France adopted its NSDS recently. The 2018 report on SDGs implementation in France presents the progress of the implementation of the SDGs in France with an analysis for each SDGs prepared by the national government with contribution of the civil society. The state government sets up a framework for monitoring the SDGs and awareness campaign towards citizens, focused on six SDGs as following: 1. SDG 6 (Water) with a large national debate (Assise nationale de l’Eau) to be held in 2018, 2. SDG 7 (Energy) with a strategy of low carbon to reduce GHS emissions drastically (Climate Plan), 3. SDG 11 (Urban) with a new law (ELAN) to support housing production, support social mix and enhance quality of life, 4. SDG 12 (Green economy) with a new ministerial decision towards circular economy, 5. SDG 15 (Biodiversity), through a large public consultation and the adoption of a biodiversity strategy to reduce pollutions, reverse land artificialisation, protect forests and oceans, 6. SDG 17 (International partnerships) with a process for definition main issues for 2019. The New Urban Agenda defines orientations for the next decades with commitments to change cities, to make them engine for reducing poverty and exclusion (leave no one behind), for economic development and attractiveness (inclusive urban economies), to protect environment and take measure against climate change. The means for implementation of this agenda are based on national and local governance, participatory approach, planning tools for short and long terms, local, national and international capacities for financing, data collection; monitoring system with data and reports provided by countries. It focuses on strengthening of the local authorities for the implementation of the sustainable urban development, the financing by promoting local financing to complete national-level projects, the participatory approach from planning, building to operate the city management, and the importance of planning to steer the integrated and sustainable urban development. We can consider that the orientations of French urban policies are in line with the New Urban Agenda and the SDGs. But, it should be considered as directions for better processes to reduce poverty, enhance citizen participation and develop capacities at the local level. Despite 35 years of a decentralisation process in France, the capacities of local authorities are still not sufficient to face the huge challenges

374

E. Huybrechts

of urban development. Social inequalities are increasing, GHS emissions continue to grow, and biodiversity is declining fast.

15.8 Conclusion and Future Implications France has not specifically adopted a National Urban Policy, but has developed several policies in the frame of the National Sustainable Development Strategy, in which policies and actions on urban areas are integrated. In fact, there is a convergence of all actors to take cities into consideration and to make them a specific policy object. The main concern is to find coherence and support between several initiatives at the national and local levels. In a democratic and liberal economy-oriented country, the main challenge for a National Urban Policy is to mobilise all actors to define a common vision because the capacities for action are shared between national and local actors, public and private sectors and the citizens. Then, the way for implementation cannot be controlled properly from the national government. In fact, to face huge challenges of sustainability and inclusivity, the question is more on the dynamics provided by a vision with incentives and supports, than a controlled program for implementation. Here, finance is more dedicated to local authorities to organise and adapt national policies to local level, in strong relation with citizens, NGOs and the private sector. In that context, the way for implementation is based on participatory process (coproducing a vision), push factors (subsidies and institutional framework), institutional framework and mobilisation of the society. Green and digital trends are two main topics to reshape cities at country levels. It tackles with better living conditions inside cities and higher efficiency in urban management, including participatory process. These two main entries will change drastically the way to plan and manage cities in the next decades. The old school view of urban development through segregation and zoning, car-driven development, and productive economy is now changing, towards a mix urban cities approach based on dense areas, quality of public spaces and public transportation. Quality of life will drive the urban economy and urban policies. The new urban paradigm might change urban conditions. But, the existing urbanisation, the existing trends and behaviour will not change easily. It will take a long time to find effects of policies to make the vision a reality in cities. Policies will need to keep the orientations clear in the long term, despite of the limited impact in the short term. It is the main challenge for politicians to support the vision and have the necessary strong political will to involve the society in the dynamic of change. Notes 1. https://www.insee.fr/fr/metadonnees/definition/c1501. 2. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1281191. 3. French Federation of urban planning agencies gathers 50 planning agencies covering all large cities and their surroundings. www.fnau.org.

15 France National Urban Policies: Towards Sustainable …

4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

375

http://www.cohesion-territoires.gouv.fr/politique-de-la-ville. https://www.anru.fr/. https://www.anah.fr/. https://www.soliha.fr/. In France, 50 Urban planning agencies covering agglomeration, metropolitan areas or region have been implemented. They are permanent structures, serving inter municipal decision in the field of territorial planning, economic development, environment, mobility, housing, energy, local development. They play different role as Territorial observatory, think tank, urban lab, public debate and resource center.

References Insee, RP 1999–2013; Insee, Datar ZAU 2010—CGET, 2017. Les dynamiques de population, Observatoire des territoires, CGET, 2017. MEEM, Ministry of Environment, Ecology, and Sea, Rapport France, for Habitat III, 2015. ONERC, Villes et adaptation au changement climatique, rapport au premier ministre, 2016. Partenariat français villes et territoires, Smart cities and digital technologies, 2015. Partenariat français villes et territoires, Strategic urban planning, 2014. Point d’étape 2018 de la France sur la mise en œuvre de l’agenda 2030, Paris. World Urbanization Prospects, 2018.

Chapter 16

Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt Sara Stace

Abstract Australia is one of most urbanised countries in the world with more than four-fifths of its population living in urban settlements. Three quarters of Australians live in the major cities, located in the coastal areas. These cities generate around 80% of gross domestic product and employ 75% of the national workforce. The cities are facing challenges from changing climatic conditions. But there were limited comprehensive policy attempts until the beginning of the second decade of twenty-first century. In 2011, the Australian Government released its first National Urban Policy, titled, ‘Our Cities, Our Future: A National Urban Policy for a Productive, Sustainable and Liveable Future’. It established a framework of goals, objectives, principles and actions for the 18 major cities with populations of more than 100,000 people. It also established an annual reporting mechanism through the State of Australian Cities reports. In 2016, with a change of government, the National Urban Policy was replaced with the ‘Smart Cities Plan’, and the State of Australian Cities was replaced by the National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard as an interactive data source on a wide range of cities issues. The scope was also broadened to the 21 cities with populations over 80,000 people. Both policies were accompanied by national grant funding programmes to reinforce collaboration across the three levels of government and deliver on key objectives. While both the 2011 and 2016 documents provided a framework to guide the Australian Government’s approach to policy development and investment in cities, the documents diverged on how this was described, implemented and funded. There are several hurdles to ensuring that the National Urban Policy and its supporting governance structures are able to survive changes of government to deliver long-term outcomes and objectives. The various 10-year and 20-year City Deals signed between federal, state and local governments for specific urban areas have been mechanisms to achieve this. To date, seven City Deals have been signed and another two are in negotiation. Keywords Australia · Major cities · Productive · Sustainable · Liveable · Governance · Smart cities · City deals S. Stace (B) Clovelly, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_16

377

378

S. Stace

16.1 Introduction Australia is one of the highly urbanised countries in the world (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). In the middle of the twentieth century, when the level of urbanisation at global level was only 29% and the developed countries have hardly crossed the 50 marks, Australia had 77% of its population living in urban settlements. In 2018, the level of urbanisation in Australia was close to 90% (WUP 2018). Australia’s urbanisation is very concentrated in nature with almost three-quarters of Australians living in the few big cities (with more than 100,000 population) and more than onethird population live only in the two largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne. Currently, these major cities (with more than 100,000 population) generate around 80% of GDP, employ 75% of the national workforce and contributed more than 80% of national job creation during 2001–06 (McGurik and Argent 2011). The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) projected that Australia’s total population will double by the mid of the twenty-first century and most of the additional population will be concentrated in these few major cities. Considering the future population growth, these cities need to focus on an integrated planning which can resolve the emerging challenges in the housing, basic amenities and employment (ibid.). Apart from future population growth, climate remains another important issue for Australia as it is situated in the driest place on earth. Only 10% of land in Australia is arable (Bolleter and Weller 2010), and more than 80% of its population is concentrated within 50 km from the coast (McGurik and Argent 2011). Therefore, most of the Australian cities, concentrated in the coastal areas, are at higher risk due to global climate change. Comprehensive urban planning has become the utmost need for the coming few decades. However, the Australian Government generally avoided comprehensive planning at the national level. According to the constitution, urban planning and development in Australia is the responsibility of the states and municipalities. Until the beginning of the present decade, Australia lacked comprehensive urban policy, except for three policy interventions, i.e. post-war reconstruction (1940s–1960s), urban and regional development during 1972–1975 and (Building) Better Cities Programme during 1991–1996. All these efforts were abandoned pre-maturely due to the frequent change in the government (UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance 2014). Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the Australian Government realised the need for an integrated policy framework for a sustainable future. Therefore, for the first time in the country’s history, in May 2011, the Australian Government released its National Urban Policy (NUP), titled, ‘Our Cities, Our Future: a national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future’ (Australian Government 2011b). It established the Australian Government’s objectives and directions for the major cities where more than three quarters of the population live. The National Urban Policy recognised the critical roles of state, territory and local governments, and the private sector, in planning, managing and investing in cities. It was the first time that an Australian Government had sought to outline its overarching

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

379

goals for the nation’s cities and understand how its policy decisions, whether conscious or not, had an impact on urban communities. The NUP was principally about how the Australian Government could facilitate better outcomes in cities through both direct investment and by influencing the actions of others. It aimed to set a vision to deliver future prosperity and wellbeing for Australia’s communities and reinforce the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) national objective ‘to ensure Australian cities are globally competitive, productive, sustainable, liveable, socially inclusive and well placed to meet future challenges and growth’.1 In 2014, a change of government resulted in significant changes to the governance, policy and reporting of the National Urban Policy. In 2016, the Australian Government released the Smart Cities Plan, which effectively replaced the NUP as the guiding urban policy document for the federal government (Australian Government 2016). The Smart Cites Plan was based on three pillars, i.e. smart investment, smart policy and smart technology. City Deals were a part of this policy to provide long-term planning framework for individual cities. Till date, seven City Deals have been signed and another two are in negotiation. The Smart Cities Plan also released a National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard in late 2017 for public access, which contains critical data on major cities covering jobs and skills, housing, infrastructure, liveability, innovation and planning; using a combination of performance and context indicators (Australian Government 2018d).2 Australia is a unique example of developed country which has rapid population growth and requires immediate policy intervention to cope with the emerging challenges. Therefore, the main objective of this chapter is to relook into the National Urban Policies with a critical perspective to bring out the ways towards better cities. It is seen that Australia has successfully implemented NUP and progressed towards making the its cities smart and sustainable. Hence, a detailed discussion on Australian policy may help some countries to gain lessons in formulating their urban policies. The present chapter is divided into further four sections. The second section tries to understand the trends and patterns of urbanisation in Australia. The third section discusses the emerging challenges in Australian major cities. The fourth section describes the policy shift since the post-war period. It also discusses the NUP and the policy shift from NUP to Smart Cities Programme. The fifth section critically reviews the effectiveness of NUP and Smart City Programme initiatives. The sixth and the last section is the concluding section which also discusses the future path for Australia’s sustainable urban development.

1 COAG Reform Council, Review of Capital City Strategic Planning Systems (archive copy available

at https://www.linkplace.com.au/coag). source 2016 Census and other data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

2 Data

380

S. Stace

16.2 Urbanisation—Definition of Urban According to the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS), the smallest unit of urban areas is called Urban Centres and Localities (UCLs). The UCLs are delineated on the basis of threshold population of 200 and a density criteria calculated using 2016 census. Section of State (SOS) and Section of State Range (SOSR) further classified the UCLs on basis of their population size. The lowest order of UCLs are called Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1). The Significant Urban Areas (SUAs) are large towns with population size of more than 10,000 and defined as Statistical Areas Level 2 (SA2). These cities sometimes include the surrounding rural settlements. Major Urban Areas (MUAs) are large urban areas with population more than 85,000 in 2016. The Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (GCCSA) are the major cities with population more than 100,000. These are generally state capitals and are multifunctional in nature. They extend beyond the builtup areas and include the population who tend to socialise, work or shop in cities, but reside in the rural settlements surrounding it. They are categorised as the highest level Statistical Areas Level 4 (SA4).3 The Australian National Urban Policy covered the 18 major cities with populations over 100,000, i.e. SA 4. These comprised the eight capital cities representing each state and territory; the established inland cities of Toowoomba, Albury-Wodonga and Launceston; coastal cities such Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong; and the rapidly growing Queensland cities of the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Cairns and Townsville. Some of these cities have formed larger urban conurbations with nearby capital cities clustered in the south-east corner of the continent. Later, the National Cities Performance Framework, released in 2017, covered the 20 cities with populations over 80,000. It also considered ‘Western Sydney’ (population 1,060,000) as a subset of Greater Sydney (population 5,030,000). This was important because many of the key statistics about Greater Sydney are different when the lens is applied specifically to Western Sydney.

16.2.1 Trends and Pattern of Urbanisation Since colonisation, Australia has been overwhelmingly an urban nation. Even in 1950, close to 80% of Australia’s population lived in urban settlements. The level of urbanisation increased during 1950–1980 and became 85.6% in 1980. After a period of increasing urbanisation level, 1980–2000 registered a decline in the share of urban population and it reached 84.2 in 2000. However, the urban population was growing at the annual rate of 1.23% during this period. After 2000, it again started increasing and reached 86% in 2018. It is projected that by 2050, the level of urbanisation will increase to 91% level (WUP 2018). 3 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject/1270.0.55.004~July%

202016~Main%20Features~Different%20Definitions%20of%20Urban~6.

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

381

Fig. 16.1 Map of Australia’s major cities with populations greater than 100,000. Source Australian Government (2010a), Our Cities-building a productive, sustainable and liveable future: Discussion Paper, Fig. 16.2

Australia’s urbanisation is extremely top-heavy in nature. The major cities with populations greater than 100,000 are much bigger than other regional centres, creating ‘metropolitan primacy’ in the country (McGurik and Argent 2011). In 2016, more than 70% of Australian citizens lived in these major cities (ABS 2016). These major cities (Fig. 16.1) are mostly located in the coastal areas, especially the south and east coast. The two largest cities, i.e. Sydney and Melbourne, are located in the south-eastern coastal region. Harsh climatic condition in the inland is responsible for the regional concentration of population (Bolleter and Weller 2010). Australia’s total population increased from 19.86 million in 2006 to 24.13 million in 2016 with an annual average growth rate of 1.6%. The population growth rate was highest (1.9%) in the major city regions during the same period (ABS 2016). It also shows population is becoming more concentrated in the major cities, with 79.6% of the Australian population living in a major city in 2016, compared to 76.1% a decade earlier.4 It is also noted that some of the major cities such as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth had rapid population growth during this period (Fig. 16.2). During that decade, the capital city populations increased dramatically (28.3%) accommodating 3.58 million additional people. This compares with 21.4% growth in the largest 4 Note

there have been some amendments to statistical boundaries of cities between 2006 and 2016 census data (e.g. SDIST to SUAs for non-capital cities, some minor boundary changes to GSSAs etc.).

382

S. Stace Bendigo 2006

Ballarat

2016

Toowoomba Darwin * Cairns Townsville Hobart * Geelong Wollongong Sunshine Coast Canberra-Queanbeyan * Central Coast Newcastle -Maitland Gold Coast-Tweed Adelaide * Perth * Brisbane * Melbourne * Sydney * Rest of Australia -

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Fig. 16.2 Australia’s major cities with populations greater than 100,000, in 2006 and 2016. Source Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006 Census and (ABS) 2016 estimate reported in National Cities Performance Framework; Note: The source data uses GSSAs for capital cities and SUAs for non-capital cities in 2016 (previously SDIST in 2006). 2016 data from https:// data.gov.au/dataset/dd765967-3f01-44ee-9e18-815c3f7ebb3f/resource/66ddbfc2-9b6f-486f-a15b0de2342dcc49/download/national-cities-performance-framework.csv (updated 7/12/2017). Major city defined as population >100,000. Capital cities are marked with an asterisk *

10 regional cities (0.52 million additional people), and 3.6% growth in the rest of Australia (0.17 million). Some rural and regional towns have experienced a reduction in population particularly in inland Australia as job opportunities shrink in rural and regional towns. In the coming decades, Australia’s overall population is projected to increase substantially. Projections show that, between 2017 and 2042, an additional 7.7 to 12.0 million more people will live in Australia, totalling between 32.3 and 36.6 million people.5 Figure 16.3 shows a visual equivalent of the medium-growth scenario for the capital cities, which will grow by a combined number of around 7.25 million people. This growth is equivalent to an additional 17.9 Canberras, 3.4 Perths, 3.0 Brisbanes, 1.6 Melbournes or 1.2 Sydneys in 25 years. Most of the growth will be because of increase of population in major cities (McGurik and Argent 2011).

5 ABS,

2018, Population Projections, Australia, 2017 (base) to 2066 (cat.3222.0).

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

383

Fig. 16.3 7.25 million more people living in the capital cities would be equivalent to … Note: Graphic prepared by Sara Stace, illustrating the equivalent of 7.25 million people compared to existing capital city footprints in 2011. Not strictly to scale. Based on concept in Weller + Bolleter (2013) Made in Australia. Source ABS, 2018, Population Projections, Australia, 2017 (base) to 2066 (cat.3222.0) medium-growth scenario, series B, multiplied by 75% to get the capital city projections

16.2.2 Where Does the Country Stand in Terms of Urbanisation and Socio-economic Development in the Region/Continent and Correlations There is a discernable economic, social and health divide between inner-city locations, the sub-urban fringes of the cities, and the inland rural and regional areas of Australia. Most of the major cities constitute the wealthiest parts of the country. The SEIFA index (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018),6 which is commonly used to rank areas by their level of advantage or disadvantage, shows that the top ten least disadvantaged areas in Australia are a handful of inner-city local government areas (LGAs) in Western Australia (4 inner-city LGAs of Perth) and New South Wales (6 LGAs in the inner east and north shore of Sydney). By contrast, the top ten locations with extreme disadvantage are concentrated in remote Indigenous communities in Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia. In 2006, only 2.7% of Australians lived in remote or very remote areas but 13.7% of these areas were categorised as disadvantaged areas, compared with 5.1% 6 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) based on 2016

Census data, http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa.

384

S. Stace

in major cities. Over 15% of people in the Northern Territory live in disadvantaged areas, which also has the lowest levels of urbanisation. At the other end of the scale, the Australian Capital Territory, which is the most urbanised state or territory, has less than 1% of people in disadvantaged areas (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). These figures highlight that there is a strong urban and regional divide in Australia on a range of factors, including urbanisation growth and socio-economic development. There are also pockets of disadvantage within the major cities themselves (particularly Western Sydney) as well as between each of the major cities.

16.3 Major Urban Challenges Australian cities are facing challenges related to population growth and their growing demand for housing, basic amenities and employment opportunities. Again, the consequences of change in the climatic condition such as decline in rainfall and increasing temperature are also affecting the cities. Therefore, acute water crisis, housing shortage and enhanced real-estate price, increasing pressure of in-migration, back log in the provision of basic services and employment opportunities are main challenges Australian large cities are facing.

16.3.1 Water Crisis Australia is the driest inhabited continent on earth. While all of its major cities are located on or near a major water body, increasing demand for fresh water from population growth, agriculture and industry—combined with declining rainfall and higher average temperatures over the past 60 years—has creating unbalanced demand and supply (Australian Government 2012, p. 140). Over the past sixty years, rainfall reductions of 20% or more have been recorded in Perth, Melbourne, Hobart and Geelong (Fig. 16.5). The cities suffer from the harsh climatic conditions. The inland major cities (Toowoomba, Canberra and AlburyWodonga) are recording large increases in average temperature and decreases in rainfall. Toowoomba’s annual average rainfall dropped 33% from 1113 mm in 1952 to 744 mm in 2011. Conversely, the northern tropical cities of Darwin and Cairns are showing higher average rainfalls, with Darwin’s rainfall increasing 23% from 1582 mm in 1952 to 1941 mm in 2011. Australia’s capital cities use a combination of surface water, desalinated water (particularly Perth and Adelaide), underground water (particularly Perth), and interregion inflow from nearby water sources (Melbourne) (Fig. 16.4). Many attempts have been made to resolve water supply issues. Seawater desalination plants were constructed in Perth, Gold Coast, Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne between 2006

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

385

Fig. 16.4 Urban water use, capital cities, 2012–2018. Source Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology (2018) (www.bom.gov.au/water/nwa/2018/urban/index.shtml)

and 2012,7 although not all have been commissioned and energy costs for operations are high.

16.3.2 Housing Australian major cities are facing challenges from the growing demand for housing. Major capital cities, which are the major absorber of growing population, are already under huge pressure to accommodate rapid growing population. The National Housing Supply Council (2010) has projected a cumulative gap of 640,600 dwellings by 2029 at national level, based on moderate population growth (cited in McGurik and Argent 2011). Australians prefer spacious living. Even in 2017, most dwelling types in Australia are detached houses (averaging 74% of all dwellings). However, there are large variations between the cities, with a much smaller proportion of detached houses in Sydney (55%), Gold Coast (54%) and Darwin (59%); and more than 83% in Bendigo, 7 Australian

Water Association Desalination_Fact_Sheet.aspx).

(www.awa.asn.au/AWA_MBRR/Publications/Fact_Sheets/

386

S. Stace

Fig. 16.5 Rainfall in southern Australia 2017–2018 compared with historical records (1911–2017). Source Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology (2018) (www.bom.gov.au/water/nwa/2018/ urban/index.shtml)

Geelong and Hobart (Fig. 16.6). Western Sydney has a closer profile to Launceston or Townsville than to the rest of Greater Sydney. The big cities also noted sharp increase in the multi-unit dwelling8 during the last decade to deal with the increasing housing demand. During 2001–2006 period, it increased by 8.8% points in CanberraQueanbeyan, 5.7% points in Greater Sydney and 5.3% points in Greater Melbourne compared to national average of 3.1 (ABS 2016). The rising housing demand has led to the increase in the property prices, especially in the bigger cities. Payment stress9 is a major challenge faced by the residents. In 2017, on average, 17.6% of households in Australia suffered housing payment stress, with 12% suffering rent stress and a further 5.6% suffering mortgage stress. The highest rates, with more than 20% of households in housing payment stress, are in the large cities such as Newcastle, Sydney and Sunshine Coast, while in Canberra it is 11% (Fig. 16.7). Therefore, Australia urgently needs an efficient plan to tackle the emerging housing shortage. 8 It

captures the extent to which the dwelling stock is comprised of higher-density multi-unit dwellings—such as semi-detached dwellings, flats, units and apartments—rather than separate (standalone) houses, caravans or cabins. 9 Payment stress i.e. rent stress or mortgage stress occurs when a household pays more than 30% of income to rent or mortgage payments.

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

387

Average Sydney * Melbourne * Brisbane * Perth * Adelaide * Western Sydney Gold Coast-Tweed Newcastle-Maitland Canberra * Sunshine Coast Wollongong Geelong Hobart * Townsville Cairns Darwin * Toowoomba Ballarat Bendigo Albury-Wodonga Launceston Mackay 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Flat or apartment

Semi-detached house

Detached house

Other dwelling type

Fig. 16.6 Dwelling types, by major city, 2016. Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smart-cities.dashboard.gov.au/allcities/overview). Note: Capital Cities marked with *

16.3.3 Transport Journeys to work are dominated by private motor vehicle travel, with nearly 9 out of 10 Australian adults commuting to work by car. Australian cities are characterised by urban sprawl and the residents of sub-urban districts tend to commute long distances. The use of private vehicle costs Australian households around $10,000 per household per annum (BITRE 2018, Spending by Australian households on owning and operating vehicles in 2015–16) and also contributes to the environmental degradation. Only 6.1% travel by public transport and another 4.3% walk or cycle (often referred to as active transport). However, travel patterns vary dramatically by city size and population density, as illustrated in Fig. 16.8. The larger cities and the capital cities of Canberra, Hobart and Darwin have a much higher rate of non-private car use. In Greater Sydney, this is as high as 28% of work trips and in Melbourne it is 20%. There is a very high correlation between population density and the use of public and active transport (Fig. 16.8). Still these cities need to provide more efficient public transport systems to cater to demand of the growing population.

388

S. Stace

Average Sydney * Melbourne * Brisbane * Perth * Adelaide * Western Sydney Gold Coast-Tweed Newcastle-Maitland Canberra * Sunshine Coast Wollongong Geelong Hobart * Townsville Cairns Darwin * Toowoomba Ballarat Bendigo Albury-Wodonga Launceston Mackay 0.00%

5.00%

Households in rent stress

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

Households in mortgage stress

Fig. 16.7 Housing payment stress, by major city, proportion of all households, 2016. Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https:// smart-cities.dashboard.gov.au/all-cities/overview). Note: Capital cities marked with *

16.3.4 Health Life expectancy in Australia is very high, averaging 82.1 years across the major cities. However, there is a significant difference between the most populated cities (Sydney and Melbourne) where the life expectancy at birth is 83.7 years, compared to the least populated cities (Launceston and Albury-Wodonga) where life expectancy at birth is 80.8 years (Fig. 16.9). Smoking, overweight and alcohol consumption are the three highest risk factors for burden of disease in Australia. Smoking accounted for 9.0% of the disease burden in 2011, followed by overweight and obesity (5.5%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018). These factors are strongly correlated with socio-economic disadvantage and the rural–urban divide in Australia. For example, individuals from lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to be overweight or obese, with differences particularly high for women. Almost 2 in 3 (63%) women in the lowest socioeconomic group are overweight or obese compared with 47% in the highest socioeconomic group. As a result, disability-adjusted life years (DALY) for the lowest quintile socio-economic groups are significantly higher for a range of related diseases including coronary heart disease (10 DALYs for the lowest quintile compared to 4 DALYS for the highest

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

389

Fig. 16.8 Travel to work by public transport and active transport as a proportion of all work trips (bottom axis); compared to population density, persons per square kilometre (top axis), 2016. Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smart-cities.dashboard.gov.au/all-cities/overview)

quintile), diabetes (7 DALYS compared to 3), stroke (4:2), and chronic kidney disease (ibid. Fig. 4.3). Rates of overweight and obesity are increasing rapidly for all demographics. In 2017, more than two thirds (67%) of adult Australians were overweight or obese, a significant increase from 56% in 1995 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018). Overall, adults in regional areas are more likely to be overweight or obese than their city counterparts (72% compared with 65%) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017). Factors associated with obesity and overweight, such as consumption of sugary drinks and sedentary lifestyles, are all shown to be higher in remote and regional Australia. All these factors can explain the lower life expectancy in smaller and remotely located cities, compared to larger towns.

390

S. Stace

Sydney * Melbourne * Brisbane * Perth * Adelaide * Western Sydney Gold Coast-Tweed Newcastle-Maitland Canberra * Sunshine Coast Wollongong Geelong Hobart * Townsville Cairns Darwin * Toowoomba Ballarat Bendigo Albury-Wodonga Launceston Mackay 79

79.5

80

80.5

81

81.5

82

82.5

83

83.5

84

Fig. 16.9 Life expectancy at birth, in years, by city, 2016 (with trendline). Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smartcities.dashboard.gov.au/all-cities/overview). Note: Capital cities marked with *. This figure shows the trend line from the smallest to largest cities

16.3.5 Education Although Australia’s urban populations are relatively well educated, there are clear differences between cities, and even within the larger cities (Fig. 16.10). In regional cities such as Launceston, only 43% of people over 15 years of age have completed secondary education, compare to 64% in Sydney. With higher economic opportunities in high tech industries, Sydney attracts a large number of highly educated people, even from overseas. The nation’s capital Canberra have 75% residents with completed secondary education with an additional 57% with a Bachelor’s degree, Certificate III, IV, Diploma or higher. This presumably reflects the high proportion of federal public servants located in Canberra. Intra-city variation in terms of educational attainment can be noted in big cities such as Sydney. In Greater Sydney, overall educational attainment is high (64% completed secondary school), compared to 51% in Western Sydney. Such intra-city variation in education level can lead to reduced social cohesion.

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

391

Sydney * Melbourne * Brisbane * Perth * Adelaide * Western Sydney Gold Coast-Tweed Newcastle-Maitland Canberra * Sunshine Coast Wollongong Geelong Hobart * Townsville Cairns Darwin * Toowoomba Ballarat Bendigo Albury-Wodonga Launceston Mackay 0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

EducaƟon aƩainment - Year 12

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

140.00%

EducaƟon aƩainment - Bachelor Degree or Higher

EducaƟon aƩainment - CerƟficate III, IV or Diploma

Fig. 16.10 Educational attainment, by city, 2016. Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smart-cities.dashboard.gov.au/allcities/overview). Note Western Sydney is a subset of Sydney. Capital cities marked *

16.3.6 Employment The economic opportunities are mostly concentrated in the major cities, especially the two biggest cities, i.e. Sydney and Melbourne. The emerging economic opportunities are mainly in hightech service industries which is attracting highly educated people from overseas. Even the generation of employment is concentrated in and around these cities. Unemployment was relatively low with the major cities averaging 5.5% in 2016. It is lower in Canberra (3.8%), Darwin (3.4%) and Sydney (4.7%) compared to other major cities (Fig. 16.11). Youth unemployment is a serious concern in Australia. The country’s average is higher than the figure for many developed countries. It is noted that in 2016, youth unemployment is more than double (11.9%) the average unemployment rate for the country. Again the indigenous unemployment rate is even higher (15.4%). Smaller regional cities are under serious threat because of the lack of employment opportunities there. It is seen that in some smaller regional cities, particularly Townsville, Cairns, and Adelaide, youth and/or indigenous unemployment is as high as 23% (Fig. 16.11).

392

S. Stace

25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

Unemployment rate, past 12 months Youth unemployment rate, past 12 months Indigenous unemployment rate

Fig. 16.11 Unemployment rate, by city, 2016. Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smart-cities.dashboard.gov.au/allcities/overview)

Australia is performing relatively well on gender parity. Figure 16.12 shows 60% female work participation and 70% male work participation. However, there are some disparities between different cities. The gender difference is lowest for Canberra, Darwin and Brisbane. Conversely, the gender difference in Sydney and Melbourne is higher compared to the average figure. Again, there are intra-city variations in terms of gender difference in work participation rate. Gender difference in Western Sydney is much higher than Greater Sydney. This phenomenon is due to the spatially complex labour market, creating spatial barriers for women in some parts of the city.

16.3.7 Urban Poverty There are clear differences in socio-economic disadvantage across the different regions and cities of Australia. Inter-city as well as intra-city variation can be noted. Figure 16.13 shows that the least disadvantaged city is Canberra (index rating 1080) while the most disadvantaged cities are Launceston and Western Sydney (index rating 960).

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt 90.00%

ParƟcipaƟon rate: males, past 12 months

393 ParƟcipaƟon rate: females, past 12 months

80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

Fig. 16.12 Employment participation rates, male and female, by major city, 2016. Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smartcities.dashboard.gov.au/all-cities/overview)

1080 1060 1040 1020 1000 980 960 940 920 900

Fig. 16.13 Index of relative socio-economic disadvantage, by city, 2016. Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smart-cities. dashboard.gov.au/all-cities/overview)

16.3.8 Migration The major cities like Sydney and Melbourne are the magnets of inter-regional as well as international migration. Figure 16.14 shows the percentage of population who speak a language other than English at home. This is a proxy indicator that

394

S. Stace

40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00%

Fig. 16.14 People that speak a language other than English at home, percentage of population, by city. Source Australian Government (updated 2017) National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smart-cities.dashboard.gov.au/all-cities/overview)

first-generation migrants to Australia tend to live in the largest cities. In Sydney (including Western Sydney) and Melbourne, around 35% of people speak a language other than English. The capital cities of Darwin, Canberra, Adelaide and Perth also have high levels of around 20% non-English speaking households. At the other end of the spectrum, in the smaller regional cities of Bendigo and Ballarat, only 5% of households speak a language other than English. In migration of highly educated migrants increase the productivity level in the large cities. On the contrary, huge inmigration to these cities leads to over-crowding in these cities. An efficient planning is required to successfully absorb the productive migrant population without creating pressure on infrastructure and other resources. The large cities in the east coast not only benefit from the favourable climatic conditions, but also from economic opportunities, infrastructure and human capital. The majority of the highly educated population are concentrated in this region. Hence, a significant regional disparity of inland-coast as well as east-west can be noted. Again, most employment is concentrated in the larger cities only, increasing the risk of unemployment and socio-economic vulnerability in the smaller cities. Intra-city disparity is also a major characteristic of Australian large cities, especially Sydney. Sydney and Melbourne offer the largest opportunity in the national growth of Australia. Thus, the cities need an effective and long-term policy framework that can manage the increasing population pressure on these cities at one hand and can make these cities economically productive and environmentally sustainable at the other.

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

395

16.4 NUP—Why, When, What, and How ‘The potential for national-level urban policy in Australia is shaped by wider constitutional and governmental architecture. Australia’s federal government possesses strong taxation and revenue raising powers plus critical responsibilities of immigration control, which regulates population flows and thus urban growth rates, as well as interest rate settings which influence aggregate business and dwelling investment, particularly in commercial development and housing… Conversely, the states have responsibility for an array of services and infrastructure, including strategic urban planning, development regulation and most physical urban infrastructure, such as water, electricity, sewers, roads and rail. Yet, the states have weak revenue powers from which they can fund such services and infrastructure… Thus, [there is a] constitutional policy tension between a well-resourced Commonwealth with constrained leverage on direct service provision accompanied by capable states who have limited funds with which to resource their urban planning schemes and deliver infrastructure. It is from this conundrum which contemporary urban policy has emerged, as it has on multiple previous occasions’ (Dodson 2013). Since the end of World War II, there have been five key phases of Australian Government’s intervention into urban development, with some significant gaps. The first phase started with the post-war reconstruction period (1945–1966) to address housing shortages through a rental housing construction programme and promotion of metropolitan planning schemes. However, the policy effort led to the rising prices of land in the inner city from the gentrification. This also caused relocation of lowincome residents to the suburbs. The second phase initiated as change in government and by the establishment of a Department of Urban and Regional Development (1972–1975) by Tom Uren and Prime Minister Gough Whitlam attempted to address spatial development imbalances and urban service deficits through the expansion of public housing and the installation of sewerage in urban areas (ibid.). The third phase took place between 1991 and 1996, the Building Better Cities funding programme created by Brian Howe and Prime Minister Paul Keating aimed to increase economic competitiveness and undertake public sector reform, by funding a number of major place-based redevelopment projects in cities throughout Australia and creating metropolitan redevelopment authorities. It involved a total public sector investment of $2.3 billion, including a federal government contribution of $816 million (AHURI Research Synthesis Service 2009). The fourth phase, between 2008 and 2013, the Major Cities Unit, established by Anthony Albanese and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, worked with Infrastructure Australia and the COAG Reform Council to undertake reforms to policy and investment. The unit launched the first National Urban Policy and a series of related policy documents including the national Urban Design Protocol (Australian Government 2011a) and national Active Transport Policy (Australian Government 2013a, b).

396

S. Stace

More recently the Smart Cities Plan (2016–2019) by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull aimed to stimulate innovation and cross-government integration at key locations, through a series of multi-million dollar City Deals.10 The following sections describe the National Urban Policy and Smart Cities Plan in further detail.

16.4.1 National Urban Policy Our Cities Our Future: a national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future (2011) In 2011, the Australian Government released its first National Urban Policy, titled, ‘Our Cities, our Future: a national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future’. The policy established the Australian Government’s objectives and directions for the major cities. It recognised the critical roles of State, Territory and local governments, the private sector and individuals, in planning, managing and investing in cities. It also highlighted that the Australian Government makes decisions that impact upon urban Australia, and therefore should understand the implications of its decision making on the three quarters of the population who live in major urban areas. It was the first time that an Australian Government had sought to outline its overarching goals for the nation’s cities and what its specific role was in achieving those goals. The document was principally about how the Australian Government could facilitate better outcomes in our cities through both direct investment and by influencing the actions of others. It aimed to set a vision to deliver future prosperity and wellbeing for Australia’s communities and reinforce the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) national objective ‘to ensure Australian cities are globally competitive, productive, sustainable, liveable, socially inclusive and well placed to meet future challenges and growth’. The National Urban Policy established the first long-term national framework to guide policy development and public and private investment in Australia’s major cities, with the three goals of improving the productivity, sustainability and liveability of major urban centres. These goals were further allocated into 14 objectives, underpinned by a suite of principles, as illustrated in Fig. 16.15. The Australian National Urban Policy included a Summary Action Plan11 which outlined the key initiatives that were planned or underway, by various Australian Government agencies, which were related to the major cities. These initiatives were divided into short-, medium- and long-term initiatives and aligned to the goals and objectives of the National Urban Policy. Examples included funding allocations, policy documents and governance structures. The National Urban Policy was

10 Australian

index.aspx. 11 In Chap. 8.

Government, website on City Deals, https://infrastructure.gov.au/cities/city-deals/

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

397

Fig. 16.15 Australian National Urban Policy 2011—goals, objectives and principles. Source Australian Government (2011b), ‘Our Cities, Our Future: a national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future’ Fig. 3

intended to complement the Australian Government’s concurrent ‘Sustainable Population Strategy’; and a commitment to Regional Australia by recognising the strong interrelationships between cities and regions. Concurrent with the release of the National Urban Policy, the Australian Government issued a series of annual reports, titled ‘State of Australian Cities’ (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015) which aimed to collate and analyse data from a wide range of sources, on city-related issues. An appendix to the 2012 and 2013 State of Australian Cities reports tabled the progress of implementing each item in the National Urban Policy Summary Action Plan. The National Urban Policy document was based on significant consultation and an earlier discussion paper, ‘Our Cities—building a productive, sustainable and liveable future’, (Australian Government 2010a) and background paper, ‘Our Cities—the

398

S. Stace

challenge of change,’ (Australian Government 2010b) which were both released for public consultation in December 2010. A three-month consultation process was held, and more than 200 submissions received. In addition, around 400 state, territory and local governments, industry and community representatives attended consultation meetings across all 18 Australian major cities. A further 40 representatives of nongovernment organisations and urban researchers contributed to workshops. Feedback from this consultation was used to informed the development of the final National Urban Policy document. The main messages drawn from the consultation process included the following which led to the formulation of Australia’s first NUP were: • broad agreement to the aspirations; • the Australian Government has an important, but often poorly defined, role in the planning, development and management of cities; • many Australian Government policies, investment programmes and activities have a significant influence on how cities function and grow; • a greater understanding of the spatial implications of Australian Government and State activities in cities is required; • a call for greater Australian Government leadership in cities, but a strong assurance was also sought that the constitutional roles of States and Territories would be respected; • the systems currently in place to manage cities are not adequate to meet the challenges of cities. Accordingly, cities need to be more proactively managed to meet their current and future challenges, including: – accommodating future population growth through adequate planning and investment in social and economic infrastructure; – securing the future prosperity of Australian cities by ensuring cities are globally competitive and can support Australia’s economic growth; – ensuring that cities can meet the needs of future generations by way of sustainable development and preserving and protecting the environment and natural resources; – promoting healthy, equitable communities and lifestyles in cities and facilitating access to jobs and opportunities; and – supporting governance frameworks which enable efficient and effective planning, management and investment in cities in order to give long-term certainty to investors and communities.

16.4.2 Smart Cities Plan (2016) In 2016, the Australian Government released the Smart Cities Plan (Australian Government 2016) which effectively replaced the earlier National Urban Policy as the guiding urban policy document for the federal government. The Smart Cites Plan

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

399

was based on three pillars: Smart Investment, Smart Policy and Smart Technology (Box 16.1). Box 16.1: Smart Cities Plan—Three Pillars We will become smarter investors in our cities’ infrastructure We will prioritise projects that meet broader economic and city objectives such as accessibility, jobs, affordable housing and healthy environments. We will treat infrastructure funding as a long term investment not a grant and get involved early to ensure projects create opportunities for urban renewal and raise private capital. By drawing on innovative financing approaches— including value capture—we will leverage our balance sheet and deliver more essential infrastructure sooner. We will coordinate and drive smarter city policy We will work across all levels of government to develop City Deals that unlock public and private investment in key economic centres. By incentivising reforms we will generate additional benefits for the economy making cities better places to live in and do business. We will collect and analyse data about the performance of our cities, so we can measure our policies’ success and respond to new needs. We will drive the take up of smart technology, to improve the sustainability of our cities and drive innovation We will embrace new technology with the potential to revolutionise how cities are planned, function, and how our economy grows. Disruptive new technology in transport, communications and energy efficiency are becoming a reality—we will position our cities to take full advantage. We will leverage real time open data driven solutions and support investment in sectors commercialising new innovations to grow Australia’s economy. Source Australian Government (2016), Smart Cities Plan In addition, a National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard was released in December 2017, to replace the annual publication of the State of Australian Cities reports. The dashboard collated critical data on major cities in an accessible online format, covering jobs and skills, housing, infrastructure, liveability, innovation and planning; and using a combination of performance and context indicators.12 A key component of the Smart Cities Plan was the establishment of City Deals. The City Deals are a partnership between the three levels of government and the community ‘to align the planning, investment and governance necessary to accelerate growth and job creation, stimulate urban renewal and drive economic reforms’.13 12 National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard (https://smart-cities.dashboard.gov.au/allcities/overview) with current data sourced from 2016 Census and other data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 13 Australian Government, website on City Deals, https://infrastructure.gov.au/cities/city-deals/ index.aspx.

400

S. Stace

Each City Deal is tailored to the specific circumstances of that location. By early 2020, seven City Deals had been agreed (Townsville, Launceston, Western Sydney, Darwin, Hobart, Geelong and Adelaide); and two more have been announced (SouthEast Queensland and Perth). For example, the Western Sydney City Deal is a 20-year partnership between the Australian Government, New South Wales Government, and eight local governments with current financial commitments of around $385 million. The City Deal builds on the Australian Government’s $5.3 billion investment in Western Sydney Airport, which will be a catalyst for economic activity and job growth, providing long-term employment opportunities for local residents and meeting Sydney’s growing aviation needs. (Australian Government 2018b)

Based around the planned second airport for Sydney and Western Parkland City, the agreement incorporates 38 commitments that will build a job-focused aerotropolis for 200,000 jobs including an Aerospace Institute and agribusiness precinct; rail and road links; and a $150 million Liveability Programme (ibid.). By contrast, the Darwin City Deal is a ten-year plan with combined commitments of around $218 million of federal, territory and local funding. It will aim to build a new education and civic precinct; a new art gallery; an urban living lab to test heat mitigation; revitalise State Square and unlock the Harbour Foreshore for further urban development (Australian Government 2018a).

16.5 Critical Review and Lessons Learned from NUP Why was a second NUP necessary? The Australian Government replaced its National Urban Policy 2011 in 2016 with its Smart Cities Plan. The reasons for the change largely hinged on the change of government, with the new government intent on pursuing a stronger innovation agenda for cities. Whereas the 2011 document was based on achieving outcomes for productivity, sustainability and liveability (see Fig. 16.15); the 2016 document was focused on mechanisms and outputs and did not specifically articulate the outcomes that such mechanisms were meant to achieve. In this sense, the 2011 National Urban Policy was more closely aligned with the UN-Habitat SDGs, while the 2016 Smart Cities Plan specifically addressed the Smart Cities agenda.

16.5.1 Green and Smart Cities in Australia The Smart Cities Plan (2016) specifically addressed the topic of smart cities, backed by a $50 million Smart Cities and Suburbs Programme, announced as part of the Smart Cities Plan. Around 90 projects around Australia have been funded as part of this programme. The guidelines for the programme stated that:

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

401

The programme supports projects that apply smart technology, data-driven decision making and people-focused design to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits in metropolitan and regional urban centres. Projects will deliver innovative solutions that transform the local government sector, advance community goals and address the needs of residents. The programme will help to establish smart city innovation eco-systems and move Australia towards a global leadership position in smart city solutions.14

The aim of the programme was to encourage collaborative projects involving partners across multiple sectors and urban centres in order to: • grow smart cities capability and capacity through shared knowledge and expertise • drive innovation and wide adoption of solutions • advance standards and improve regulation. The intended outcomes of the programme were to: • improve the liveability and sustainability of cities, suburbs and towns through the application of smart technology solutions to economic, social and environmental challenges • increase openly available public and private data sets to support citizen engagement, unlock innovation, and create new business opportunities • increase innovation and capability in local governments through collaboration and smart city innovation ecosystem development • contribute to development of smart city standards and improvement of regulation impacting the roll-out and use of smart technology. Progress and results of the programme can be viewed at https://infrastructure.gov. au/cities/smart-cities/collaboration-platform/.

16.5.2 Are the NUP Aligned Towards NUA and SDGs? The underlying framework of Australia’s 2011 National Urban Policy—through its key goals of productivity, liveability and sustainability—aligned closely with the United Nations New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework. The more recent 2016 Smart Cities Plan made a passing reference to Goal 11 to make cities more inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, but did not explicitly cross-reference how these initiatives would deliver the New Urban Agenda and SDG outcomes. The Smart Cities website stated, ‘The Australian Government is already making a significant contribution towards achievement of Goal 11 through key domestic

14 Australian

Government, Smart Cities and Suburbs Program (https://infrastructure.gov.au/cities/ smart-cities/).

402

S. Stace

initiatives such as the Smart Cities Plan, City Deals, the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program and the National Cities Performance Framework’.15 The first Voluntary National Review (Australian Government 2018c, p. 76) on the 2030 Agenda at the United Nations High Level Political Forum in 2018 listed the three initiatives by the Australian Government, i.e. Smart Cites Plan, National Strategy for Disaster Resilience and National Risk Assessment Guidelines. Smart City Plan adopted in 2016 has three pioneer initiatives to achieve long-term sustainable goals, i.e. its City Deals, National Cities Performance Framework (an online performance assessment platform) and Smart Cities and Suburbs Programme (to create a sustainable and greener liveable space). All these initiatives are in a right direction to achieve the SDGs Agenda.

16.6 Conclusion and Future Perspective The first National Urban Policy ‘Our Cities Our Future’, released in 2011, took an explicit approach to achieving the triple-bottom line outcomes of productivity, sustainability and liveability for the 18 major cities in Australia with populations over 100,000 people. It also had an accompanying reporting framework—initially an annual ‘State of Australian Cities’ report in pdf format and now as a web-based National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard, containing freely available data. Actions outlined in the policy included undertaking the recommendations of the COAG Reform Council for capital city strategic planning systems, the development of a national urban design policy (Creating Places for People) (Australian Government 2011a) and national active transport policy (Walking, Riding and Access to Public Transport) (Australian Government 2013a, b), as well as a draft of actions by Infrastructure Australia. It was accompanied by a relatively small direct funding allocation of $20 million to local governments under the Liveable Cities programme. Several billion dollars of urban-based projects were also leveraged through Infrastructure Australia, the Nation Building-Economic Stimulus Plan, the $5.64 billion Social Housing Initiative and other means (Australian Government 2011d). It is difficult to quantify what amounts were specifically attributable to the National Urban Policy itself, but it is clear that the process of preparing and reporting on the National Urban Policy did assist the Australian Government, particularly Infrastructure Australia as an independent advisor to government, to consider and address the urban consequences of its funding programmes and reform agenda. The 2016 ‘Smart Cities Plan’ concentrated more on the mechanisms for achieving smart city outcomes, with an emphasis on innovation and reform in specific city locations—delivered through programmes such as the City Deals and the $50 million

15 Australian Government, Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, statement on SDG Goal 11. https://infrastructure.gov.au/cities/Sustainable-Development-Goal-11. aspx.

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

403

Smart Cities and Suburbs grant programme. There have been several critiques of Australia’s National Urban Policies over the years. In this context, Dodson (2013) wrote that ‘The National Urban Policy is ambitious, yet also often overly general in its stance, such that a reasonable concern can be raised over whether the content required to offer a national-level degree of oversight, plus the need to cooperate with rather than dictate to the states has left the policy as earnest in intent but weak in application’. This is probably a reasonable assessment, given that the National Urban Policy was not a cabinet document, and there was no legislative means to secure its ongoing validity through changes of government. Tomlinson (2016) concluded that because national urban policies are essentially political treatises, they are unlikely to survive changes of government. Given Australia’s large vertical fiscal imbalance, whereby the federal government collects most taxation revenue and redistributes this to states and territories in the form of grants (Galligan 2014), most national-level policies have an impact on urban populations. ‘Examples include negative gearing, immigration and climate-change policies. The criterion of urban consequences should be integral to federal policy formation’ (Tomlinson 2016). Tomlinson recommends deeper structural change that would result in a devolution of responsibilities and fiscal decentralisation. The City Deals, developed as part of the Smart Cities plan should, arguably, be able to deliver on both of these criticisms. As long-term (10 or 20 year) agreements between all three levels of government, they provide some devolution of responsibility and funding to local governments, The City Deals are also likely to survive multiple terms of government and changes to National Urban Policy documents, and involve significant amount of funding tailored to a place-based approach. Further changes in Australia’s National Urban Policy landscape are anticipated in future and, most likely, more City Deal agreements as well. The City Deals will be able to increase the economic productivity of the respective cities along with creation of new job opportunities as it was in case of cities of UK. As a concluding remark, it can be mentioned that Australia’s NUP and the more recently formulated Smart City Plan are not perfect. The government continuously tried to monitor its progress through series of reports and made it available for the citizens. This effort is commendable and can be a lesson for other countries. Australia has also tried to learn from its past experience and identified its major limiting factor related to hurdles in the path of long-term policy framework due to frequent change of Government. To tackle this issue, they have adopted long-term City Deals following the UK model. This is a place-based and effective framework.

References AHURI Research Synthesis Service. (2009). Building better cities program synthesis and evaluation of literature. Commissioned by Major Cities Unit, Australian Government archived at https://docs. wixstatic.com/ugd/7a1536_857086c4eef84a199d8aea927f554452.pdf.

404

S. Stace

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006). 1351.0.55.013—Research Paper: Analysis of the Regional Distribution of Relatively Disadvantaged Areas using 2001 SEIFA, Jun 2006. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1351.0.55.013. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Census. Retrieved from https://data.gov.au/dataset/ dd765967-3f01-44ee-9e18-815c3f7ebb3f/resource/66ddbfc2-9b6f-486f-a15b-0de2342dcc49/ download/national-cities-performance-framework.csv. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). National Health Survey: First Results, 2017–18 (cat. no. 4364.0.55.001). Retrieved from www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/ 1E5FD7F41A101B22CA25836200045E63/$File/National%20Health%20Survey%20First% 20Results%202017-18.pdf. Australian Government. (2010a). Our cities—Building a productive, sustainable and liveable future—Discussion paper. Archived at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7a1536_ 492f293f61c24a11a5c97068e978c8bb.pdf. Australian Government. (2010b). Our cities—The challenge of change—Background paper. Archived at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7a1536_e9fbeaa1ae704393b75c8c0ae89c53c7.pdf. Australian Government. (2010c). State of Australian Cities reports, March. Retrieved from https:// infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/soac/2010.aspx. Australian Government. (2011a). Creating places for people: An urban design protocol for Australian cities, January. Archived at https://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/policy-publications/ publications/Creating-Places-for-People-an-urban-design-protocol-for-Australian-cities-2011. aspx. Australian Government. (2011b). Our cities, our future: A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future, May. Retrieved from https://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/ policy-publications/publications/files/Our_Cities_National_Urban_Policy_Paper_2011.pdf on 23.08.2018. Australian Government. (2011c). State of Australian Cities Reports, December. Canberra, Australia. Retrieved from https://infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/soac/2011.aspx. Australian Government. (2011d). 2011–2012 Budget. Retrieved from https://www.budget.gov.au/ 2011-12/content/ministerial_statements/urban/html/ms_urban-06.htm. Accessed on 23.08.2018. Australian Government. (2012). State of Australian Cities Reports. Retrieved from https:// infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/soac/2012.aspx. Australian Government. (2013a). Walking, riding and access to public transport: Supporting active travel in Australian communities. Archived at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7a1536_ 0c0ebc3ec1a24f7fb73b0e5668ca974e.pdf. Australian Government. (2013b). State of Australian Cities Reports. Retrieved from https:// infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/soac/2013.aspx. Australian Government. (2014–15). State of Australian Cities Reports. Retrieved from https:// infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/soac/index.aspx. Australian Government. (2016). Smart Cities Plan. Archived at https://infrastructure.gov.au/cities/ smart-cities/plan/index.aspx. Australian Government. (2018a). Darwin City Deal. Retrieved from https://citydeals.infrastructure. gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-12/Darwin%20City%20Deal%20final%20-%20Accessible% 20PDF.pdf. Australian Government. (2018b). Western Sydney City Deal, Implementation Plan, December. Retrieved from https://citydeals.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-12/WSCD% 20Implementation%20Plan.pdf. Accessed on 23.09.18. Australian Government. (2018c). Report on the implementation of the sustainable development goals. United Nations High–Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development 2018. Retrieved from https://dfat.gov.au/aid/topics/development-issues/2030-agenda/Documents/sdg-voluntarynational-review.pdf. Accessed on 10.01.19. Australian Government. (2018d). National Cities Performance Framework Dashboard. Retrieved from https://smart-cities.dashboard.gov.au/all-cities/overview. Accessed on 23.09.18.

16 Australian NUP—Lessons to Be Learnt

405

Australian Government, Bureau of Meteorology. (2018). National Water Account 2018. Archived at www.bom.gov.au/water/nwa/2018/urban/index.shtml. Australian Government, Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics BITRE. (2018). Spending by Australian households on owning and operating vehicles in 2015–16. Retrieved from https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2018/is-95. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2017). Impact of overweight and obesity as a risk factor for chronic conditions: Australian Burden of Disease Study (Cat. No. BOD 12). Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/f8618e51-c1c4-4dfb-85e0-54ea19500c91/ 20700.pdf.aspx?inline=true. Bolleter, J., & Weller, R. (2010). Growing pains: The 21st century urbanization of Australia. Landscape Architecture Australia, November 2010 (Issue 128). Retrieved from https://architectureau. com/articles/growing-pains-the-twenty-first/#img=2. Accessed on 30.08.2018. Dodson, J. (2013). Federal policy for Australia’s cities: The 2011 National Urban Policy in historical and comparative perspective. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/ 2013/11/apo-nid59878-1103391.pdf. Galligan, B. (2014). The Conversation, ‘Renewing federalism: what are the solutions to Vertical Fiscal Imbalance? (16/4/14) https://theconversation.com/renewing-federalism-what-are-thesolutions-to-vertical-fiscal-imbalance-31422. McGurik, P. M., & Argent, N. (2011). Population growth and change: Implications for Australia’s cities and regions. Faculty of Social Sciences Paper. University of Wollongong Research Online. Tomlinson, R. (2016). The Conversation, ‘New name, new look for latest national urban policy, but same old problem’ (17/5/2016) http://theconversation.com/new-name-new-look-for-latestnational-urban-policy-but-same-old-problem-59084. UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance. (2014). The evolution of national urban policies: A global overview. Retrieved from https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/National%20Urban% 20Policies.pdf.

Chapter 17

The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation Okju Jeong

Abstract Korea is one of the most densely populated (509 inhabitants/km2 , as of 2015) and urbanised countries in the world. Rapid industrialisation after the 1960s has been accompanied by massive urbanisation, and today, more than 80 per cent of the total population lives in cities and urban areas. Throughout this unprecedented urbanisation process, there have been national plans or strategies in place, which have guided urban and spatial development of the nation, and through which the national government has been seeking to coordinate its visions, goals and actions to achieve the nation’s development and provide an environment of well-being for its people. The purpose of this paper is to share the Korean experience of urban and territorial evolution through the lens of national urban policy and sustainable urban development. For this, the paper reviews key features of the Comprehensive National Territorial Plans (CNTPs) and the National Strategy for Green Growth (NSGG), and then tracks Korea’s endeavours to make its cities greener and smarter. Through the CNTPs, Korea succeeded in establishing a strong connection between the process of national development and the dynamics of urbanisation. On the other hand, the NSGG served as a catalyzer that has accelerated efforts for a more sustainable urbanisation, addressing issues of climate change and urban green growth. More recently, the smart city development has emerged as a transformative response to urban problems and a driver for growth in the era of the fourth industrial revolution. A decentralised urban Korea in a globalising world is faced with multiple challenges and opportunities today. Some of them are inherited, and others are newly arising. The last part of this paper is a discussion on the lessons and ways forward for future sustainable urbanisation in Korea, which may prove useful particularly to the developing countries at early stages of urban development. Keywords CNTP · NSGG · Green city · Smart city · Korea Disclaimer: The views expressed in this paper are the author’s own, and not related to the Asian Development Bank, for which the author is working as a consultant at the time of this book’s publication. O. Jeong (B) Consultant, Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong, Philippines e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_17

407

408

O. Jeong

17.1 Introduction Korea is one of the most densely populated (509 inhabitants/km2 , as of 2015) and urbanised countries in the world. Rapid industrialisation and economic growth after the 1960s have been accompanied by massive urbanisation. It is seen that during 1960–2010, the growth national income per capita increased about 180 times, and the level of urbanization almost tripled from 35 per cent to 90.6 per cent. The country’s urbanisation trajectory since the 1960s shows patterns which are similar to those of developing countries, but recent trends indicate that its current urbanisation is comparable to those in developed countries (OECD 2018). Challenges faced by most Korean urban centres today are diverse and include a resistant and increasing spatial disparities, economic stagnation and decline of urban centers in small- and medium-sized cities, weakening of local territorial identities, demographic change and urban vulnerability to climate disasters. At the same time, there are many emerging opportunities observed, including enhanced urban mobility, expanding interests in green and smart solutions in urban development, desires for an improved quality of life and livability, and increasing civic participation. There are numerous other cases, and each of this calls for different approaches from the past, aiming for the better quality of urban development. The purpose of this paper is to share the Korean experience of territorial evolution through the lens of sustainable urbanisation and national urban policy. As a tool for the implementation of the New Urban Agenda, the national urban policy refers to “a coherent set of decisions derived through a deliberate government-led process of coordinating and rallying various actors for a shared vision and goals that will promote more transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban development for the long term” (UN-Habitat 2015). In the strictest sense of the term, Korea had no dedicated national urban policy. However, there have been national plans or strategies in the country which have guided the urban and spatial development of the nation, and through which the government was seeking to coordinate its vision, goals and actions to achieve the nation’s development and provide an environment of well-being for its population. Under this context, this paper reviews the major role and achievements of the Comprehensive National Territorial Plans (CNTPs) and the National Strategy for Green Growth (NSGG) and then tracks Korea’s journey towards a greener and smarter urban development. The last part of this paper is a discussion of the lessons and ways forward for future sustainable urbanisation in Korea, which may prove useful particularly to the developing countries at early stages of urban development.

17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation

409

17.2 National Development Directive: From Top to Bottom 17.2.1 Comprehensive National Territorial Plans: Where It Worked and Where It Did not Work Korea has a long history of developing a national and centralised planning system. The government has customarily taken a dominant role in the economic and spatial development of Korea by adopting Five-Year Economic Development Plans starting from 1962, and Ten-Year CNTPs from 1972. The Five-Year Economic Development Plans were set to mobilise financial resources and to channel them to targeted industries, while the CNTPs were intended to be a guide to form a national spatial system that continued to support the former plans, by deciding where to locate target industries, and where to construct an infrastructure to support those industries (Kim 2001) (Table 17.1). Most economic studies conclude that for medium- to long-term periods of time, well-planned economic infrastructure investment plays a central role in improving competitiveness and leads to economic growth above and beyond the initial stimulus (World Economic Forum 2012). The infrastructure-driven economic development combines key policy characteristics inherited from many government-driven development models. Similarly, in the case of Korea, the CNTPs carried both the goals and directing principles that governed decisions about locations and scales of projects to be implemented by national and/or local governments. Being strongly supported by the high levels of political leadership, the first CNTP (1972–1981) played a decisive role in systematically directing the allocation of resources. They turned out to be efficient, especially when the country was in the very early stages of development and urbanisation. Unavoidably, the biggest challenge of such a national development model was the unevenness in the infrastructures’ provisions, which has long-term effects on both the national spatial structures and economic development. Critics have centred their arguments around the over-concentration of wealth and population in the Capital Region, consisting of Seoul Metroplitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City, and Gyeonggi Province, and few coastal cities where economic growth was concentrated. Over time, there have been multiple policy measures, too many to enumerate in this short paper, which were put in place in pursuit of more balanced territorial development and curbing the growth of the Capital Region.1 A spatial disparity or inequality of resources has been growing between regions and cities, and there are many reasons for this persistent mismatch. Some consider 1 For

examples, in early 1960 s already, specific policy measures were put in place, especially to mitigate urban disparity in front of burgeoning urban concentration on the Seoul metropolitan area. A Green Belt System was introduced from 1971 aiming to prevent urban sprawl and environmental degradation of outskirts of metropolitan cities of Seoul, Busan, Daegu, Kwangju and Daejeon. Since 1982, the Capital region is subject to the Capital Region Growth Management Act, and the corresponding Plans, which strictly control the urban expansion, land use, and location of economic activities and industries of the Capital Region.

USD319 (1972)

Need for greater national strength and increased industrialisation

• Improve management and efficient use of national territory • Expand infrastructure • Balanced development of resources with conservation of nature • Improve the quality of the living environment

• Construct large-scale industrial bases: From transportation, communication, water resource and energy supply networks • Strengthen the functions of depressed regions

Per capita GNP

Rationale

Basic objectives

Development strategies and policies

First CNTP (1972–1981)

Table 17.1 Overview of CNTPs from 1972 to 2001

• Create multinuclear territorial structure and regional lebensraums • Contain and manage the growth and Seoul and Busan • Expand infrastructures including transportation and communication to strengthen regional capabilities • Promote the development of underdeveloped regions

• Encourage population dispersal into provincial areas • Expand nationwide development potential • Enhance national welfare through improved living standards • Protect the national environment

Need for an improved living environment and dispersal of population away from the Capital Region

USD 1824 (1982)

Second CNTP (1982–1991)

Third CNTP (1992–2001)

(continued)

• Promote regional growth while alleviating population density in Capital Region • Create new industrial sites and enhance industrial structure • Build comprehensive high-speed transportation networks • Expand investment to enhance the quality of life and environmental amenities • Strengthen ability to implement the Plan and reformulate institutional based for land use • Develop management policies for exchange areas between North and South Korea and beginning of preparation for unified Korea

• Reorient development strategy to emphasise provincial regions • Develop a productive land use system that conserves resources • Improve public welfare and conserve the environment • Develop a national territorial foundation in anticipation of reunification

Need to improve infrastructure to enhance economic competitiveness and greater autonomy in local government

USD 7007 (1992)

410 O. Jeong

• Development approach focused on growth center • Unbalanced development centred around the Seoul–Busan axis

First CNTP (1972–1981)

Second CNTP (1982–1991) • Containment of growth in Seoul and Busan, and support of new growth centres to balance territorial development • Lack of administrative structure, causing regional disparities in implementation

Third CNTP (1992–2001) • Inadequate representation of trends towards globalisation, liberalisation and localisation • Variables such as the advent of WTO affecting basic conditions of the Plan

Source Government of the Republic of Korea, 2001, the Fourth Comprehensive National Territorial Plan in Korea (2000–2020) (English version)

Features and Problems

Table 17.1 (continued)

17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation 411

412

O. Jeong

the spatial inequality as an inevitable, negative outcome of the “Growth Pole” strategy and a cost to pay for rapid growth. Some empirical evidence suggests that policy controls over the course of urbanisation are often ineffective when they move against the market forces. Governmental interventions could create unwanted consequences or generate considerable socioeconomic costs, even though the objectives have good intent (Ding and Zhao 2012). There are also arguments about the gap between an ambitious strategic direction for a more balanced development and measures actually deployed, especially when the dominant value of the Korean society was still economic efficiency and growth. Some critics say that the Korean CNPTs, or National Territorial Planning, are half way successful as it failed in “remedying” the over concentration of the Capital Region but succeeded only in “managing” it. Meanwhile, new urban development agendas and planning means have been developed and introduced for application. They reflected evolutions of cities in Korea and primary values of Korean society and international trends, such as environmentally friendly development, decentralised governance and quality of living. Relative weights among different values and development trends have been evolving along with the country’s development contexts and priorities. Since 1980s, environmental protection became a pillar of national/local development plans as well as urban land use planning. After the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, “sustainable development” became a key agenda for national development, together with the reinforcing notion of “planned development”, which meant to “plan first to develop”. From the 1990s, “decentralisation” started being implemented as an integral part of territorial and economic strategies. The participation of subnational governments in policymaking has been largely increased through a transfer of responsibilities to local governments. Also, private sector investment was institutionalised as an alternative means of improving urban infrastructure. With advanced decentralisation and globalisation, the national government redefined the CNTPs through making it more oriented to providing vision and setting strategic directions, rather than prescribing specific investments. Anchored in the Comprehensive National Development Planning Act, the fourth CNTP under this context, was planned for 20 years (2000–2020), instead of 10 years, and proposed a long-term vision for Korea to be a global gateway to Northeast Asia, and to promote decentralised government functions with sustainable and environmentally harmonious developments. In 2003, a newly elected government needed a vehicle to present its territorial vision in a comprehensive way. So, the fourth CNTP was revised for period 2006– 2020. Major national urban policies and development projects were realigned under the vision and goals of the revised CNTP. They are marked by radical drive for balanced spatial development: The government decided to relocate ministries and public agencies to a newly built “Multifunctional Administrative City” and construct on the outskirts of existing cities ten “Innovative Cities” and six “Enterprise Cities”. The Innovative Cities were planned with the idea to accommodate public agencies that are relocated from the Capital Region, and the six Enterprise Cities were, as its name indicates, expected to be anchored around innovative private enterprises. The notion of liberalisation in the 1990s resulted in the shift in focus, to localised

17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation

413

growth and it was intended the vertically integrated plans should give way to the horizontal network system. Between 2003 and 2007, the focus of territorial planning was through decentralisation and de-concentration policies; while between 2008 and 2012, the emphasis was on strengthening regional competitiveness (Moon 2015). A part from its possible beneficial impacts, this state-driven urban projects had to go through multiple challenges that are political, technical and financial. It also raised important questions about the way how Korea has perceived cities and urban development. From a perspective of urban planning, too many “new cities” were “supplied” in a short time. There were obviously considerable supply and demand gaps and over-investment. On the other hand, it’s regrettable that this policy has largely contributed to urban sprawls, and aggravated the decline of ‘older’ parts of inner cities.

17.2.2 National Strategy for Green Growth: A Catalyzer for Sustainable Development In 2008, Korea’s economic resiliency was challenged by the global financial crisis. A new government in power identified a triple crisis that the country is facing: slow economic growth, climate change and an increasing energy dependency on imported fossil fuels. Therefore, a new concept was adopted, i.e. “Low-carbon, Green Growth”, as the nation’s new development paradigm. The “Green growth” refers to “a development approach that seeks to deliver economic development that is both environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive” (Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) 2015). In the context of Korean case, sustainable growth will help reduce green house gas (GHG) emissions and environmental pollution. It is before all a new development paradigm to create economic growth engines and jobs with green technology and clean energy. Being the only country so far that has embraced green growth at a scale and speed not demonstrated elsewhere (GGGI 2015), Korea unveiled, in 2009, the “Green New Deal” and the “National Strategy for Green Growth (NSGG)”, for the time horizon until 2050. The objectives of NSGG, followed by the Five-Year Action Plan (2009–2013), are three-fold: (i) to mitigate climate change and promote energy independence; (ii) create new engines for economic growth and (iii) improve the quality of life and enhance Korea’s international standard (Box 17.1). Box 17.1: Overview of the NSGG Three objectives: 1. Promote a synergistic relationship between economic growth and environmental protection. 2. Improve people’s quality of life and promote a green revolution in their lifestyles.

414

O. Jeong

3. Contribute to international efforts to fight climate change and other environmental threats. Three strategies: 1. Mitigating climate change and promoting energy independence. 2. Creating new engines for economic growth. 3. Improving the quality of life and enhancing Korea’s international standing. The policy agendas to achieve the three strategies: 1.

Effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions: the government will pursue mitigation strategies for buildings, transport, and industry, require reporting on emissions and promote forestation. 2. Reduction in the use of fossil fuels and the enhancement of energy independence: Korea will reduce energy intensity to the OECD average, increase the use of renewable energy and expand nuclear power capacity (an estimated $260 subsidy given for consumption of fossil fuel in OECD countries, OECD/IEA, 2017). 3. Strengthening the capacity to adapt to climate change: Korea will launch the “Four Major Rivers Restoration Project” and increase the share of “environmentally friendly” agricultural products to 18% within five years. 4. Development of green technologies: The government will pursue the development of important green technologies, boosting its world market share in the relevant sectors to 8% within five years. 5. The greening of existing industries and promotion of green industries: Exports of green goods in the major industries will rise from 10% in 2009 to 22% in 2020, and the government will help small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) green their businesses. 6. Advancement of the industrial structure to increase the role of services: The government will develop health care, education, finance, contents industry, software and tourism as the core of high value-added services. 7. Engineering a structural basis for the green economy: The government will gradually introduce an emissions trading system, make the tax system greener and extend public credit guarantees to the green industry. 8. Greening land and water, and building the green transport infrastructure: The share of passenger travel by rail will rise from 18% in 2009 to 26% in 2020, and metropolitan mass transit from 50 to 65% over the same period. 9. Bringing the green revolution into our daily lives: Carbon footprint labelling will be enacted, the government will increase mandatory procurement of green goods and education on green growth will be expanded. 10. Becoming a role-model for the international community as a green growth leader: Korea will actively engage in international climate-change negotiations and increase the share of green ODA from 11 to 30% in 2020.

17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation

415

Source Jones and B. Yoo, 2011, Korea’s Green Growth Strategy, Mitigating Climate Change and Developing New Growth Engines (working paper, No. 798, OECD) Like the case of the CNTPs, the national government has driven the Low-carbon Green Growth agenda, adopting a top-down approach. For effective coordination of green growth actions at subnational levels, the government established regulations, provided financial incentives and budgets, and implemented joint projects. Following the Framework Act for Low-carbon Green Growth, metropolitan cities and provincial governments were requested to formulate their own green growth action plans, which became a platform for local actions.

17.3 Making Korean Cities Greener and Smarter 17.3.1 Low-Carbon Green Cities: Urban Response to National Green Growth Cities are at the forefront of green growth accounting for more than 70 per cent of global GDP, GHG emissions and waste production in the world. Recognising the critical role of cities in achieving green growth, the Korean government set out sectoral strategies and priorities relevant to urban development. They focus on three key components which are: green buildings, green transport and green urban planning. Like other countries, Korea’s building and transportation sectors were big energy consumers, representing 19.6 per cent and 19.7 per cent, respectively, of the total energy consumption of the nation. The sectors are also huge emitters of Greenhouse gases. As of 2008, the combined GHG emissions from these two sectors accounted for over 40 per cent of the total national emissions. Among others, the concept of a “Low-carbon Green City (LCGC)” became a central element for sustainable urban development for the nation. The LCGC initiative envisioned actions to achieve goals, such as (i) low carbon and climate resilience, (ii) efficiency in resource and energy and (iii) integration of green industry, green technology and green infrastructure in cities. To achieve these goals, the following strategies were highlighted: (i) energy efficient urban development, through compact urban planning, transit-oriented development (TOD), promotion of smart U-Eco City, and smart-grid development; (ii) resource-efficient urban development, through increased investment on waste to energy projects and new energies management systems; (iii) ecological urban development, through increased green space in cities and restoration of urban water ecology; (iv) public green transport promoting urban inter-modality, combined with Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), TOD, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

416

O. Jeong

and prioritisation of a low carbon infrastructure; and v) green housings and buildings, through improvement of energy efficiency for existing and new houses and buildings, strengthening energy efficiency provisions in building codes, Research and Development (R&D), and construction of 100,000 green homes per year (Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritimes Affairs, 2009).2 The new LCGC initiative brought climate change to the forefront for sustainable urban development. From a political perspective, it was also a “formal” opening to a new urban era, which has reoriented the nation towards quality-oriented green values, directly linked to a mega international development agenda such as climate change. However, we should not underestimate the efforts that had been being already undertaken and facilitated this transition. The new urban era is built on existing urban development experiences and an outcome of accumulated efforts.3 Truly, there is no clear-cut period between the brown and green eras, but a continuous evolution a continuous evolution with innovative catalysts, which could enable an even bigger step further towards a higher level of development. In this effort, ‘new cities’ were used as a good testing ground for adopting new approaches and technologies and developing a showcase for brand-new LCGC.4 In fact, the creation of the new cities/towns at the outskirts or around city boundaries was a Korean prototype that started in 1960s. The need for new cities was the greatest in the Capital Region, where fifteen new cities were constructed in the 1990s and 2000s (five cities in the first phase, 1989–1996, and then ten cities in the second phase, 2001-present).5 Therefore, it is not wrong to blame the new cities for an increased urban sprawl or over-concentration of the Capital Region. But on the other hand, it was a successful example of how “planned urbanisation” can enable a largescale supply of modern housing, when combined with proper land use planning and infrastructure expansion (Lee 2015). Coupled with land use regulations, initiatives for new cities/towns came from the government and their implementation was led by public agencies like the Korea 2 In terms of Green Transport, the Sustainable Transportation Logistics Development Act came into

force in 2009. Six guiding principles include: (i) promoting a low-carbon transportation logistics by reducing emissions; (ii) advancing environmentally friendly transportation systems; (iii) promoting a transportation system that saves energy and resources; (iv) improving the mobility, accessibility and safety in transportation; (v) promoting balance among different modes of transportation and (vi) effectively integrating urban land use and transportation planning (GGGI 2015). 3 For example, in the early 2000s, a few leading cities, including Seoul Metropolitan City, were more proactive than others, and took significant action towards adopting green transportation (with the introduction of the Metropolitan Rapid Transit, a quasi-public bus operational system, an intelligent transport system), or improving urban green space (like Cheonggye Cheon’s restoration project in Seoul, transforming a 6 km-long cement high-way into an environmentally friendly waterfront). 4 “New Cities/Towns” here are not administrative or political terms. They can be defined as “a new settlement developed in a planned manner”. Korea Planners Association defines it as “an urban settlement space newly built based on a comprehensive plan to achieve clear development objectives set in relation to national policy tasks including self-reliant and non-self-reliant settlement space” (Lee 2015). 5 This figure is exclusive of new cities/towns developed within Seoul, or under other individual legislations.

17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation

417

Land Corporation (now LH Corporation) and local agencies under subnational governments, which was an effective way of controlling process and recapturing development gains. From the second phase of new city development, the government increasingly put in practice green guidelines made available from 2004 and revised in 2010 through the LCGC Initiative. Cities including Dongtan, Geomdan and Pangyo, developed during this time, and Gangneung, low-carbon green pilot city developed under the LCGC Initiative are some examples that adapted planning principles of self-sufficiency, more green space, natural disaster adaptation and use of the latest technologies for smart cities (Table 17.2).

17.3.2 Smart City: Beyond a Technological Solution for Urban Sustainability? Cities can be more resource efficient, green and safer by adopting new information and communication technologies (ICT) for its urban infrastructure and services. In this regard, the Smart City concept is inseparable from a Low Carbon and Green City (LCGC) concept, as it contributes to urban sustainability. In the Korean context, smart cities are however more than just a tool to enhance urban sustainability but a holistic and transformative solutions to urban issues. They are also considered as a platform where all technologies and services born from the “fourth industrial revolution” will realise cities in the future. Originally, Korea had a brand name for its smart cities; it was called “U-City”, which is a combination of the word “Cities” with “Ubiquitous”. A revised version of the Act on Creating Smart Cities and Promoting Industry, which succeeds to the UCity Act legislated in 2008, defines the smart city as a type of “sustainable city which provides diverse urban services utilising urban infrastructure with ICT integrated, with the aim of improving the competitiveness of the city, as wells as enhance the quality of human life”. The Smart City (or “U-City”) development in Korea has a distinctive origin prior to the LCGC Initiative. In the 1990s, a series of national projects, which included the National Geographic Information System (NGIS) development, were launched after there were gas explosions at a few subway construction sites. The need for mapping (underground) utilities arose. Within the framework of the five-year GIS Framework Plan from 1995, there were various geospatial data that was digitalised to support better informed decision-making processes. Around the same time, the Ministry of Information and Communications was established to pursue a policy of high speed communications network. The Framework Act on Information Promotion was enacted, and Comprehensive Plan for Korea Information Infrastructure (KII) was launched for the construction of a nationwide optical network. In the second half of the 1990s, a financial crisis hit Asian countries and Korea was not an exception. The government chose to turn this financial situation into

418

O. Jeong

Table 17.2 Overview of the planning guidelines for sustainable new cities/towns Categories

Indicators

Components

Socio-cultural sustainability

Social development

Facilities for vibrant local community life, urban infrastructure, open space

Social mix

Social housing

Historical and cultural heritage

Historical and cultural heritage, promotion of cultural activities, relocated inhabitants

Self-sufficiency

Master planning, zoning for industries (manufacturing or services), reserve for future development

Water reservoir

Flood control, rainwater, groundwater

Nature-adaptive development

Conservation of original topography waterfront planning

Accessibility

Hierarchical zoning system combined with urban density

Development density

Density planning by different land use

Public transport

Planning of public transport, BRT, non-motorised transport, parking space

Energy and resource recycling

New and renewable energy, water resource, waste recycling, passive design

Urban Ecology

Green space share, green corridor, planting, urban forest, ecological footprint

Clean environment

Wastewater, air quality, noise, waste collecting facility

ICT-based smart options

Smart infrastructure and services integrated urban management system

Green Plan

City-scale multi-sectoral Green Plan, to be linked to environmental impact assessment

Landscape design and management

Guiding principles, scope of landscape plans, multi-layered landscape planning, detailed planning guidelines

Economic sustainability

Environmental sustainability

(continued)

17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation

419

Table 17.2 (continued) Categories

Indicators

Components

Natural disaster and crime prevention

Planning guidelines for natural disasters, crime prevention, street design/light

Urban space planning

City Brand, design of public space/buildings, Special Planning Zone

Source Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs (2010)

an opportunity to make an ambitious investment in GIS and ICT, again taking the classic top-down approach. Particularly, two ministries in charge of territorial development and ICT provided full support for advancing R&D projects, building egovernance, and creating jobs and markets for the GIS and ICT infrastructure and services. They were considered as promising business opportunities, and an effective mean to recover Korean economy damaged by the economic crisis. The government support provided for the smart city (U-city) development included: (i) institutional and legal support (such as legislation of the U-City Act to standardise, accelerate and coordinate the U-City projects and industries); (ii) strategies for planning and implementation through master plans (including a Five-Year GIS Framework Plan from 1995, U-City Master Plans from 2009) and created public and private markets, and supported R&D for core technologies. Pilot projects with direct subsidising and training for U-City talents were also implemented (Fig. 17.1). In short, since the period of its origin, the key driving force of Korean smart city development was the combinations of Korean digital technology (GIS and ICT), coupled with smart infrastructure and services. Successive government promotions aimed to explore global markets using Korean smart city experience, including the K-Smart City Initiative,6 which was heavily focused on technology and smart infrastructure, frequently combined with new cities construction. Another characteristic and a non-negligible weakness of Korean smart city development lies in its social and spatial integration. When it comes to the government’s support for smart city projects, from 2009 to 2012, the cities that had the most advantages were larger cities, new cities and cities in the Capital Region.7 These cities have a relatively greater capacity to embrace smart city solutions and technologies, and in

6 In

July 2016, led by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, a brand new Smart City Initiative was launched. The Korean Smart City Models are four models called: Smart New City, Water-focused Smart City, Transport-focused Smart City, and ICT-focused Smart City. The Initiative also aims at accelerating domestic R&D for core technologies, which will be tested in new cities including Pangyo and Dongtan, and Sejong. 7 There were 49 beneficiary cities in total for this period. Fifty-five per cent of Capital Region cities are implementing government supporting smart city projects, while only 23 per cent of the cities outside of the Capital Region received this governmental support. Out of 49 beneficiary cities, new cities accounted for 65% (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport 2013).

420

O. Jeong

Fig. 17.1 Korean U-City framework in the 2000s. Source The First Five-Year U-City Plan (2009– 2013) (Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS) 2013. English version)

meeting the selection criteria which were seeking primarily investment efficiency. One of our questions here is the potential of smart city solutions whether they could create alternative way to achieve more inclusive urban development in Korea, reducing existing spatial and social inequalities. How they can be better applied to strengthen social infrastructure and to increase the accessibility of the underserved and unserved population? In 2017, a newly elected government announced a blueprint of the nation’s growth path, a people-centred economy, revolving around three pillars: jobs and income growth, innovation-led growth and a fair economy. In December 2017, the government laid out its innovation-led growth plan, for which USD 2.02 billion will be invested on digital convergence by promoting core technologies including artificial intelligence, big data and robotics. The smart city development is one of the key growth engines highlighted in the plan. By 2022, the government plans to have 80 cities operating on an integrated smart city platform.8 This new generation of smart cities is to be primarily “human-centred” and designed with “fourth industrial revolution” technologies. The national government will focus its R&D capability, budget and ease of partly based on private information 8 Information and citations in relation to the government’s growth agenda, plans for smart cities and

two testbeds are from National Roadmap for Smart City Implementation and newspaper articles that appeared between December 2017 to date (July 2018), including: http://koreajoongangdaily.joins. com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3050905; http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView. html?idxno=21832; http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/853663.html; and http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180129000793.

17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation

421

and private investment. The participation of private sector and citizens will be urged to have smart cities settle down as a sustainable platform. The government also plans to come up with ways to solve urban problems and improve quality of life while carrying out the project and create an ecosystem for innovative industries. In January 2018, a National Roadmap for Smart City Implementation confirmed the government’s plan to develop smart cities over the next five years, including a gradual “smartisation” of existing cities and two greenfield test beds to construct “world’s leading smart cities”.9 A 2.19 million square metre area in Busan (EcoDelta City) and a 2.74 million square metre area in Sejong (Sejong 5-1 Smart City District) were selected as test beds.10 According to the rough sketch announced in July 2018, the Sejong smart city will be designed with a theme emphasising smart energy and transportation including a special zero emission complex and fine dust monitoring center, while the Busan smart city will focus on logistics and waterrelated technologies including smart purification and hydropower generators as well as natural disaster management systems. The government has set ambitious plans to build cities “where the residents can actually feel the difference of a future city in their daily lives”. The construction of the test beds is planned to start in the first half of 2019, and residents are expected to move into them from 2021.

9 Korea

has an internationally known smart city case, Songdo Central Business District in Incheon Metropolitan. It was developed from the 2000 s as a first generation of smart city through a private and public partnership, which is a rare case in Korea. The project was led by Gale International and most of the core technologies used were developed in the U.S. rather than in Korea (Kshetri et al. 2014). That is the reason why the recent two test beds in Sejong and Busan are also called as “Korea’s first smart cities”. As a typical green field project, Songdo smart city was built from scratch on six km2 of flat land created from wetland reclamation along Incheon’s waterfront. Designed to be a global business hub, eco-city and futuristic smart city with more than 40% of its Central Business District reserved for green space, and a network of visible and invisible infrastructures which connects housings and streets, to provide services on district heating, water/waste management, and traffic flow monitoring. It is said that per capita energy use in Songdo is 40 per cent less than the average existing city due to many of the energy-saving technologies, and that an estimated 80 per cent of the building will be LEED certified (http://koreajoongangdaily. joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid=2994022). Some of smart infrastructure and services today are however underused, raising critics about the development which is “overdue, overpriced and underpopulated” (https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/business/article/2137838/south-koreas-smartcity-songdo-not-quite-smart-enough). 10 The pilot testing at two sites have received considerable attention from the outset also because of the appointment of two figures who are not specialist in urban planning as the smart cities master planners (MP). Unlike past new city development projects where urban planning specialists played the role of MPs, a brain science professor and an entrepreneur in blockchain will take the lead in implementing the projects as MPs. (http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno= 21832).

422

O. Jeong

17.4 Lessons and Ways Forward The Korean urban development model can be characterised by its infrastructure-led and government-driven approach. It would be a reference for countries in the early stages of urban development and when the aim is to promote a systematic change in national urban development through proper planning and management. Questioning whether this Korean model was a success, may be elusive, as the answers would depend on different views on what the priorities should have been given along with different stages of urban development. Instead, our observation is that a strength of the Korean model was in its effective connection between the spatial planning and national development process and a proactive approach towards urbanisation, which was instrumental for Korean cities to create jobs, infrastructure, and industries. The model however could not overcome the risk of spatial disparities which, at the conjuncture of different factors, has been getting more complex than ever. It is time to redefine national urban policy and rethink the values which constitute cities and urban development. In Korea in the future the relationship between the central leadership and cities should be revisited reflecting current development landscapes and without jeopardising the success of leading cities and catalytic initiatives. One of the greatest challenges in Korea today would be how to make its urban governance more flexible, integrated, participatory and better coordinated in both a vertical and horizontal way (Jeong 2007). Transformation of cities will be possible only when their institutions can integrate stakeholders, approaches and actions, to manage the complex problems of evolving urban systems. This brand-new governance is also linked to how to redefine the vision and scope of urban development. The Korean discourse on urban development, which has been centering on functionality of cities and growth, needs to further balance its perspective, by better bringing in values which are social, environmental and related to climate resilience, into urban management. Mega-scale new cities development, which seeks for massive change, is no more desirable, and the new urban development should be more incremental, communityoriented, spontaneous, and rooted in locality. In a similar context, the hope is that Korean smart cities embrace greater social integration and human dimensions. For this, we need to define, not only what kind of cities we want to build, but also what are the cities where we want to live and which type of urban life we want to have. The current smart city agenda in Korea seems to be heavily focused on technologies, infrastructure and growth but the notion of people seems to be still subsidiary. What makes smart cities more successful? It will not only be determined by the technologies itself, but is also determined by application, responsiveness and accessibility to the urban residents. Technologies are helping cities to get smarter and greener, but only as a tool to manage cities. Lastly, it must be noted the importance of global partnership for sustainable urban development. Many of urban challenges today are linked to global issues, and the localization of the global agenda, such as SDGs and Paris Agreement, is still on the

17 The Korean National Drive for Green and Smart Urbanisation

423

way. Korean experience on green and smart cities carries an important expectation in this transition, as it has opportunities to promote collaboration at home, and abroad. It will be essential this collaboration effectively address the shared goals, and facilitate local responses and solutions that are practical and actionable.

References Ding, C., & Zhao, X. (2012). Urbanization in Japan, South Korea, and China: Policy and reality. In The Oxford handbook of urban economics and planning (published online September 2012). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195380620.013.0040. Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI). (2015). Korea’s green growth experience: Process, outcomes and lessons learned, Seoul, Korea. Hankyoreh. (2018). Government project envisions smart city with no cars, medical drones, and free electricity. Published online dated July 17, 2018, downloaded from http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/ english_edition/e_national/853663.html. http://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=21832. Jeong, O. (2007). Considerations for non-capital regions presented in plans for the capital region of France, Ile-de-France- a study based on comparison of the four plans from the 1960’s to 2000’s. Journal of the Korean Regional Development Association, 19(4), 79–102. Jones, R., & Yoo, B. (2011). Korea’s green growth strategy: Mitigating climate change and developing new growth engines. In OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 798, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/5kmbhk4gh1ns-en. Kamal-Chaoui, L., et al. (2011). The implementation of the Korean Green growth strategy in urban areas. OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2011/02, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/5kg8bf4l4lvg-en. Kim, Y.-W. (2001). National territorial planning at the turn of the 21st century. Geo Journal, 53(1), 5–15. Kim, T., et al. (2015). National urban policy in Korea: Toward a smart and inclusive growth, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS). Korea Joongang Daily. (2014). Songdo style: How wise is Korea’s ‘smart city’?. Published on August 26, 2014, downloaded from http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/Article.aspx?aid= 2994022. Korea Joongang Daily. (2018). Gov’t outlines bold plan for Sejong, Busan smart cities. Published on July 23, 2018, downloaded from http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx? aid=3050905. Korea National Strategy for Low-Carbon, Green Growth (2009–2050) & Five-Year Action Plan (2009–2013). 2009. Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements (KRIHS). (2013). Smart City. Korea’s Fourth CNTP (2000–2020). 2001. Korea’s Revision Plan of the Fourth CNTP (2006–2020). 2006. Kshetri, N., et al. (2014). Development of a smart city and its adoption and acceptance: The case of New Songdo. Communications & Strategies, 96(4), 113–128. Lee, S. K., et al. (2015). Korea’s pursuit for sustainable cities through new town development: Implications for LAC, IDB. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. (2013). The Second Five-Year U-City Plan (2014– 2018). Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. (2010). Planning guidelines for sustainable new cities. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs et al. (2009). Strategies for green city and green building initiatives.

424

O. Jeong

Moon, J. H. (2015). National Territorial Policy and Planning in Korea, UN-HABITAT LH Workshop on National Territorial Policy & Planning, December 17, 2015, KRIHS, Downloaded from http://www.urbangateway.org/icnup/sites/default/files/National%20Territorial%20Policy% 20and%20Planning%20in%20Korea.pdf. NL Smart City Strategy. (2017). OECD. (2018). Housing dynamics in Korea: Building inclusive and smart cities. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264298880-en. Presidential Committee on the Fourth Industrial Revolution & Ministries. (2018). National Roadmap for Smart City Implementation. Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment of Berlin. (2015). Smart City Strategy Berlin. Song, S. (2018). S. Korea to turn Sejong, Busan into safe, smart cities by 2023. The Korea Herald, dated January 29, 2018. Downloaded from http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud= 20180129000793. UN-Habitat. (2014). The evolution of national urban policies: A global overview. UN-Habitat. (2015). National urban policy: A guiding framework. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2018). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 Revision. Online Edition. Downloaded from https://population. un.org/wup/Download/. White, C. (2018). South Korea’s ‘Smart City’ Songdo: Not quite smart enough? South China Morning Post. Published on March 25, 2018, downloaded from https://www.scmp.com/weekasia/business/article/2137838/south-koreas-smart-city-songdo-not-quite-smart-enough. World Economic Forum. (2012). The Global Competitiveness Report 2012–2013. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Yong, L. J., & Hee, H. S. (2017). The meaning and future agendas for the act on smart city law revision. Journal of Korean Urban Geographical Society, 20(3), 91–101.

Chapter 18

Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies for a Citizen-Oriented Smart City Initiative Fiona Chang and Diganta Das

Abstract Smart cities are now a buzzword all over the world, with various places jumping on to the bandwagon, implementing “smart” technology and marketing themselves as “smart” cities. This case study from Singapore however brings out a different perspective to our understanding of smart cities. This chapter highlights how smart cities are not necessarily about the implementation of the most advanced, cutting edge technology, but are also about efficient governance for the intelligent implementation of technology. As such, Singapore, which we believe is a relatively successful smart city, demonstrates how technology can never be the panacea to all city’s problems; technology cannot successfully bring about positive change without a concomitant improvement to governance and how policies are implemented for betterment of the society and its integration to local economy. To do so, this chapter highlights Singapore’s citizen-oriented, nation-wide approach and the central role of the government in smart city initiatives. Keywords Smart cities · Singapore · Smart nation · Governance · Urban policy · Asia

18.1 Introduction Smart cities have rapidly become a ubiquitous term in the contemporary networked and globalised world—a stimulating buzzword for municipalities, states and major corporations (Caragliu and Del Bo 2016). Smart city schemes are proposed and policies are implemented all over the world, from Switzerland (Klauser and Söderström 2016) to Rio de Janeiro (McNeill 2016). Possibly due to its widespread use around the world by different stakeholders ranging from international organizations to governments whether local or national and the corporate sector (Luque-Ayala et al. 2016), “smart cities” elude any simple and all-encompassing definition (Caragliu and Del Bo 2016). Given that the application of smart city differs according to location and is contingent on a plethora of factors (O’Grady and O’Hare 2012) ranging from the F. Chang · D. Das (B) Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_18

425

426

F. Chang and D. Das

ecosystem, inherent challenges, resources and geography, there is a high level of ambiguity as to what a smart city constitutes (Hayat 2016). Regardless, there are some common features in the smart cities. Cities are considered smart when they possess a “networked infrastructure that enables political efficiency and social and cultural development; an emphasis on business-led urban development and creative activities for the promotion of urban growth; social inclusion on various urban residents and social capital in urban development; the natural environment as a strategic component for the future” (Albino et al. 2015: 13). Any permutation of the above elements could potentially be labelled as a smart city. What then sets smart cities aside from the conventional logic of urbanism are “new expectations of network flexibility, demand responsiveness, green growth, new services and connected communities” (Luque-Ayala et al. 2016). Evidently, there are different elements to what constitutes a smart city, but technology should not overshadow the other factors. While technology has taken the front seat in recent conceptualizations of smart city, its utilisation—whether to automate routines or to monitor and understand the city for greater efficiency and equity (Batty et al. 2012, citations)—should not be the only focus of smart cities (Hollands 2008). A city is smart “when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern Information and Communications Technology (ICT) infrastructure fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory governance” (Caragliu et al. 2011: 70). Singapore, as a city-state, has consistently ranked highly in different smart city measurements and indices. For instance, Singapore was named the Global Smart City of 2016 by Juniper Research, a market research firm based in the UK (Lim 2016). Similarly, ABI Research ranks Singapore as the top smart city in 2018 (ABI Research 2018). The EasyPark Group also ranked Singapore as second in its 2017 Smart Cities Index, behind Copenhagen (Hynes 2017). Such indices rank cities on variety of standards such as the quality of internet, integration of Internet of Things (IoTs), clean energy, public transportation and mobility. By this definition then, Singapore is evidently doing something right and ticks the boxes in terms of contemporary understandings of smart cities and what such cities need to constitute. Through an in-depth analysis of Singapore as a case study, this chapter raises crucial understanding in relation to the widespread smart city schemes and the high level of (policy) mobility in smart city schemes around the world. The case demonstrates how the success of Singapore as a smart city is embedded in its unique geographical, technological and policy landscape. Further, this chapter explores features of smart city schemes in Singapore in relation to addressing urban challenges and a concerted shift to the Smart Nation initiative. The next section explores the origin of the concept “smart cities” and its criticism. Then, it is followed by a section on Singapore’s long history of adoption of technology in urban planning solutions and smart initiatives to cater for the citizen’s needs. This is followed by a section on Singapore’s recent shift to Smart Nation approach to look at a wider solution to urban, economic and social

18 Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies …

427

challenges through (smart) technological and (green) infrastructure1 interventions. The final section delves into the crucial role of the government in initiating the smart policies and their implementation at various levels.

18.2 Conceptualising Smart Cities and Its Criticism While “smartness” is a novel term in city planning, its origins can be traced back to only two decades ago. It is embedded in a wider logic of entrepreneurial cities and cities as growth machines, a trend that surfaced in the 1980s. As an extension of this idea, the term smart cities first emerged in the 1990s. Initially, proponents of smart cities were primarily concerned with the application of ICT infrastructure within cities (Albino et al. 2015). Later, environmental sustainability (Caragliu and Del Bo 2016) and human capital (Giffinger and Gudrun 2010) were also included as fundamental tenets of smart cities. Together with the global deregulation of capital and liberalisation of finance, cities have now embarked on a mission to attract investment, to make the city a growth engine. Through urban boosterism, cities aspire to and aggressively promote a particular image for themselves in order to attract global capital and investments. This is often done simultaneously with a rollback of state funding and resources. In Meijer and Bolívar’s (2016) analysis of 51 papers on smart cities, they theorise three different ideal-typical definitions and categorizations of smart cities. 1. Technological focus—smart cities use smart technologies that serve as the lens through which all the other problems in the city are refracted; 2. Human resource focus—smart cities are homes to smart people, where there exists an upward, multiplier effect between smart infrastructure, smart businesses and smart citizens; 3. Governance focus—a streamlined approach to governance and government–citizen interactions. In the ideal state, there should be collaboration between citizens, stakeholders and other users and easy access to government services. On the other hand, Cohen’s (2012) has divided smart city initiatives into six different dimensions 1. Smart governance—focuses on transparency, data openness, modernisation and public empowerment and involvement 2. Smart environment—optimising energy while minimising resource use and exploitation to ensure sustainability 3. Smart mobility—increasing accessibility through the availability of modern transportation systems and infrastructure 1 While

adoption of green technologies are becoming popular in Singapore, especially adopted by private firms in relation to green building development, and by government efforts to utilize solar energy, LED streetlights, water and energy saving technologies, there is scope and potential to do a lot more towards making wider adoption of green technologies.

428

F. Chang and D. Das

4. Smart economy—digital and technological solutions for economic progress 5. Smart people—enhancing human capital and education levels 6. Smart living—increasing quality of life, which is a composite of factors such as a healthy environment, social cohesion, prevalence of a culture. Simultaneously, authors have also conceptualised smart cities as inherently unique, with a high level of path dependency. Utilising understandings of “actually existing” neoliberalism based on Brenner and Theodore’s (2002) work on neoliberalism, authors such as Shelton et al. (2015) have asked for an “actually existing” approach to smart cities. We should not look at smart cities in their idealised form, but study how they come into practice in complex ways and are differentially implemented in particular places. This is hence a situated approach to an understanding of smart cities, their contextual embeddedness and their path dependencies. The existing concepts and definitions of smart cities have been criticised for merely being the new “in” concept to urban planning and just another fad in this era of entrepreneurial cities (Harvey 1989) and urban boosterism. Smart cities have been criticised for their “self-congratulatory” nature (Hollands 2008), amounting to little more than “performative utterance” (Hult 2015, drawing on Butler 1993); smart cities are argued to be “smart” only insofar as they are labelled as such. While smart cities proclaim that environmental and economic objectives are mutually reinforcing and can produce synergies (Blok 2012), there is little detail as to how the city seeks to reconcile and dissolve the conflict and inherent contradictions between environment and economic values (Dryzek 2005). With such a one-size-fits-all approach to urban planning, the labelling of smart cities become little more than a marketing ploy (Watson 2015), a branding exercise (Hult 2015) and bear great resemblance to the city marketing and boosterism campaigns of the 1990s (Hollands 2008). The role of smart cities lies insofar in selling a particular “seductive and normative vision of the future where technology stands as the primary driver of change” (Luque-Ayala et al. 2016); smart cities then act as a “strategic device to encompass modern urban production factors in a common framework, [… highlighting] the importance of Information and Communication Technologies towards urban competitiveness and urban wealth” (Caragliu et al. 2011: 65). Moreover, smart city initiatives have been criticised for being overly technologically deterministic, with the uncritical one-size-fits-all application of technology (Calzada and Cobo 2015). Technology is sometimes implemented without regard for the actual situation on the ground, with the highest, cutting edge technology being perceived as the best solution for the city. This is exemplified by the rise of cities or technoparks as experimental beds, with the intentions for the smart policies implemented in these experimental cities to be applied to other cities and countries, other contexts for which such policies may not be entirely relevant (Calvillo et al. 2016). Smart city initiatives without engagement with citizens (March and RiberaFumaz 2014) will only exacerbate existing power relations and serve the needs of the private sector (Vittanen and Kingston 2014). Other authors have repeatedly warned

18 Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies …

429

against a naive understanding of data, one that assumes big data is apolitical and value free. Therefore, the concept of smart cities has arguably conflated “what smart cities are (smart people, smart governance) and what they aim to achieve (smart economy, smart mobility, smart environment and smart living)” (Meijer and Bolívar 2016: 398). The social and development goals that are achieved after the implementation of technology should be the focus, for they are the factors that drive empowerment, livability and sustainability (Schelmetic 2011). Studies have also revealed examples of smart city initiatives failing to achieve what they initially sought to as a result of this fundamental flaw in the implementation of smart city initiatives (e.g., Dong and Zhu 2015). The raison d’etre of smart cities needs to be shifted from technology and its role in boosting the economy, to that of the actual people and citizens residing in them (Hill 2013). It is within this context of existing literature that this chapter aims to explore the implementation of smart cities in Singapore. The case study of Singapore demonstrates the potential for smart cities initiatives when they are implemented according to the intended social, environmental and economic end goal as opposed to their current status as a marketing device. By extension then, it could be argued that being “smart” is a way of thinking and of conceptualising urban planning, a trend that has a longer precedent in Singapore. Very much an “actually existing” smart city, Singapore warns us against the blind application of smart city to other countries; the successes of Singapore (as dictated by the indices of smart city) are a direct outcome of the unique sociopolitical, economic and policy arrangements in Singapore. The next section delves further into various smart initiatives in Singapore beginning from last few decades and in its current practice.

18.3 Urbanisation of Singapore Singapore has rapidly urbanised since independence in 1965, from a population of 1.8 million to that of 5.1 million in 2011 (Roth and Chow 2012). As a result, Singapore’s population density is one of the highest in the world at 7800 persons per square kilometre in 2017 (The Straits Times 16 January 2018). Singapore’s first urban plan post-independence was termed the State and City Planning Project and was the first-ever long-term macro-level concept plan in Singapore (Dale 1999). The Urban Redevelopment Authority, which was designated as the national planning authority in 1989, formulated future concept plans (Dale 1999). At present, urban planning is carried out at two levels—the concept plan, which is a macro-level blueprint, and the statutory master plan, which translates the concept plan into one with greater detail (Ooi 2004). The concept plans are frequently revised (usually once every five years) to address the changing needs of Singapore, such as that of a “tropical city of excellence” in 1991 (Huang 2001) and that of a “thriving world-class city” in 2001 (Urban Redevelopment Authority 2018).

430

F. Chang and D. Das

Simultaneously, the Land Acquisition Act of 1966 gave authority to the Ministry of National Development (MND) to reacquire land for purposes of the state—whether residential, commercial or industrial. As a result, the state gained ownership of 80% of the land by 1992 (Han 2017). The ownership of large tracts of land in Singapore facilitates the government’s attempt to carry out urban planning, giving the government more control over the implementation of urban planning and development of land (Centre for Liveable Cities 2018). To house the growing population, the number of residential units has also doubled between 1998 and 2008, from 655,000 to 1,156,000 (Roth and Chow 2012). The bulk of these residential units are provided by the Housing Development Board and come in the form of apartments in high-rise blocks. These blocks, entirely designed and constructed by the Housing Development Board, serve as homes to approximately 80% of the population in Singapore (Housing Development Board 2017). An estimated 5% of Singapore’s land is also constituted by low-rise, privately owned residential houses which are either detached, semi-detached or terraced. While spreading all over the island, such housing is clustered in certain areas, such as the Bukit Timah area in the west and the Katong area in the east (Roth and Chow 2012). However, such building pressure eventually eased off by the 1980s and emphasis was increasingly placed on preserving and protecting greenery (Henderson 2013). Industrialisation has also led to the increase in the built-up area in Singapore. Between 1965 and 2000, the total built-up area of Singapore doubled (Roth and Chow 2012). Mangroves, swamps and forest have been reclaimed into industrial estates particularly in the west of Singapore. Historically, the centre of Singapore particularly along the Singapore River and Raffles Place played a role as the central business district (Dale 1999). This remains the case in Singapore, although the low-rise buildings have been replaced with skyscrapers housing, offices providing financial and banking services. While nearly half of Singapore land area has been devoted to industrial and residential uses, other half of the land serve as catchment areas and are gazetted as national parks and nature reserves. They also provide space for recreational activities such as hiking, cycling and water sports. Together with the park connectors and green corridors connecting these nature reserves and the greenery around Singapore, roughly 50% of Singapore is constituted of vegetation and secondary forest (Yee et al. 2011).

18.4 Smart Initiatives in Singapore: Citizen Oriented with a Long Pedigree Similar to the rest of the world, discourse of smart city has recently gained prominence in Singapore. This is most evidently seen through the Smart Nation Programme Office, which was first introduced in 2014 by the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong. By January 2016, S$400 million was committed to the study of smart city technologies (Lim 2016). This programme pledges to “increase economic opportunities, enhance citizens’ quality of life, and improve government responsiveness” (Ho 2016: 6).

18 Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies …

431

Some of the initiatives introduced includes that of the PayNow scheme. This service seeks to enhance the ease of payment, with a national standard Quick Response (QR) code and integrated mobile phone numbers, identity card numbers and bank account numbers to allow for the inter-operability of different payment systems and instant inter-bank transfer. Other schemes include the rolling out of smart devices and smart home tools in some test-bed housing estates to facilitate the Elderly Monitoring System (SNDGC 2018). This system seeks to keep caregivers updated about the physical safety of the elderly, an initiative clearly intending to prepare Singapore for the needs of an increasingly ageing society (Lee 2015). Other smart governance focused (Meijer and Bolívar 2016; Cohen 2012) approaches include that of an app which consolidates different government services into a single streamlined app, while dividing the different commonly used services based on life stages for easy accessibility (Bhunia 2018a). The government has also introduced open data initiatives such as data.gov.sg and DataMall; data shared includes live images of traffic, the availability of taxis, cycling paths across the nation, and the occupancy levels of bus stops (Jayarajah and Misra 2018). More recently, Singapore is intending to introduce a satellite-based vehicle tracking system by 2020. This system has been mandated by the government to be installed in all vehicles to monitor the location of the vehicles in real time, while measuring for volume, average speed and predicting traffic congestion (Souppouris 2016). It is hoped that such a technology can help pre-empt and predict traffic congestion and demands for public transportation while planning for the re-routing of traffic (Jayarajah and Misra 2018). Clearly, the initiatives of the Smart Nation Programme Office fall in line with the current trend of smart urbanism. While the Smart Nation Programme Office is a fairly new scheme, Singapore has had a long pedigree of smart schemes and technology. Singapore’s commitment to being well connected to the global economy has seen its use of discourse such as “intelligent island,” “intelligent nation” and “knowledge-based economy” (Olds and Yeung 2004: 491), which were lexicon that have been utilised since Singapore’s first ICT blueprint (Ho 2016). Since the 1980s, Singapore had committed to increase the internet network connectivity and penetration of ICT technology. The National Computerisation Plan, carried out between 1980 and 1985, mandated the computerisation of civil service; the National IT Plan of 1986–1991 then introduced specialised computer networks in different organizations. The National Computer Scheme named A Vision of an Intelligent Island: the IT 2000 Report in 1992, devoted 15 years to build computing and optic fibre networks across homes, workplaces and institutions (National Computer Board 1992). These initiatives contributed to Singapore being one of the first countries to achieve an advanced, nationwide IT structure (Calder 2016). New public housing in Singapore has been mandated to come with high-speed broadband, with the capacity to monitor energy consumption (National Climate Change Secretariat and National Research Foundation 2011). By 2016, 91% of the households in Singapore had access to internet facilities at home (Infocomm Media Development Authority 2017). One of the first, arguably “smart” policies implemented in Singapore is that of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme in September 1998. As a replacement to the previously manual Area Licensing Scheme, the ERP system utilising what was

432

F. Chang and D. Das

pioneering technology at that juncture to manage congestion through road pricing (Benner 2018). By charging road users for their use of major road arteries during peak hours, Singapore seeks to reduce congestion. The ERP system, utilising technology involving transponders, has increased efficiency, enforcement and flexible pricing (Calder 2016). Singapore was the first country in the world to implement such technology (Lim 2016). Based on Singapore’s successes, similar schemes have been implemented in cities like London. Jakarta has also expressed interest in introducing such technology in 2019 (Straits Times, 27 March 2018). Making a positive change and difference to the citizens’ lives has been a consistent commitment of Singapore’s schemes (Kang 2015). As expressed by the Deputy Head of the Smart Nation Programme, Chay Pui San, smart city is not about the technology, but about the problems that one is intending to solve (see Kang 2015). While plenty of smart city discourse and proposals have expressed this need to be locally oriented, with the explicit aim of meeting the needs of the cities, locals and citizens, the practice of smart city initiatives in Singapore has demonstrated her commitment to this motive. In the next section, we proceed to emphasise further the implementation of various citizen-oriented smart programmes in the recent nation-wide approach of Singapore through Smart Nation initiative.

18.5 The Nation-Wide Approach Given the commitment to improving the lives of citizens through urban planning initiatives, whether explicitly smart or not, the government has also taken on a nationwide approach towards smart city initiatives in Singapore. While technoparks have frequently been criticised for being little more than zones of exclusion (see Das 2015) dedicated to the interests of global financial capital and corporate interests, the case of Singapore bucks the trend. Admittedly, this is significantly more straightforward in Singapore than in other countries. Given Singapore’s small size of 721.5 km2 (GOVTECH 2017), it would be a challenge to segregate an area from the rest of the country. Singapore sees little need to create “areas of exception” through technoparks. In Singapore, with high inter-ministerial cooperation, allows the government to integrate governance across different areas, units and industries with little difficulties (Calder 2016). These technoparks, while serving as zones of concentrated high-technological research and activity, are very strongly integrated and intertwined with the rest of the country. This can be demonstrated through its role as a test bed for technology to be implemented in the rest of the country and its strong synergistic ties with the local universities and academia and local businesses. Examples of technoparks are the Biopolis, Fusionopolis and Mediapolis complexes at Buona Vista and the One-North, conveniently located close to the National University of Singapore. These different complexes focus on different research areas—biomedical research, interdisciplinary research in areas such as infocomm

18 Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies …

433

technology, computing, data storage and microelectronics, and mass media, respectively (Calder 2016). These technoparks were heavily invested by the government and its statutory boards, with Phase 1 of Biopolis costing S$500 million and Phase 1 of Fusionopolis costing S$600 million (Calder 2016). Another upcoming technopark, the Jurong Industrial District, which is expected to be completed by 2022, seeks to bring the academics and students from the nearby Nanyang Technological University together with innovators, entrepreneurs and businesses (Ong 2016). Research institutions of the Nanyang Technological University, such as that of the Nanyang Environment and the Water Research Institute, the Energy Research Institute @ NTU also work in the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) CleanTechOne, built and conceptualised as an innovation cluster and technopark (JTC 2017a). This is on top of funding, a total of S$16 billion between 2011 and 2015 that has been set aside for research and development. Calder (2016) argues that the funding and the synergistic relationship with the local academia was a key factor in augmenting the rankings of the local universities in both regional and international rankings. In the London-based Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) rankings of 2017, the Nanyang Technological University was ranked first, while the National University of Singapore was ranked second in Asia (Davie 2017). The close ties are not limited to academia; they are also extended to domestic companies, particularly the small-medium enterprises. The Cluster Development Fund and Co-Investment Programme established by the Economic Development Board aims to co-invest with international multinational corporations and local enterprises. This has contributed greatly to the advancement of the semiconductor industry for export in the 1960s (Calder 2016). Moreover, the technoparks are home to a huge plethora of startups in recent time [e.g., the LaunchPad has an estimated total of 600 startups, (JTC 2017a)], the majority of which are local enterprises. Additionally, the different strategies in Singapore to encourage research and innovation also provide strong support for germinating companies and ideas. While attracting multinational corporations and foreign direct investment is an unequivocal aim of the technoparks, this is done to ensure that local companies, expertise and talents are not overshadowed. These technoparks serve as “test beds” and “living laboratories” to systematically study and test smart applications in real-world contexts. These technoparks then become key sites to study ideas particularly of an interdisciplinary nature, which the government hopes to put into practice in the rest of the country, on top of commercialising to the rest of the world (Calder 2016). The CleanTech Park serves as a living smart laboratory and “a total of 16 estate and building-level green projects are testbedded” in the CleanTech Park (JTC 2017a: n/p). There has been a strong push for smart and green technology development in Singapore through a variety of projects. Building-level projects include a solar PV system, a wastewater recycling system for non-potable use and organic photovoltaic solar films (JTC 2017a). Estate-level test-bed projects include street-lighting projects, driverless and autonomous vehicle projects (JTC 2017a). Driverless and autonomous vehicles have also been tested in the technopark at One-North since 2015 on routes that connect the Biopolis, Fusionopolis and Mediapolis (JTC 2017a). Such ideas after being successfully tested in these

434

F. Chang and D. Das

technoparks would be commercialised before expanded to the rest of the country (Souppouris 2016). While technoparks worldwide have a tendency to become exclusionary zones and zones of exception, Singapore’s approach towards technoparks demonstrates a much more integrated approach to smart and green city research and initiatives. While these technoparks are clusters with high concentrations of high technology research and businesses, they maintain close ties with the rest of the country, the domestic market and economic sector. Moreover, domestic companies and startups have a huge presence in these technoparks, and the attracting of foreign direct investment and companies does not happen at the expense of a domestic organic growth of the high technology sector. Ultimately, the possibility for such a citizen-oriented and nationwide approach to smart and green urbanism is highly dependent on the role of the government in Singapore. This shall be discussed in the next section.

18.6 The Role of the Government The government in Singapore plays a central role in the smart and green city initiatives in the country. This is against a backdrop of a burgeoning penetration of large multinational companies into the smart urban initiatives. For instance, in the 100 Smart Cities scheme of India, domestic and international private consulting firms as opposed to the state or municipal authorities take charge of a broad range of activities. Consultancy firms analyse the existing problems in the city, assemble the concept plan and consult the citizens. This results in empowering of the consultancies at the expense of the democratically elected government. As an example, in Dholera, the UK-based consultancy firm Halcrow is responsible for the masterplan, while the hardware (fibre-optic cables, sensors and cameras) is placed under the onus of Cisco (Datta 2016). Cisco’s role in the city of Nagpur is even greater, with it responsible for building the entirety of the smart city infrastructure (Chauhan 2017). This situation mirrors that of many other countries, e.g., the role of IBM in Rio de Janeiro (McNeill 2016). In contrast, the Singapore government and its statutory boards play a central role in the smart city initiatives. Statutory boards are Singapore’s answer to governance and her approach to enlisting the purported strengths of the private sector without compromising on broader society-driven and nation-oriented goals. This arrangement accords them greater flexibility and technical expertise than the regular ministries staffed by civil servants. Moreover, they actively seek talent from the private sector, heightening their market sensitivity (Calder 2016). Central to the smart urbanism scheme are the statutory boards of the Economic Development Board (EDB), A*STAR and JTC Corporation. The role of the Economic Development Board directly pertaining to smart urbanism is its role in attracting foreign companies to the technoparks and technological clusters in Singapore through offices set up around the world by providing information and networks (Calder 2016). Further, the Economic Development Board worked

18 Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies …

435

together with the Monetary Authority of Singapore to establish the FinTech Office in May 2016 to promote Singapore as a Smart Financial Centre (MAS 2016). On the other hand, A*STAR funds and promotes economically oriented scientific research and innovative technology. It focuses on research and design in areas such as biomedical sciences, physical sciences and engineering (A*STAR 2018). Lastly, the role of the JTC Corporation is in planning, designing, building, managing and promoting industrial areas. By acquiring green and brownfield sites from the government, the JTC develops industrial land and constructs ready-built facilities and infrastructure for business. Progressively, its focus has shifted to that of high technology clusters and technoparks and providing “specialised land and new innovative space to support and catalyse new industry clusters” (JTC 2017a). The examples of the technoparks listed above such as that of the Fusionopolis, Biopolis and CleanTech Parks were all constructed under the onus of the JTC Corporation. Moreover, the government has direct control of the smart city initiatives. The Smart Nation and Digital Government Group is directly under the Prime Minister’s office and is comprised of staff from various ministries such as the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Communications and Information and the Prime Minister’s Office. Additionally, Singapore’s large-scale investments (for instance, that of providing infrastructure and the development of technological clusters) is made by the government through government bonds such as the Singapore Government Securities, Special Singapore Government Securities and the Singapore Saving Bonds rather than relying on private sources for funding (Goh 2016). These government bonds have also been consistently highly rated by international credit rating agencies. In contrast, smart cities like Dholera only have 10% of the estimated $9–10 billion cost funded by the federal government and Japanese corporations (e.g., Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Toshiba, JGC and Tokyo Electric Power); the remaining required sum has to be sourced from the private sector (see Datta 2016). A greater role for the government could be a factor in the safeguarding of citizen-oriented goals and smart city outcomes. For instance, the successes of Cape Town’s ICT strategy—“a Strategy for a Smarter City”—has been attributed by the government’s commitment and mandate to address the basic needs of the people and produce social empowerment. To enable this, the government had to fend off incessant proposals from the private sector for both hardware and software solution and ensure consistent engagement with the local community and broader urbanity (Odendaal 2016).

18.7 Conclusion Singapore is an “actually existing” smart city on different levels. Firstly, the already existing high levels of internet connectivity, smart phone penetration, the high technology industry and a long-established knowledge-based economy makes Singapore a city where “smart” initiatives are merely a progression or even a continuation, as opposed to leaping. Secondly, the case study of Singapore demonstrates how her successes as a smart city (as dictated by the indices) are rooted in a particular social,

436

F. Chang and D. Das

economic and government’s active initiatives. However, technology is not a panacea, neither is the smart city or supposedly enlightened architecture and green urban planning; the smart city should just be limited to a way of thinking about the city—how to be forward thinking and efficient while meeting the needs of the existing city at hand. Smart initiatives and technologies are also a constant process of learning and innovating, an aspect, which Singapore has sometimes, fell behind to keep up with. For instance, the Network for Electronic Transfers (NETS) system of cash-free point of sale (PoS) electronic transfers was developed by Singapore in 1985 with groundbreaking technology during that era (MAS 2018). Singapore was also a pioneer in introducing electronic prepaid cards in the 1990s (Woo 2018). However, Singapore has failed to keep up with the burgeoning e-payment industry and is late to the system; the NETSPay and the NETS QR system of cash-free mobile payments were only introduced in 2017 (Woo 2018). As such, it is already a late entrant in a sector inundated by a huge number of competitors and a plethora of smart applications. This has contributed to confusion among people and perhaps a lethargy towards such payment systems. To some extent then, even the implementation of smart initiatives in a purported smart city and nation has elements of “bumbling along” (see McFarlane et al. 2016: 187). Furthermore, it has to be acknowledged that improving the quality of life for the people through smart and green technologies will pose challenges and also offer new opportunities. Acknowledgements Authors would like to acknowledge the funding for this research from the NIE AcRF Tier 1 fund (RI 7/14DKD).

References A*STAR. (2018). Overview. A*STAR. Available at: https://www.a-star.edu.sg/Research/Overview. Last accessed May 28, 2018. ABI Research. (2018). Singapore beats Dubai and London to top spot in smart city rankings. ABI Research. Available at https://www.abiresearch.com/press/singapore-beats-dubai-andlondon-top-spot-smart-city-rankings/. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21. Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., et al. (2012). Smart cities of the future. European Physical Journal, 214, 481–518. Benner, T. (2018). Singapore: A smart living laboratory. Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/products/singapore-a-smart-nation/singapore-asmart-living-laboratory/. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Bhunia, P. (2018a). Singapore’s smart nation strategic projects on track to deliver interim outcomes. Open Gov. Available at: https://www.opengovasia.com/articles/singapores-smart-nationstrategic-projects-on-track-to-deliver-interim-outcomes. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Blok, A. (2012). Greening cosmopolitan urbanism? On the transnational mobility of low-carbon formats in Northern European and East Asian cities. Environment and Planning A, 44, 2327–2343. Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode, 34(3), 349–379.

18 Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies …

437

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘Sex’. New York: Routledge. Calder, K. E. (2016). Singapore: Smart city smart state. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Calvillo, N., Halpern, O., LeCavalier, J., & Pietsch, W. (2016). Geographies of smart urban power. In S. Marvin, A. Luque-Ayala, & C. McFarlane (Eds.), Smart urbanism: Utopia vision or false dawn? (pp. 125–144). Abingdon: Routledge. Calzada, I., & Cobo, C. (2015). Unplugging: Deconstructing the smart city. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 23–43. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82. Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. F. (2016). Do smart cities invest in smarter policies? Learning from the past, planning for the future. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 657–672. Centre for Liveable Cities. (2018). Land framework of Singapore: Building a sound land administration and management system. Centre for Liveable Cities, Urban Systems Studies. Available at: https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/urban-systems-studies/uss-land-frameworkof-singapore.pdf. Last accessed July 2, 2018. Chauhan, H. (2017). How Cisco could win big from India’s smart cities. Fox Business. Available at http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/04/14/how-cisco-could-win-big-from-indiasmart-cities.html. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Cohen, B. (2012). What exactly is a smart city? Co. Exist, 19. Dale, O. J. (1999). Urban planning in Singapore: The transformation of a city. Shah Alam, Malaysia: OUP. Das, D. (2015). Making of high-tech Hyderabad: Mapping neoliberal networks and ground realities. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 36(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12112. Datta, A. (2016). The smart entrepreneurial city: Dholera and 100 other utopias in India. In S. Marvin, A. Luque-Ayala, & C. McFarlane (Eds.), Smart urbanism: Utopia vision or false dawn? (pp. 52–70). Abingdon: Routledge. Davie, S. (2017). NTU, NUS ranked top two universities in Asia. The Straits Times. Available at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/ntu-nus-ranked-top-two-universitiesin-asia. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Dong, H., & Zhu, P. (2015). Smart growth in two contrastive metropolitan areas: A comparison between Portland and Los Angeles. Urban Studies, 52(4), 775–792. Dryzek, J. (2005). The politic of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giffinger, R., & Gudrun, H. (2010). Smart cities ranking: An effective instrument for the positioning of cities? Architecture, City and Environment, 4(12), 7–26. Goh, E. Y. (2016). askST: Why does Singapore have an external debt of US$1.766 trillion. The Straits Times. Available at https://www.straitstimes.com/askst/askst-why-does-singapore-havean-external-debt-of-us1766-trillion. Last accessed May 28, 2018. GOVTECH. (2017). Total land area of Singapore. Data.gov.sg. Available https://data.gov.sg/ dataset/total-land-area-of-singapore. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Han, H. (2017). Singapore, a garden city: Authoritarian environmentalism in a developmental state. Journal of Environment and Development, 26(1), 3–24. Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), 3–17. Hayat, P. (2016). Smart cities: A global perspective. India Quarterly, 72(2), 177–191. Henderson, J. C. (2013). Urban parks and green spaces in Singapore. Managing Leisure, 18(3), 213–225. Hill, D. (2013). Essay: On the smart city; or a ‘manifesto’ for smart citizens instead. City of Sound. Available at http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2013/02/on-the-smart-city-a-call-forsmart-citizens-instead.html. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Ho, E. (2016). Smart subjects for a smart nation? Governing (smart)mentalities in Singapore. Urban Studies, 1–17.

438

F. Chang and D. Das

Hollands, R. (2008). Will the real smart city stand up? Creative, progressive or just entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 302–320. Housing Development Board. (2017). Public housing, a Singapore icon. Housing Development Board. Available at: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/cs/infoweb/about-us/our-role/public-housing–asingapore-icon. Last accessed July 2, 2018. Huang, S. (2001). Planning for a tropical city of excellence: Urban development challenges for Singapore in the 21st century. Built Environment, 27(2), 112–128. Hult, A. (2015). The circulation of Swedish urban sustainability practices: To China and back. Environment and Planning A, 47, 537–553. Hynes, C. (2017). Singapore ranks as world’s no. 2 smart city, report says. Forbes. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/chynes/2017/11/10/singapore-ranks-as-one-of-thetop-smart-cities-in-the-world/#34bc9540717d. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Infocomm Media Development Authority. (2017). Infocomm usage—Households and individuals. Infocomm Media Development Authority. Available at https://www.imda.gov.sg/industrydevelopment/facts-and-figures/infocomm-usage-households-and-individuals. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Jayarajah, K., & Misra, A. (2018). Urban living in the age of the smart city. The Straits Times. Available at https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/urban-living-in-the-age-of-the-smart-city. Last accessed May 28, 2018. JTC. (2017a). Our partnerships: Case studies. JTC. Available at http://www.jtc.gov.sg/ourpartnerships/Pages/case-studies.aspx#pageheader. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Kang, M. (2015). Implementing the smart city. The Straits Times. Available at https://brandinsider. straitstimes.com/hitachi/implementing-the-smart-city/. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Klauser, F. R., & Söderström, O. (2016). Smart city initiatives and the Foucauldian logics of governing through code. In S. Marvin, A. Luque-Ayala, & C. McFarlane (Eds.), Smart urbanism: Utopia vision or false dawn? (pp. 108–124). Abingdon: Routledge. Lee, T. (2015). This is Singapore’s bold plan to mold the world in its image. TechinAsia. Available at https://www.techinasia.com/singapores-bold-plan-mold-world-image. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Lim, X. (2016). Smart city 2016. Chemistry and Industry, 8, 40. Luque-Ayala, A., McFarlane, C., & Marvin, S. (2016). Introduction. In S. Marvin, A. Luque-Ayala, & C. McFarlane (Eds.), Smart urbanism: Utopia vision or false dawn? (pp. 1–15). Abingdon: Routledge. March, H., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2014). Smart contradictions: The politics of making Barcelona a self-sufficient city. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1–15. McFarlane, C., Marvin, S., & Luque-Ayala, A. (2016). Conclusion. In S. Marvin, A. Luque-Ayala, & C. McFarlane (Eds.), Smart urbanism: Utopia vision or false dawn? (pp. 185–191). Abingdon: Routledge. McNeill, D. (2016). IBM and the visual formation of smart cities. In S. Marvin, A. Luque-Ayala, & C. McFarlane (Eds.), Smart urbanism: Utopia vision or false dawn? (pp. 34–51). Abingdon: Routledge. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. Monetary Authority Singapore (MAS). (2016). New FinTech office: A one-stop platform to promote Singapore as a FinTech hub. Monetary Authority Singapore. Available at http://www.mas.gov. sg/News-and-Publications/Media-Releases/2016/New-FinTech-Office.aspx. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Monetary Authority Singapore (MAS). (2018). NETS electronic fund transfers at point of sale. Monetary Authority Singapore. Available at http://www.mas.gov.sg/Singapore-Financial-Centre/ Payment-and-Settlement-Systems/Clearing-and-Settlement-Systems/NETS-Electronic-FundTransfers-at-Point-of-Sale.aspx. Last accessed May 28, 2018.

18 Smart Nation Singapore: Developing Policies …

439

National Climate Change Secretariat and National Research Foundation. (2011). Smart grid technology primer: A summary. National Climate Change Secretariat and National Research Foundation. Available at https://www.nccs.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/smartgrid-technology-primer-a-summary.pdf. Last accessed May 28, 2018. National Computer Board. (1992). A vision of an intelligent island: The IT 2000 report. Singapore: National Computer Board. Odendaal, N. (2016). Getting smart about smart cities in Cape Town: Beyond the rhetoric. In S. Marvin, A. Luque-Ayala, & C. McFarlane (Eds.), Smart urbanism: Utopia vision or false dawn? (pp. 71–87). Abingdon: Routledge. O’Grady, M., & O’Hare, G. (2012). How smart is your city? Science, 335(3), 1581–1582. Olds, K., & Yeung, H. (2004). Pathways to global city formation: A view from the development city-state of Singapore. Review of International Political Economy, 11(3), 489–521. Ong, H. H. (2016). Singapore budget 2016: Jurong innovation district to be set up first phase ready by around 2022. The Straits Times. Available at https://www.straitstimes.com/business/economy/ singapore-budget-2016-new-jurong-innovation-district-to-be-set-up-first-phase-ready. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Ooi, G. L. (2004). Future of space: Planning, space and the city. Singapore: Eastern University Press. Roth, M., & Chow, W. T. L. (2012). A historical review and assessment of urban heat island research in Singapore. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 33, 381–397. Schelmetic, T. (2011). The rise of the first smart cities. Thomas.Net. Available at https://news. thomasnet.com/imt/2011/09/20/the-rise-of-the-first-smart-cities. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Shelton, T., Zook, M., & Wiig, A. (2015). The “actually existing smart city”. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 13–25. Smart Nation and Digital Government Office (SNDNG). (2018). Smart nation. Smart Nation Singapore. Available at https://www.smartnation.sg/about/Smart-Nation. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Souppouris, A. (2016). Singapore is striving to be the world’s first ‘smart city’. Engadget. Available at https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/03/singapore-smart-nation-smart-city/. Last accessed May 28, 2018. The Straits Times. (2018, January 16). Rare dip in Singapore’s population density last year. The Straits Times. Available at: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/rare-dip-in-singaporespopulation-density-last-year. Last accessed July 2, 2018. The Straits Times. (2018, March 27). Jakarta aiming to roll out ERP in 2019. The Straits Times. Available at https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/jakarta-aiming-to-roll-out-erp-in2019. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Urban Redevelopment Authority. (2018). Past concept plans. Urban Redevelopment Authority. Available at: https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Planning/Concept-Plan/Past-Concept-Plans. Last accessed July 2, 2018. Vittanen, J., & Kingston, R. (2014). Smart cities and green growth: Outsourcing democratic and environmental resilience to the global technology sector. Environment and Planning A, 46, 803– 819. Watson, V. (2015). The allure of ‘smart city’ rhetoric: India and Africa. Dialogues in Human Geography, 5(1), 36–39.

440

F. Chang and D. Das

Woo, D. (2018). Singapore, are you ready to go cashless? Singapore Computer Society Quarterly Magazine, 1. Available at https://issuu.com/scsmagazine/docs/scs_theitsociety_issue1_2018_ final. Last accessed May 28, 2018. Yee, A. T. K., Corlett, R. T., Liew, S. C., & Tan, H. T. W. (2011). The vegetation of Singapore. Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore, 63, 205–212.

Chapter 19

Towards Sustainable and Greener Cities: Lessons Learnt Through NUPs Debolina Kundu, Remy Sietchiping, and Michael Kinyanjui

Abstract With the changing global epicenter of urbanization to Asia and Africa, the present concern is to formulate a clear agenda to guide the developing countries of these two continents on their ways towards being urban. Most of these countries are poised with several challenges, emerging from lack of a context-specific nationallevel policy framework. Therefore, NUP has been a central agenda to SDG (11) and National Urban Agenda (NUA), proposed in the UN-Habitat III conference (2016), which provides a vision to these countries. Whereas most of the developed countries of Europe and Australia are at their second or third generation of NUP, most of the developing countries are at their initial stages of policy formulation and need a lot more guidance to frame a clearer path for a sustainable urban future. Also, the smart city experiences from countries like Korea and Singapore may be of help to the developing countries in the formulation of their respective NUPs. Keywords Urban challenges · NUP experiences · Developing countries · Developed countries · National Urban Agenda

19.1 Countries with Differing Experience and Challenges This book has attempted to provide urbanisation experience of 15 countries from various parts of the world. The countries are India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Philippines, China, Singapore and Korea from Asia; South Africa, Zanzibar, three Lusophone countries and Nigeria from Africa; France and Germany from Europe and Australia. Each continent exhibits some common problems for majority of its countries. However, Korea and Singapore are examples of exceptions in case of Asia. Likewise, South Africa stands as an exception in case of Africa. D. Kundu (B) National Institute of Urban Affairs, Core 48, 1st Floor, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003, India e-mail: [email protected] R. Sietchiping · M. Kinyanjui UN-Habitat, Nairobi, Kenya © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7_19

441

442

D. Kundu et al.

Asian urbanisation started taking a rapid pace only in the second half of the twentieth century. In majority of its countries, the growth of urban population was rapid and unplanned which led to a somewhat messy urbanisation. Increase in congestion, rapid growth of informal settlements and sprawls, growth of informal economy, lack of proper housing and basic amenities and overall lack of proper institutional and governance framework were the sine qua non for such sprawling cities. Countries like India and Pakistan have similar pattern of urbanisation and challenges, though India has better governance framework to tackle urban issues. China’s experience was much different from the South Asian countries in terms of level of urbanisation, policies restricting urbanisation, income and infrastructural development of the cities. Contrary to this, Afghanistan is faced with long going war-devastated situation, disrupting its urban development. Although posed with similar war-devastated condition, higher income level of Iran gave it an advantage over most of the countries like most of the middle-east countries. It is also noted that, compared to India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, Philippines had a long history of NUP, although not efficient enough to tackle most of its urban challenges. The experience of China is also similar to Philippines. Still India, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Philippines are way behind in terms of urban development as compared to South Korea and Singapore, though located in the same continent. These countries provide examples to entire world of sustainable urban development using smart and green technologies. The African experience is entirely different from rest of the world. One of the least urbanised regions of the world, with very high incidence of poverty, this region is currently characterised by very rapid rate of urbanisation and will be main contributor of urban population growth in the coming decades. Urban primacy with lack of urban infrastructure is the major challenge in the region. Some countries are much behind in terms of development, such as Lusophone countries, compared to the experience of Nigeria and Zanzibar. Lusophone countries, are the least urbanised and in a dire need to deal with their health, education and infrastructure related challenges. On the other hand, Nigeria and Zanzibar are relatively better placed economically to deal with their urban challenges. However, all these countries are in an urgent need for developing efficient and integrated urban policies. Contrary to all the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa’s experience is entirely different, posed with the issues related to racial discrimination. Each chapter of this book attempted to describe the urbanisation trajectories of select countries and related challenges. Contrary to the experience of less-developing countries in Asia and Africa, European countries, especially those situated in the Western part, have had a very long history of urbanisation. Their urbanisation is guided by economic development contrary to the Asian and African experience, leading to more systematic urban development. However, with economic development and stabilisation of population, the problem of shrinking cities and decline in workforce arose. Even, different European countries have different experience in dealing with urbanisation. For example, among the two case studies of France and Germany, the latter is struggling with decline in population, especially in the city cores. On the other hand, France is more affected by growing urban sprawl and related environmental issues. Increasing social conflict is also an issue in France, along with increasing international migration.

19 Towards Sustainable and Greener Cities: Lessons Learnt …

443

Unlike the European situation, Australia is experiencing rapid growth of urban population, mostly due to in-migration. Whereas Australia is attracting young professionals due to growth of knowledge-based industries in its big-cities, huge flow of asylum seeking refugees, mostly unskilled is one of the emerging threats in Europe. Both the regions are going through a change in population structure characterised by ageing population.

19.2 NUP at Global Level The UN-Habitat III conference in 2016 came up with the proposition of National Urban Policy (NUP) as a tool, to tackle the growing urban challenges in most of the countries to achieve the goals of SDGs (SDG 11) and New Urban Agenda. In fact, one of the indicators of SDG11 is the formulation of a NUP. The main aim of the NUP is to provide the countries with an integrated framework for ensuring more inclusive and sustainable development of their cities. The focus of NUP is primarily to assist developing countries, especially those in Asia and Africa, address the challenges of urbanisation and harness its positive externalities for a balanced and sustainable development. In this context, the UN Vision for Africa 2063 is assisting some of African countries in the formulation of their NUPs. It is noted that at the global level, 150 countries have already started formulating NUPs, out of which 92 countries have implemented their NUPs, whereas 58 countries are in the process of developing the same. However, these are mostly at their initial phase of drafting. Importantly, only 19 countries have reached the final stage of development of NUP, i.e. monitoring and evaluation stage (UN-Habitat and OECD 2018). In light of the above, this book has tried to summarise the urbanisation experience of different parts of the world, and their experience with development of NUP. Many of the case study countries already have NUPs in place. Some of them are in their second generations like Australia, China, France and Singapore. Philippines and Republic of Korea are in their third and fourth generations while Afghanistan, India, Iran, Lusophone Countries, Nigeria, Pakistan and Zanzibar are either struggling with putting in place the first one. Germany and South Africa have only recently implemented their first NUP.

19.3 NUP in Developed Countries The European countries, along with other developed parts of the world, are better equipped with integrated urban policies already in place be it France or Germany. Although NUP is absent in both these countries, they still possess better policy frameworks at national level which are actionable. Proper implementation of policies in these countries is a lesson to be learnt by other countries. France has efficiently built their smart technologies to tackle the problems related to sub-urbanisation

444

D. Kundu et al.

and climate change. On the other hand, Germany efficiently developed a policy framework to tackle the declining city core and integration of the migrants. This could be a good learning for Asian countries. Australia, on the other hand, has progressed considerably in terms of planning its cities in the last decade. The country has already moved towards ‘Smart City Plan’ (2016) after the successful implementation of its first NUP (2011). The country has also successfully developed city-specific deals in a long-term basis (varies between 10 and 20 years) under its smart city plan. The country also monitors the progress on a constant basis through a series of reports and publicly available information. Therefore, Australian NUP could serve as a good practice with its comprehensive development strategy institutionalised through continuous monitoring of progress and city specific long-term planning. The ‘smart and green city initiatives’ are also an important components of NUP, and South Korea and Singapore are pioneers in managing their urban areas in a smarter and greener way. Both countries are good models not only for developing countries, but for the developed countries too. Being a city-state, Singapore has already set example for their extremely efficient use of smart technologies in managing land-use, traffic control, etc. Most of the smart cities initiatives are state sponsored, which could be a lesson for India. On the other hand, the green initiatives of South Korea are worth replicating by other countries. Even at 80% level of urbanisation, Korean cities are managing its population and productivity in a very energy efficient way, by creation of green buildings and transport. This could be a good practice for Iran, a country which is still trying to address the issue of energy efficiency.

19.4 NUP in Developing Countries Most of the developing countries in Asia and Africa do not possess any integrated urban policy framework at the national level. Only after UN-Habitat III 2016 conference, most of the Asian and African countries initiated their policy formulation process. Some countries like Philippines already had NUP under a different form, National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF). But it was not very competent; hence under the NUP scheme, it reformulated its policy framework to achieve sustainable urban development. On the other hand, countries like India had no integrated NUP at the national level. The post Habitat III period has witnessed concerted action by various nations towards framing their respective NUPs. China had national-level urban policy since the beginning of the reform period. However, the policy only supported the growth of large cities and created regional and interpersonal inequalities. The New Type Urbanisation Planning (2014–2020) was formulated to address these issues and, therefore, tried to incorporate people-centric agenda along resilience. This was aimed to integrate the migrant population in Chinese cities and tackle the growth of mega cities. On the other hand, countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, till date lack a proper framework to deal with the urban

19 Towards Sustainable and Greener Cities: Lessons Learnt …

445

challenges. Both these countries have realised the need for more competent policy framework and have just started formulating their NUPs. Most of the African countries, with their lack of endowment along with weak institutional framework, were unable to formulate NUPs on their own. Therefore, they sought help from UN-Habitat to assist them in the formulation of NUP. UN Vision Africa 2063, mainly encompasses special assistance to the African countries, considering their special needs. Countries like Nigeria, Lusophone countries and Zanzibar with the help of UN-Habitat, recently framed their NUPs. Zanzibar, besides UN-Habitat also sought the help of UNESCO for the preservation of its historical Stone Town. Contrary to the other sub-Saharan countries discussed, only South Africa had a more efficient urban policy. However, the policy could not address racial discrimination related challenges.

19.5 Way Forward It is important to realise that persistence of multiple forms of poverty, growing inequalities and environmental degradation, social and economic exclusion and spatial segregation are the major obstacles to sustainable development worldwide. Cities in particular face massive sustainability challenges in terms of housing, infrastructure, basic services, food security, health, education, decent jobs, safety and natural resources. These are coupled by unprecedented threats from unsustainable consumption and production patterns, loss of biodiversity, pressure on ecosystems, pollution, natural and human-made disasters, and climate change and its related risks. For this, cities need to be planned, designed, financed, developed, governed and managed properly. Moreover, the countries are burdened with their own set of urban challenges, which need immediate attention. The NUPs, with their context-specific approach, can meet these challenges by making cities and human settlements adequately empowered. In fact, good urbanisation is an engine of sustained and inclusive economic growth, social and cultural development and environmental protection, and has the potential to achieve transformative and sustainable development. Importantly, good urbanisation does not happen by chance, but rather by design. Supportive rules and regulations, sound planning and design and a viable financial plan are necessary for sustainable urbanisation. The NUPs should be planned in a manner to harness the opportunities of urbanisation and transform the threats to new prospects.

Reference UN-Habitat and OECD (2018) Global State of National Urban Policy. Nairobi Kenya: UN-Habitat.

About the Book

Urbanisation is increasingly becoming a global phenomenon. It is posing new challenges and bringing new opportunities, both of which can be effectively managed by national governments if they have a policy framework in place for urban development—in the form of a National Urban Policy (NUP). This book, the first of its kind, brings together NUP experiences of countries that are at different levels of urbanisation and growth. NUPs and their priorities differ amongst countries, based on the countries’ historical and socio-economic context. Urbanisation in developing countries, often accompanied by unplanned growth and inadequate investment, has given rise to challenges of inadequate infrastructure and basic amenities. On the other hand, highly urbanised developed countries face challenges related to decreasing population in city cores, ageing populations and increasing suburbanisation. Furthermore, climate change is adding new and unprecedented items to this list of urban challenges. While these challenges will be felt across the world—beyond the developed–developing binary—social groups most marginalised will be further threatened. This book highlights the importance of NUP as a tool through which city governments can facilitate positive urbanisation outcomes to support productivity, competitiveness and inclusive prosperity. Many Asian and African countries that are experiencing high demographic growth are not equipped to tackle urbanisation challenges. These countries need to build capacities to utilise a rising demographic dividend and to address income and spatial disparities. This book also highlights how NUPs in developed countries could guide developing countries in constructively responding to climate change, ageing population and shrinking cities. In the post-Habitat III era, NUPs could be instrumental in building smart and green habitats and in attaining the targets of UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and New Urban Agenda.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7

447

Author Index

A Agarwala, Parul, 147 Azizi, Ahmad Shoaib, 147

Hasan, Rahema, 121 Holz, Evandro, 319 Huybrechts, Eric, 357

B Basirat, Maysam, 231

J Javed, Nasir, 121 Jeong, Okju, 407 Juma, Muhammad, 299

C Chang, Fiona, 425

D Das, Diganta, 425 Debnath, Tania, 205 Delos Reyes, Mario R., 169

K Kinyanjui, Michael K., 3, 51, 441 Kundu, Debolina, 3, 13, 89, 205, 441

L Lahiri, Baishali, 205

E Ebrahim, Zayd, 281 Everatt, David, 281

M Mueller, André, 335

F Faiz, Humayoun, 147 French, Mathew, 147

P Pandey, Arvind Kumar, 13 Popuri, Srinivas, 147

G Gamboa, Mark Anthony M., 169 Guarneri, Marcella, 319

Q Qureshi, Nadia N., 121

H Habibi, Sara, 231 Hamza, Masood, 147

R Ramalho, Thomaz, 319 Razavi, Mohammad Hassan, 231 Rivera, Ryan Randle B., 169

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 D. Kundu et al. (eds.), Developing National Urban Policies, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3738-7

449

450 S

Author Index T Turkstra, Jan, 147

Sietchiping, Remy, 3, 441 Stace, Sara, 377

Z Zubairu, Mustapha, 255