House of Commons - Communities and Local Government Committee

Select Committee on Communities and Local Government Committee Written Evidence

Joint Memorandum by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and Department for International Development (DFID) (WUF 1)

DCLG COMMITTEE/IDC JOINT EVIDENCE SESSION—WORLD URBAN FORUM 3, VANCOUVER JUNE 2006

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. WUF3, organised by UN-Habitat and hosted by the Canadian Government, was a major international conference (10,000 delegates) to discuss, share good practice, celebrate, and explore the implications of urbanisation—mainly, but not exclusively in the developing world. A small DCLG/DFID team, led by Baroness Andrews, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DCLG, attended.

2. The Minister made well received contributions in the main forum around our common cities agenda (planning, good governance, place making and cohesion). The Minister's attendance also contributed to a successful meeting with UN-Habitat to press for greater focus in its work. Other delegation activities included contributing to the launch of four DFID supported publications, useful bilaterals with the Canadian Government and fact finding visits to Vancouver and Seattle—two cities with a high quality of life, and a good reputation for innovative planning and effective civic leadership.

3. A Ministerial presence added significant authority to the UK delegation and was appreciated by organisers and delegates.

4. The UK delegation ensured value for money by including other useful business alongside attendance at WUF sessions.

5. Next steps will include maintaining engagement with UN-HABITAT, and strengthening its focus; early consideration of the UK's involvement in WUF4 in 2008; raising the profile of urban issues and facilitating ongoing dialogue and skills development between cities on matters of common interest, especially those cities with similar social, economic and governance structures to the UK, and bilateral discussions with Canadian colleagues.

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

6. The Third Session of the World Urban Forum (WUF3) was jointly hosted by the Government of Canada and UN-HABITAT in Vancouver 19-23 June. The theme of the Forum was "Our Future: Sustainable Cities—Turning Ideas into Action" and was an important opportunity for urban development partners from across the developed and developing worlds to discuss the challenges of urbanization and sustainability. WUF3 was given a high profile by the opening speech by the Canadian Prime Minister. Attendance from around 10,000 participants from 100 countries including Ministers, Mayors, public officials academics, NGOs and private sector representatives contributed to its success. Previous Forums have taken place in Nairobi in 2002 and Barcelona in 2004 with the next scheduled for Nanjing, China, in 2008.

7. The UK delegation was headed by Baroness Andrews, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State accompanied by four officials from DCLG, 2 from DFID and the FCO Deputy Permanent Representative to UN-HABITAT and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

8. The theme of the conference was timely and apposite in terms of the UK's own policy priorities and sustainable communities both in the UK and globally. The Westminster Hall debate on `Urbanization in Developing Countries' in February 2006 had already argued for urbanization to be given much higher priority on the international development agenda. By 2007, more than half the world's population is expected to live in towns and cities with the population shift from rural to urban areas occurring fastest in developing countries in the South that are often least well equipped to deal with its consequences because of the weakness of their economies and the fragility of their systems of governance. The acceleration of urbanisation for many countries is therefore bringing with it the intensification and the urbanisation of poverty.

9. In spite of profound differences in their levels of development, there are strong similarities in the challenges facing towns and cities in all countries. All cities are confronting to a greater or lesser degree issues of the quality of life, economic growth and social cohesion, environmental management, affordable, decent homes, spatial planning, transportation and accessibility, human security, citizen empowerment and civic leadership.

10. These are areas where DCLG and DFID, as well as others in the UK can contribute to international debate. We can also learn from international experience, particularly from those countries, and cities with similar systems of governance.

11. The DCLG and DFID share urban policy interests and derive clear benefits by working collaboratively together. WUF3 was an opportunity for DCLG and DFID to build on this joint working by participating in a global event of direct relevance to both departments' agendas.

12. The Bristol Accord which was launched at the EU Ministerial Informal meeting on Sustainable Communities in December 2005 (held during the UK's Presidency of the EU) helps set out an urban policy agenda. This identifies a framework of principles for delivering Sustainable Communities which Member States endorsed. While this is an EU agreement the principles have wider applicability. Attendance at WUF3 was an opportunity for the UK to continue to demonstrate our leadership in this area, and to promote the Bristol Accord principles to a global audience.

POLICY AIMS

(a) DCLG

13. The rationale for DCLG's participation in WUF3 was:

(a) to assist national urban policy development by learning from and sharing best practice with representatives from countries from around the world. Every city to a greater or lesser extent is dealing with the same challenges and consequently the public policy responses are also similar around:

(i) integrated spatial planning;

(ii) linking economic development to social inclusion and community cohesion, and;

(iii) capacity building to support empowerment and effective civic leadership.

(b) To contribute to, and learn from, the worldwide debate on new policy issues such as Climate Change and the use of major international events like the Olympics to help deliver urban regeneration objectives;

(c) To understand and, through understanding, to contribute to the management of the domestic implications of globalisation and urbanisation and the rise of world cities. The UK faces potential challenges economically, environmentally and socially due to countries in the South facing prolonged political, economic and environmental instability; and

(d) to share experience and good practice on capacity building with countries in the South. The successful delivery of sustainable urban communities depends on all those involved in planning and managing them combining their efforts and working together and adding value to each others work. The launch of the "Making Planning Work" handbook at the Forum was an important contribution to this objective.

14. The visit to the West Coast was also an opportunity to have a series of meetings with civic leaders in Vancouver and Seattle to explore civic leadership and liveability issues, including climate change, (see note at Annex 4 for further details) and to be updated on Canadian urban policy issues with Federal Government Ministers and Officials.

(b) DFID

15. The rationale for DFID's participation was:

(a) to share progress on the 2005 G8 commitments (Gleneagles) (Commission for Africa) including those relating to growth and infrastructure investment. DFID participated in the high level panel discussion on Africa Beyond 2005 along with the UN-HABITAT Executive Director and the ex Head of the Commission for Africa Secretariat. Poor infrastructure is identified a critical barrier to accelerating growth and poverty reduction in urban and rural areas and yet investment has declined sharply over the 1990s. This has led to a serious backlog of investment.

(b) to draw attention to the need for innovative financing mechanisms to address the needs to the urban poor. DFID is supporting financially a range of innovative financing pilot schemes which were highlighted. The visit to Vancouver enabled DFID officials to participate in the board meetings of the Community Led Infrastructure Financing Facility and the Slum Upgrading Facility, which were held in the margins of the WUF.

(c) to stress the importance of monitoring progress against MDG Target II and the key role for UN-HABITAT. Millennium Development Goal 7 Target 11 aims `By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers'. Target 11 is one of the least known and least understood of the MDG targets. It is rarely prioritised and often overlooked in national government planning and donor programmes. UN-HABITAT has an important role to play in monitoring progress on meeting MDG target 11. We encourage UN-HABITAT to commit the appropriate level of financial and human resources from core funds to undertake this work.

(d) to hear more from international development partners on their support to urban development activities and policy thinking, and to shares experiences on DFID's work. In doing so, to identify opportunities for coordination and collaboration. There is a common perception that urban issues are not being adequately addressed by the development community.

VISIT PROGRAMME

16. A copy of the full programme of the activities the UK delegation to WUF3 is at Annex 1 and the final report of the Forum at Annex 2(a).

17. Baroness Andrews' formal participation in WUF3 covered the sessions highlighted below.

18. Ministerial Roundtable (20 June) co-hosted by the Canadian Government and UN-Habitat. This addressed key issues relating to the changing role of cities and communities in a globalising world and how national governments can support them. Ministers from 60 countries were present and invited to make short interventions.

19. Baroness Andrews spoke about the need for a common understanding of what is meant by a sustainable community and the role of the "Bristol Accord", to start to build a shared understanding of the concept across Europe. She also talked about the "Reinventing Planning" document launched at the World Planners Congress (copy at Annex 2 (b)).

20. Breakfast Meeting of UN-Habitat Core Donor Nations (20 June) hosted by Inga Bjork-Klevby, Deputy Executive Director of UN-HABITAT. The objective of the meeting was to discuss how best to strengthen UN-HABITAT's strategic focus and core objectives, and improve collaboration with donor member states. The meeting was timely given that UN-HABITAT is about to commence preparation of its Medium Term Strategic and Institutional Plan (2008-13). The UK has been at the forefront of calls for this initiative. Baroness Andrews gave a positive and supportive message about HABITAT's unique role in the international system and its charismatic leadership. She encouraged the agency to think more about what its comparative advantage is and where its strategy priorities should lie. She stressed the important role it has to play in monitoring progress on MDG Target 11.

21. Dialogue Session on Public Engagement: the Inclusive Approach (20 June). This was run in the style of a "chat show" with Baroness Andrews appearing as part of a panel of six discussants including the Japanese Deputy Finance Minister, the Secretary General of United Cities and Governments—Africa, the Head of the Rwanda Women's Network and two university professors (from the Universities of Venice and Lagos). The moderator was Zain Verjee—a CNN anchorwoman. The session, with over 500 delegates, was run in an open and participatory manner which encouraged a lively interchange between members of the panel and the audience in which representatives of NGOs were strongly represented (see summary at Annex 2 (c)).

22. In her comments, Baroness Andrews highlighted the UK Government's approach to building sustainable and inclusive communities, and the role of place-based initiatives in actively engaging residents in the most deprived areas of England in re-building and managing their local neighbourhood.

23. The dialogue's key conclusion was the need to move beyond participation to embrace inclusiveness, empowerment and the active engagement of all citizens, particularly women, youth and the disabled, as partners in governance.

24. Launch of "Making Planning Work—A Guide to Approaches and Skills" and three other urban publications supported by DfID (June 21 June)—see Annex 3 for details. The Minister was unable to attend this evening reception, co-hosted by DfID and DCLG.

25. In a message delivered on her behalf, Baroness Andrews welcomed publication of the "Making Planning Work" handbook as representing an important contribution to delivering a step change in sustainable settlement planning, and getting planners and all those involved in building and managing towns to work together to develop more sustainable approaches. DFID introduced the other publications that build on past DFID funded research studies and are issued under the ITDG's Urban Management Series.

26. The Minister and DCLG officials also attended a number of bilateral meetings on the margins of the Forum itself. These included meetings with:

(a) Canadian Infrastructure, Transport and Communities Minister the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, and Deputy Minister Andre Juneau, on 18 June. This continued the conversation about Canadian and UK approaches to urban issues including urban planning, funding for major infrastructure including transport, incentives for securing affordable housing and social inclusion policies;

(b) City of Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan to discuss key issues facing the city including affordable housing, drugs and crime, homelessness, and the challenge of hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics which the city will use to regenerate deprived neighbourhoods in east downtown Vancouver;

(c) Sybilla Dekker, the Dutch Minister for Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment, to discuss the sharing of knowledge and best practice on UK-Netherlands approaches to community participation, neighbourhood renewal, planning and mixed communities;

(d) Deputy Infrastructure and Communities Minister Andre Juneau and Cities and Assistant Deputy Minister Yazmine Laroche and DCLG officials to follow up outcomes from the Canada-UK Colloquium on Cities and National Success held in Cardiff in November 2005;

(e) The Hon. Michael Harcourt (ex Mayor of Vancouver and ex Premier of British Columbia) and DCLG officials. Michael Harcourt recently chaired an Advisory Group to the Canadian Prime Minister on Cities and Communities from 2004-06. His report—"From Restless Communities to Resilient Places: Building a Stronger Future for All Canadians" was launched just before WUF3 opened. This has similarities with our own State of the Cities report; and

(f) Glen Murray and Alex Wood from the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) and DCLG officials to discuss the links between urban policy and economic and environmental policy (including climate change).

27. DFID officials also attended:

(a) the fourth meeting of the Slum Upgrading Facility Consultative Board, a UN-Habitat programme to which DFID has committed US$10.9 million;

(b) the Advisory Group meeting of the Community Led Infrastructure Financing Facility, to which DFID has committed US $10 million;

(c) a high level panel on Africa Beyond 2005 on the quest for sustainable urbanisation in Africa one year on from Gleneagles focussing attention on the rapid urbanisation and the 72% of urban populations now living in slums;

(d) a donor dialogue on the rural-urban shift in the developing world organised by the Canadian International Development Agency. The meeting was attended by about 15 donor representatives to look at the issues and responses in terms of policies and initiatives;

(e) a meeting organised by Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs on the issue of human security and cities. The meeting drew attention the Department's recently launched discussion paper entitled "Freedom from Fear in Urban Spaces" and to the Human Security Network. The Network is a group of like-minded countries at the level of Foreign Ministers that maintains dialogue on questions pertaining to human security (the UK is not a member); and

(f) A series of bilaterals including with representatives from GTZ, USAID, Cities Alliance, UN-Habitat, and the World Bank.

28. DCLG officials visited Seattle on 20-21 June to explore economic growth and urban governance issues with key civic leaders and officials. Seattle is regularly voted one of the most attractive cities in the US to live and work in. As part of the wider Puget Sound city region the City works closely with the State, county and other metropolitan authorities to deliver regional transportation and planning services.

29. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is also the leading light behind the US Mayors Agreement on Climate Change—see Annex 4. To date nearly 300 mayors have signed an agreement pledging their authorities and communities to action to reduce carbon dioxide pollution to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012.

30. DCLG was represented at the World Planners Congress in Vancouver (16-20 June), which preceded WUF3 by Terrie Alafat—Director of Homelessness and Housing Support—who gave a speech on the UK Government's approach to tackling homelessness in England. DCLG officials also invited RTPI officers, including President Clive Harridge, to brief Baroness Andrews on the outcomes before she attended the WUF Ministerial Roundtable on 18 June. This ensured she was aware of the launch of "Re-inventing Planning" (see Annex 2 (b)) with its strong emphasis on planning as a positive, enabling and pro-active tool for urban development and was able to refer to it in her interventions.

31. The RTPI have supplied a note setting out the process leading to the involvement of UK and global planning bodies at WUF3, the success of that involvement and next steps—see Annex 6.

OUTCOMES

32. The presence of the Minister was greatly appreciated by WUF organisers and delegates. Other counties such as USA, Canada and Germany had a high profile presence at the Forum exhibition. The Minister's attendance and active participation compensated for our lower profile in the exhibition hall.

33. The main messages from the forum were:

Increasing urban poverty

Financing challenges

Re-inventing planning

Engagement and partnerships

34. The goals of the UK delegation were achieved. WUF3 and the other related meetings offered a useful learning/experience sharing opportunity on a number of live policy issues. These included City governance/leadership, action to mitigate climate change, spatial planning and the role of city regions.

35. Our attendance allowed in-depth discussions with Canada, a key partner/comparator. In particular there was an opportunity to learn about and compare with the UK experience on urban policy and cities and climate change.

36. The Minister's presence also enabled the UK to offer a clear steer to UN—Habitat on the need for organisational reform and improved strategic focus.

NEXT STEPS

37. UN-HABITAT

(a) UN-Habitat—HMG will continue to press for the reform of UN-HABITAT including a sharper focus to its work.

(b) WUF4, 2008, Nanjing, China preparation. While the UK delegations objectives for WUF3 were met, the UK could have had a greater presence—the UK had no stand in the exhibition hall in contrast to the large national stands from comparable countries. Without prejudging the business case for a larger UK presence at WUF4 in 2008, there is sufficient lead to explore this possibility.

38. International dialogue between cities

(a) While DCLG's main focus for comparative international work is on the US, Canada and the EU, especially Germany, by reason of their similarities with the UK, there is an opportunity to support dialogue between international cities worldwide. Wilton Park is exploring the possibility of hosting such an event, and if that comes off DCLG would play a role and encourage LGIB and the Core Cities to have an input.

(b) Wilton Park is exploring the possibility of hosting an event in 2007 on urban challenges in which both DCLG and DFID would play a role, and also encourage LGIB and the Core Cities to have an input.

(c) Seattle and Vancouver are good cities to develop dialogue with because of their leading role in promoting and implementing urban liveability and sustainable planning. They also have a common interest with London as they prepare for the 2010 Winter Olympics. The Consul in Vancouver has written to Baroness Andrews about leading a UK delegation to Vancouver to share experiences on Olympics and urban regeneration.

39. Bilateral links

(a) We will continue to develop links with the Canadian Government and anticipate organising an Anglo-Canadian discussion to explore the common agenda clearly articulated in the State of the English Cities and Harcourt reports. This holds the promise of useful exchange of good practice and positive experience. (DCLG already officials maintain regular contact with their Canadian counterparts over urban and regional policy development following a UK-Canada Colloquium on `Cities and National Success' held in Cardiff last year).

(b) DFID will engage with GTZ on their proposal to raise the profile of urban issues during the German G8 presidency and with the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD and the EC. DFID will also collaborate with Sweden, the World Bank and others on scoping out a new urban research agenda.

(c) DCLG will continue to build on UK-Netherlands initiatives to share best practice and knowledge on new approaches to citizen engagement, neighbourhood governance, spatial planning and mixed communities. DCLG officials will participate in a conference in Amsterdam on 1-2 November 2006, organised by the Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment (VROM) on their `56 Neighbourhood Programme'.

40. Closer working with DFID

(a) Informal exchanges on urban and regional policy issues already take place between DCLG and DFID officials with the possibility of quarterly meetings on issues of common concern, possibly chaired by a Minister.

(b) DCLG officials will attend the periodic meetings of Urban Poverty Group (already attended 14 August meeting), chaired by DFID (see Annex 5 for further details of joint working between DCLG and DFID officials).

41. Developing place making skills

42. DCLG/ DFID will continue to promote the development of skills for successful "place-making" and sustainable communities as described in Making Planning Work to domestic and international audiences. This will be led by the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC), in conjunction with the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Local Government International Bureau (LGIB).

43. The ASC are hosting a European symposium on place-making skills in Leeds on 9-10 November. This is part of an ongoing development of the ASC's role in driving European consensus on the key skills and knowledge required for successful place-making.

44. DCLG is exploring with the RTPI how it might best promote the ongoing development of ideas and international best practice on place-making skills through new learning networks and initiatives. It's Special Grants Programme has helped establish and develop a website (www.communityplanning.net) to disseminate good practice guidance, including the contents of the "Making Planning Work" handbook.

CONCLUSIONS

45. WUF3 was a well organised, well attended event where the presence of the small UK delegation, led by a Minister was much appreciated by the organisers and delegates, especially those attending the dialogue session featuring Baroness Andrews. It sent out a strong message about the importance HMG attributes to urban policy, and its commitment to social and economic regeneration, alongside our own urban renaissance, at home and abroad.

46. Meetings with Canadian counterparts offered the chance for timely interchange given that both countries have recently published major reports which identify many common challenges and opportunities in cities and urban policy development, and the way forward.

47. Finally, the meetings with colleagues from Vancouver and Seattle municipal governments were a good opportunity at a practical level to learn move about successful urban governance. The similarities and differences between Seattle and Vancouver were particularly interesting.

Annexes

1. Programme of Activities WUF3/Vancouver/Seattle

2. WUF3:

(a) Final report of WUF3.

(b) "Re-inventing Planning" publication, World Planners Congress.

3. Summary and contents of "Making Planning Work" and 3 other ITDG urban books launched at the Forum: "Contested Space", " Bridging the Finance Gap in Housing and Infrastructure" and "Confronting the Crisis in Urban Poverty"

4. Note of Vancouver/ Seattle trip by DCLG officials.

5. Note on joint working between DCLG and DFID.

6. Note on Involvement of UK and global planning bodies at WUF3.

Annex 1

PROGRAMME OF ACTIVITIES WUF3/VANCOUVER/SEATTLE

Friday 16 June

09.00 to 17.00 Alistair Wray and Zoe Hensby to attend the Slum Upgrading Facility Consultative Board meeting.

Saturday 17 June

09.00 to 12.00 Alistair Wray and Zoe Hensby to attend the Community Led Infrastructure Financing Facility Advisory Group meeting.

15:30 to 18.30 Zoe Hensby to attend the CGAP—Low Income Housing Finance Working Group meeting.

Sunday 18 June

12.00 to 16.00 Alistair Wray to attend the CIDA hosted donor dialogue on urban issues.

14.00 Zoe Hensby to attend the UN-Habitat Friends of the Monitoring to Systems Branch meeting

17.30

17.15 Meeting with Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Canadian Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

18.00 to 20.00 Evening Reception hosted by the Canadian Government Invitation received and accepted from Hon. Diane Finley.

20.00

onwards Baroness Andrews and Keith Thorpe to attend Commonwealth Consultation Group on Human Settlements

Monday 19 June

08.00 UK Delegation meeting- British Consulate.

15.00 to 18.00 Ministerial Roundtable hosted by UN-HABITAT and Canadian Government.

Evening "Stand-up" dinner hosted by UN-HABITAT and Canadian Government. Baroness Andrews and officials will attend.

Tuesday 20 June

8.30-9.30 Breakfast for donor nations hosted by UN-HABITAT

10.00 Baroness Andrews to participate as panel speaker in WUF Dialogue Session:

12.00 "Public Engagement: The Inclusive Approach"

13.30 to 14.30 Meeting with Dr Janice Plumstead, Director of Business Development, Vancouver Economic Development. Commission to discuss economic development and related issues.

16.00 to 16.30 Meeting with His Worship Sam Sullivan, Mayor of Vancouver to discuss governance, sustainability, transport and social cohesion issues.

20.35 Baroness Andrews, Terrie Alafat and Paul Phipps return to UK.

21.20 Julian Bowrey and Keith Thorpe arrive in Seattle.

Wednesday 21 June

08.30 to 09.00 Meeting with Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle to discuss his 2006 Transportation Initiative "Bridging the Gap", his Green Ribbon Commission on Climate Protection and the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

09.30 to 10.30 Meeting with Gary Lawrence, Urban Strategies Leader, ARUP—who has organised the Seattle schedule for us. (Gary is a former Director of Planning for the City of Seattle).

11.30-13.00 Meeting with (Puget) Sound Transit Executive Director Joni Earl.

13.30 to 15.30 Alistair Wray to participate as a panel member in the Beyond to 2005, UN-Habitat round table

16.30 to 17.20 Julian Bowrey and Keith Thorpe travel to Vancouver.

19.30 Alistair Wray, Zoe Hensby Julian Bowrey and Keith Thorpe to attend the launch of the "Making Planning Work" handbook by RPTI (Royal Town Planning Institute) and the Development Planning Unit, University College London and three other new urban publications from ITDG Publishing.

Julian has been asked to launch the handbook and read a message from Baroness Andrews.

Alistair Wray to launch the three international urban development books.

Thursday 22 June

08.00 to 09.00 Breakfast meeting with Deputy Minister of Transport Infrastructure and Communities, Andre Juneau and the Assistant Deputy Minister Yazmine Laroche.

09.30 to 10.30 Meeting with Michael Harcourt, former British Colombia Premier and Mayor of Vancouver, who has a significant history serving the province of B.C.

He is currently the Chair of the PM's Committee on cities and communities and responsible for the report "From Restless Communities to Resilient Places" published in June 2006 (this report draws heavily on the UK experience).

12.00 Meeting with Glen Murray (Chair) and Alex Wood (CEO) of the Canadian National Roundtable on Energy and the Environment to discuss interface between cities policy and climate change.

Glen Murray is a former Mayor of Winnipeg—one of Canada's "Core Cities".

12.00 to 13.15 Alistair Wray to attend the Canadian Dept of Foreign Affairs hosted networking event on human security and cities.

18.10 Julian and Keith to return to the UK arriving at Heathrow at 11.10 on Friday 23 June.

Annex 2(a)

Report of the Third Session of the World Urban Forum Vancouver, Canada 19-23 June 2006

OVERVIEW

With some 10,000 participants from over 100 countries, the Third Session of the World Urban Forum paved the way for a new drive forward on the international urban agenda in a world of rapidly growing cities. Just as the Habitat I Conference in Vancouver in 1976 placed local community concerns on the international agenda and highlighted the critical importance of inclusiveness, the Forum in Vancouver, 30 years later, lived up to its promise of moving ideas to action. It symbolized inclusiveness, with balanced participation from public, private and civil society sectors. Compared to previous sessions of the Forum, there was a notable increase in private sector participation.

The quest for innovative ideas and practical solutions—rare for a meeting convened by the United Nations—was underscored in the six Dialogues, 13 Roundtables and more than 160 Networking Events. Ministers, mayors, academics, community-based organizations, federations of non-governmental organizations, and the private sector shared their insights and experiences on what would improve the quality of life in the world's growing cities. The inclusive approach followed at the Forum is a model for cities. Some are already following this model while others would benefit from doing so.

It was promising that participants, in such large numbers and from all walks of society, began to converge towards an outline for the way forward:

— They agreed on the need for all urban players—citizens, local governments, state and provincial governments, national governments, the private sector and civil society organizations—to work harder to solve urban problems and challenges. There was widespread agreement that they all must do their part, rather than simply transfer responsibility to others.

— They agreed that risk-taking and the pursuit of innovation must characterize municipal leadership if cities are to achieve sustainable development. Vancouver's example in taking the lead in such areas as air and water quality, public transit and planning was mentioned often in this context.

— They agreed that appropriate engagements, partnerships and relationships need to be built in an inclusive manner to better understand challenges and develop practical solutions. Participants from many parts of the world presented examples that can serve as guideposts for these strategies.

— They agreed on the importance of transparency and accountability. Citizens need to be informed of challenges and steps taken by governments to address them. Transparency goes hand-in-hand with accountability, which speeds up the process of enhancing actions that work and curtailing those that do not work.

Highlights and emerging issues are summarized below.

Coming to terms with the Urban Age

From exclusion to engagement: All partners showed a willingness to build effective coalitions to address the needs of the urban poor.

Meeting the financing challenge of slum upgrading and sustainable infrastructure development.

Re-inventing planning: applying new paradigms for sustainable urban development.

A number of observations were made at the Forum, some of which are described below:

"Beautiful speeches, awful reality"—The Millennium Development Goals are not having an impact on the ground in many countries. The commitments made by governments at the Millennium Summit in 2000 and the adoption of national poverty reduction strategies in several countries have not necessarily resulted in improved living conditions among the urban poor. For instance, the increasing incidence of forced evictions goes against the Millennium Development Goals aimed at reducing poverty. Participants felt that there was still a wide discrepancy between what governments said and what they did, and this discrepancy needed to be addressed if the Millennium Development Goals are to be met in cities.

Converging approaches to sustainable urban development policies between developed and developing nations.

Particular emphasis was placed on the needs of women, youth and people with disabilities.

The emerging reality of public-private partnerships.

The success of the Third Session of the World Urban Forum lay not just in what was discussed but in what was learned.

THE WAY FORWARD

The spirit and enthusiasm evinced at the Forum in formal sessions and in the interstices are difficult to capture in words. But it was very clear that every participant was committed to the basic theme of the Forum on turning Ideas into Action. Hundreds of actionable ideas were proposed, described and exchanged. No doubt they will provide the basis for renewed vigour and commitment to a sustainable urban development that is inclusive.

Guidelines and policies for decentralisation and the empowerment of local authorities are required to enable them to engage civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders in transforming their respective cities, as Vancouver did in the follow-up to the first Habitat Conference in 1976.

All spheres of government need to prioritize the urban agenda in their respective plans and policies. UN-HABITAT will take the WUF III outcomes to its Governing Counciland, through it, to the UN General Assembly, with a call for a strengthened role of the United Nation system and international agencies in meeting the urban sustainability challenge.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The World Urban Forum was organized and convened by the Executive Director of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) pursuant to paragraph 10 of resolution 18/5 of the Commission on Human Settlements in which the Commission requested the Executive Director "to promote a merger of the Urban Environment Forum and the International Forum on Urban Poverty into a new urban forum, with a view to strengthening the co-ordination of international support to the implementation of the Habitat Agenda." Subsequently, the United Nations General Assembly decided, in its resolution 56/206, that the Forum would be a "non-legislative technical forum in which experts can exchange views in the years when the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme does not meet." At the same session, the General Assembly, in paragraph 7 of its resolution 56/205, encouraged local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners to participate, as appropriate, in the World Urban Forum in its role as an advisory body to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT.

2. The theme of the Third Session of World Urban Forum was "Our Future: Sustainable Cities—Turning Ideas into Action". Six dialogues on the three sub-themes of "Social Inclusion and Cohesion", "Partnership and Finance", and "Urban Growth and the Environment" were held. In addition, 13 roundtables brought Habitat Agenda partner in peer group sessions to share experiences and views on the Forum theme. Over 160 networking events, training events were also held.

II. ORGANIZATIONAL MATTERS

A. Attendance

3. The Third Session of the World Urban Forum was held in Vancouver, Canada, from 19 to 23 June 2006. A total of 11,418 people registered for the Forum, including 9,689 participants and 1,847 support staff and volunteers. The gender ratio of participants was 46.7% female and 52.1% male (the remaining 1.1% did not specify their gender). The table below outlines the type of participants based on the affiliation indicated at the time of registration on site.

Attendance at the Third Session of the World Urban Forum Attendance at the Second Session of the World Urban Forum

Participants by partner category Number % Number %

Governments 1,497 15.5 446 17.8

Parliamentarians 63 0.7 27 1.1

Local Authorities 1,534 15.7 414 16.4

Non-Governmental Organizations 2,289 23.5 535 21.2

Private Sector 1,187 12.3 203 8.0

Professional and Research Institutions 1,442 14.8 201 8.0

Foundations 95 1.0 33 1.3

Media 346 3.6 51 2.0

Inter-Governmental Organizations 31 0.3

United Nations 379 4.0 196 7.7

Other Participants 753 7.8 416 16.5

Canada Secretariat 73 0.8

No Affiliation Indicated 1,867

Total number of participants 9,689 100.0 4,389 100.0

B. Opening Ceremony

5. The Third Session of the World Urban Forum opened with a welcoming ceremony followed by statements by dignitaries and key partners. The Keynote Address was delivered by The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister, Government of Canada. The message of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, was read, on his behalf, by Ms. Inga Bj½rk-Klevby, UN Assistant Secretary General and Deputy Executive Director of UN-HABITAT. Statements were also delivered at the opening ceremony by the following dignitaries and partners. A summary of these statements is provided in Annex I.

(a) Mr Charles Kelly, Commissioner General, World Urban Forum III, Government of Canada.

(b) Mr Sam Sullivan, Mayor, City of Vancouver, Canada.

(d) Mrs Anna Tibaijuka, Under Secretary-General, United Nations, and Executive Director, UN-HABITAT.

(e) Hon Noli de Castro, Vice President, Government of the Philippines.

(f) Hon Ali Mohamed Shein, Vice President, Government of Tanzania.

C. Opening Plenary Session

6. The session was chaired jointly by the Hon. Ms. María Antonia Trujillo, Minister of Housing, Government of Spain; Chair, Second Session of the World Urban Forum and Hon. Ms. Diane Finley, Minister, Human Resources and Social Development, Government of Canada; Chair of the Third Session of the World Urban Forum.

7. Statements were delivered by the following dignitaries:

(a) Hon Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Government of the United States of America.

(b) Hon Ms Kumari Selja, Minister of State for Urban Employment and Poverty Alleviation, Government of India.

(d) Mr Smangaliso Mkhatshwa, Co-President, United Cities and Local Governments.

(e) Mr. Enrique Ortiz, President, Habitat International Coalition.

Summaries of the above-mentioned statements are provided in Annex II.

8. At its first plenary session, the Forum adopted the following provisional agenda for its Third Session:

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. Establishment of an Advisory Group for the Third Session of the World Urban Forum.

3. Organization of work.

4. Government and Partner Roundtable Sessions.

5. The Dialogues on "Sustainable cities—Turning ideas into action".

Session I: SOCIAL INCLUSION AND COHESION

(a) Achieving the Millennium Development Goals: Slum Upgrading and Affordable Housing

(b) Public Engagement: The Inclusive Approach

Session II: PARTNERSHIP AND FINANCE

(a) Municipal Finance: Innovation and Collaboration

(b) Urban Safety and Security: Taking Responsibility

Session III: URBAN GROWTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

(a) The Shape of Cities: Urban Planning and Management

(b) Energy: Local Action, Global Impact

6. Provisional agenda and other arrangements for the fourth session of the World Urban Forum.

7. Presentation of the summary report of the session

D. Establishment of an Advisory Group

9. The Chair of the Third Session of the World Urban Forum, the Hon Ms Diane Finley, Minister, Human Resources and Social Development, Government of Canada, at the request of the Executive Director, announced the names of the members of the Advisory Group for the Third Session of the World Urban Forum. The terms of reference of the Advisory Group were to advise and assist the Executive Director with the organization, management and conduct of all the meetings and events which took place during the Third Session of the Forum. The members of the Advisory Group were:

(a) Hon Ms Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, Government of Canada, who will serve as the Chair of both the Third Session of the World Urban Forum and of the Advisory Group. Minister Finley requested her Deputy Minister, Mr. Munir Sheikh, to replace her as the Chair.

(b) Hon John P Magufuli, Minister of Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development, Government of the United Republic of Tanzania, who will serve as the Co-Chair of both the Third Session of the Forum and of the Advisory Group.

(c) Hon Wang Guangtao, Minister of Construction, Government of China and host for the Fourth Session of the World Urban Forum.

(d) Hon M Shannon H Sorzano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, United States of America.

(e) Hon Senator Ernesto Gil Elorduy, President of the Global Parliamentarians on Habitat (GPH), Mexico.

(f) Mr Allan Lloyd, Founding President of United Cities and Local Governments, (UCLG).

(g) Mr Alejandro Florian Borbon, representative from the Habitat International Coalition (HIC), Colombia

(h) Ms Esther Mwaura-Muiru, Groots Kenya, representing the Huairou Commission and Women at WUF.

(i) Architect Alexander P Farvorsky, Chief, Design Department, ARCHITEK, (Moscow), Russian Federation.

(j) Ms Rachel Wariko, Kenya National Council for Youth for Habitat, Kenya.

E. Organization of Work

10. The Forum adopted its organization of work as proposed by the Executive Director in document HSP/WUF/3/Add.1 entitled "Adoption of the Agenda and Organization of Work" which contained logistical arrangements for the dialogues, and documents HSP/WUF/3/INF/1 and HSP/WUF/3/INF/2, which contained, respectively, the conference programme and the schedule of training and networking events.

F. Plenary Session 20 June 2006

11. The plenary session on Social Inclusion and Cohesion was moderated by Ms Margaret Cately-Carlson, Chair of Global Water Partnership, Canada. The session discussed key challenges related to marginalization, social exclusion and urban poverty facing cities. Speakers at this plenary session were:

(a) Hon Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Government of the United States of America

(b) Mr Jockin Arputham, founder and President, National Slum Dwellers Federation of India

A Summary report of this session is provided in Annex III.

G. Special UN-Habitat Lecture

12. The United Nations Human Settlements Lecture Series seeks to recognize outstanding and sustained contributions to research, thinking and practice in the field of human settlements. The first UN-HABITAT lecture on "Wealth of Cities: Towards an Assets-Based Development of Urbanising Regions" was delivered by Professor John Friedmann, Honorary Professor, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Canada. A Summary report of this lecture is provided in Annex IV.

H. Plenary Session 21 June 2006

13. The Plenary session on Partnership and Finance was moderated by Ms. Katherine Sierra, Vice-President and Network Head, Infrastructure, World Bank. The speakers at this plenary session were:

(a) Mr Mohammad Yousaf Pashtun, Minister of Urban Development, Government of Afghanistan.

(b) Mr Pat Jacobsen, Chief Executive Officer, TransLink, Canada.

A summary report of this session is provided in Annex V.

I. Plenary Session 22 June 2006

14. The Plenary session on urban growth and environment was moderated by Mr. Chris Leach, President of the Canadian Institute of Planners. The speakers at this plenary session were:

(a) Ms Evelyn Herfkens, Executive Coordinator of the United Nations Millennium Campaign.

(b) Mr Enrique Peñalosa, former Mayor of Bogota«, Colombia, now serving as Visiting Scholar at New York University, USA.

A Summary report of this session is provided in Annex VI.

J. Dialogues

15. The report on the results and conclusions of the dialogues which were held on the six sub-themes of the Third Session of the World Urban Forum is contained in Annex VII.

K. Roundtables

16. The report on the roundtables which were held at the Third Session of the World Urban Forum is contained in Annex VIII.

L. Special Sessions

17. A number of special sessions on specific subjects relevant to the Forum theme were organized. A report on these special sessions is contained in Annex IX.

M. Networking Events

18. A series of over 160 networking events were organized on theme relevant to the Forum. These events provided an opportunity to the participants to build knowledge, strengthen partnerships and share ideas and best practices. In addition, training events were organized to impart professional skills to urban practitioners.

III. PROVISIONAL AGENDA AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM

19. According to paragraph 11 of the "Objectives of and Working Arrangements for the World Urban Forum" which were adopted by the First Session of the World Urban Forum, the provisional agenda for each session of the Forum is to be prepared by the Secretariat in consultation with national governments, local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners, at least six months in advance of the session. Accordingly, and in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, the Secretariat will consult, prepare and circulate the provisional agenda for the Fourth Session at least six months in advance of the session.

20. At the invitation of the Government of China, the Fourth Session of the World Urban Forum will be held in Nanjing, China in 2008. The precise dates will be confirmed after consultations with the United Nations Committee on Conferences to avoid conflicts or overlap with other United Nations meetings and events.

IV. ENDORSEMENT OF THE REPORT OF THE SESSION

21. The Advisory Group endorsed in its entirety the present report on its work at the Third Session for submission by the Chair to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT.

V. CLOSURE OF THE SESSION

22. The session opened with the tabling and presentation of the report by the Advisory Group of the Third Session of the World Urban Forum. Thereafter statements were made by the following speakers:

(a) Hon. John Pombe Magufuli, Minister for Lands, Housing and Human Settlements Development, Government of Tanzania; Co-chair, WUF III.

(b) Mr Pierre Sane«, Assistant Director-General, UNESCO.

(d) Ms. Mariama Sow, ENDA Dakar, Senegal, representing civil society.

(e) Ms Ana Lucy Bengochea, Coordinator, Garifuna Emergency Committee of Honduras, representing women groups.

(f) Ms Kim Jawanda, Terra Housing, South Africa, representing the private sector.

(g) Ms Mernosh Tajhizadeh, ENJEU (ENvironnement JEUnesse), Quebec, Canada, representing youth.

(h) Hon Wang Guangtao, Minister of Construction, China.

(i) Mr Lu Bing, Deputy Mayor of Nanjing, China.

(j) Mrs Anna Tibaijuka, Under Secretary-General, United Nations; Executive Director, UN-HABITAT.

(k) Ms Lois Jackson, Chair, Greater Vancouver Regional District, Canada.

(l) Mr James Moore, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works; Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics, Government of Canada (TBC).

Annex 2(b)

REINVENTING PLANNING: A NEW GOVERNANCE PARADIGM FOR MANAGING HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

A Position Paper developing themes from the Draft Vancouver Declaration for debate leading into the World Planners Congress, Vancouver 17-20 June 2006

PURPOSE

The draft of the Vancouver Declaration commits planning professionals around the world to work together to tackle the challenges of rapid urbanisation, the urbanisation of poverty and the hazards posed by climate change and natural disasters. This paper supplements the draft Declaration. The paper outlines key principles of a new paradigm for managing human settlements that we call New Urban Planning. The purpose of the paper is to provoke and focus debate during the lead-up to the World Planning Congress and the World Urban Forum III in June 2006. The paper reflects the outcome of a series of discussions amongst planners with experience from different countries. It is not intended to be a statement of the views of the planning institutes or other organisations in which the signatories hold office.

WHY?

Time is short. Today, for the first time in the world's history, the majority of its population live in cities. Urban development is rapid, and its impacts are long-lasting. Unless urban areas can be made more sustainable, and rural life more tolerable, the legacy of negative environmental and social costs will become irreversible. If current trends go unchecked:

— Urban poverty will become pervasive. In 2002 30% of the world's urban population lived in poverty: on current trends this figure will become 45-50% by 2020, some 1.6 billion people.

— The numbers of environmental refugees, people displaced by more frequent and severe disasters as the global climate changes, will mount. The pollutants and greenhouse gases generated by our rapidly spreading urban areas are motors of climate change.

— Cities will continue to provide a refuge for those escaping conflict zones, but will increasingly become places of crime and terrorism.

The combination of these threats amounts to a crisis that is global, systematic and already discernable. Yet much policy-making remains reactive, and presumes that urban development is only a local matter, and that natural disasters and outbreaks of urban unrest are random events. Practices built on these foundations are programmed to fail. In contrast, New Urban Planning means being proactive, focused on sustainability, and making the connections between people, economic opportunity and the environment. That is why planning is central to a new paradigm for governance of human settlements.

In 1996 the Habitat Agenda identified adequate shelter for all and more sustainable human settlements as international priorities. These were reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly Special Session five years later, and then the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 stressed the need for more sustainable urbanisation. The principles embedded in these documents provide the ethical basis of the New Urban Planning—explicitly pro-poor and supportive of social, environmental and economic sustainability. However, too few administrations have made the necessary step change in their capacity to plan and manage change in human settlements.

There is an urgent need for a transformation of capacity for governance of human settlements. We are already witnessing a catastrophe, with slums on a scale never before known, a remorseless increase in refugees, and all-pervasive insecurity. This dystopia is most evident in the developing world but the developed world must also find ways to foster more sustainable communities. In the 21st century we all share one planet.

This is why a New Urban Planning is needed. Traditional planning practices have been left behind by the pace of urban change. Therefore New Urban Planning is not the physical planning or "town planning" of the 20th century, which in many poorer countries was implanted by colonial governments and never effectively modernised. Innovation, knowledge transfer and capacity building must at least match the rate of 21st century urbanisation. There is no rigid blueprint for how to do New Urban Planning. Rather there are guiding principles that the diverse cultures and legal systems around the world can interpret, adapt and develop.

What difference can the New Urban Planning make?

— Reduce vulnerability to natural disasters.

By addressing, in cities throughout the world, some key causes of climate change, and by carefully planning settlements so that fewer people are vulnerable to natural calamities, human settlements will become more liveable and the world will stand a better chance of coping with environmental challenges.

Create environmentally-friendly cities.

Urban growth has enormous impacts on the local, as well as global, environment. New Urban Planning can support environmentally friendly forms of transport and sustainable building, and conserve environmental assets. More efficient and economical city forms, where legal and governmental systems can deliver them, are vital elements for environmental sustainability.

Reduce new slum formation.

The Millennium Development Goal that seeks to make a substantial improvement in the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020 will be achieved. But, on present trends, the proportion of the earth's people living in slums will increase from 1 in 6 in 2001 to 1 in 3 by 2031. Slum upgrading is a necessary but not a sufficient way of tackling the slum problem. A planning approach is essential to ensure an adequate supply of land for development in safe and accessible locations.

Build sustainable economic growth.

Urban growth is a major cause and consequence of economic growth and opportunity. By adopting a livelihoods focus, New Urban Planning can help to tackle urban poverty and rural-urban migration. New Urban Planning practices have reinvigorated declining cities and city centres in the northern hemisphere and facilitated growth in Asia—adapted to local circumstances, they can increase economic opportunities elsewhere.

Conflict Resolution and Safer Cities

New Urban Planning can aid crime prevention and is crucial to post-disaster and post-conflict reconstruction in strife-torn cities. Planned reconstruction and a governance approach that emphasises inclusiveness and partnership, will nurture social and civic capital. Plans provide a framework for different interests to work together in a common purpose, and a transparent and accountable arena for negotiation of conflicts over development, both within civil society and between private and public interests. Cities are where people access new ideas and find ways to live together as communities and also with strangers from different backgrounds and cultures.

Overall, New Urban Planning seeks to enhance quality of life in human settlements. It builds on, but modernises, the planning profession's traditional concerns to address human, social, cultural, environmental, natural aspects of settlements, as well as infrastructure. However, it recognises that in today's world, poverty is central to any planning of human settlements.

HOW? TEN PRINCIPLES OF NEW URBAN PLANNING

1. Sustainability

The overarching principle that governs New Urban Planning is sustainable development as elaborated at WSSD in 2002. This is not an exclusive preserve of planning. The special contribution that New Urban Planning makes is its practical focus on integrating social, economic and environmental considerations in human settlements development. New Urban Planning takes account of the impact of today's developments on future generations, a crucial factor in environmental sustainability.

2. Integrated Planning.

New Urban Planning is integrated planning, not just economic planning, or physical planning, or environmental planning. Set in a favourable institutional framework, integrated planning and action can deliver efficiency and effectiveness by adding value through policies that support, rather than undercut, each other.

3. Integrated with Budgets

In order to ensure the integration mentioned above, plans need mechanisms that ensure effective linkages to private and public budgetary processes. Neither plans by themselves, nor unregulated market processes, can deliver more sustainable settlements.

4. Planning with Partners

New Urban Planning is a means of negotiating where and how development happens. It is about planning with all sectors of the community with a stake in the place—not only governments, but also private sector organisations, voluntary agencies and civil society. New Urban Planning fosters voluntary collaboration amongst all these actors. Planning that responds to and works with, not manages or directs, the initiatives of non-governmental actors, will produce better outcomes. This is a departure from the notion that planning is the impartial arbiter of public interest. New Urban Planning is less an instrument of government, and more a process of good governance, to deliver quality and inclusiveness in decision-making. New Urban Planning is always seeking new and better ways of making city development more participatory, because demand driven planning is more dynamic and more effective; public pressure is the engine of performance. In order to plan with partners, planning must be made accountable to the public, with all activities open to public scrutiny through oversight by mechanisms such as public hearings, integrity pacts and so on.

5. Subsidiarity

The subsidiarity principle should be paramount in deciding where roles and responsibilities are lodged in New Urban Planning. National governments have important roles in setting national urban development policies and fostering national (and international) infrastructure networks that will guide development patterns. However, there needs to be decentralization, with local governments playing a leading role, and empowerment of community-based organisations on matters that can be determined at neighbourhood level. Integration of policy across scales again creates efficiency and effectiveness. Policies and plans must address implementation in a rigorous manner—or fail.

6. Market Responsiveness

New Urban Planning understands market demand, particularly in land and property markets, and is aware of the dynamics and potential of the informal sectors. It is responsive, but not reactive. For example, plans backed by public investment can create confidence in areas where assets are threatened by weak demand and disinvestment. New Urban Planning is about creating opportunities, anticipating development impacts and being able to reduce risks of unintended outcomes and undesirable externalities. The market will respond to plans that are credible.

7. Access to Land

A supply of land in safe and accessible locations to meet the needs of all sectors of society, is fundamental to achieving efficient and equitable settlements. Traditional town planning too often under-estimated needs, particularly of the poor. Consequently the least advantaged sectors of urban society lack security, and often live in hazardous locations. Equitable systems of land ownership and land management need to underpin New Urban Planning. Plans must recognize the reality of existing slums and informal settlements, and the rights of their residents, and foster strategies that facilitate upgrading.

8. Appropriate Tools

Control of development should be strategic, affordable and effective, sensitive to the needs of the poor while conserving essential ecological resources, rather than attempting to micro-manage land use change and small-scale development. Thoroughgoing land use control is probably only affordable in wealthy economies with highly developed legal systems and a plentiful supply of trained professionals. New Urban Planning recognizes that rigid urban containment is not a feasible, equitable or affordable policy in conditions of rapid urbanization. Land use controls should never be used as a pretext for forced evictions of the urban poor in long-established communities.

9. Pro-poor and Inclusive

New Urban Planning is inclusive and pro-poor. It recognizes diversity and promotes equality. Plans can and should be driven by the objectives and priorities as expressed by all groups in the city. Planning is about finding ways to reconcile the priorities of diverse groups, now and in the future. Particular attention needs to be given to those whose voice has often not been heard in conventional public policy-making—e.g. the old, children, those with disabilities, women, ethnic minorities, the homeless, those with low incomes etc. All have an equal right to the city and a right to be consulted, especially about developments that will affect them. In the past, area-based approaches have been shown to benefit mainly the better off: New Urban Planning retains the effectiveness of the area-focus, but directly confronts the need for equity.

10. Cultural Variation

Cultures of governance and the resources that can be invested in governance vary between different countries. Interpretation of the principles of New Urban Planning will inevitably be influenced by such differences. New Urban Planning allows for a variety of outcomes according to cultural priorities and preferences: this contrasts with the uniformity imposed by the old master planning model. Outdated legal regimes and traditional bureaucratic cultures, as well as shortages of skilled personnel and of responsive institutions are barriers to realizing the benefits from the practice of New Urban Planning. An increase in capacity building would be good value for money. This should include skill development for sub-professionals and for community-based organizations and training of politicians.

New Urban Planning is smart planning because it is a responsive learning system. It embraces the need for skills, expertise, an entrepreneurial and citizen-focused culture and evidence-based policy-making. It reasserts the importance of combining long-term awareness and short-term practical actions. It updates to a 21st century context, the insight of the founders of the planning profession that planning is about "Folk-Work-Place". However, it rejects the technocratic model of social change and professionalism which for too long defined the practice of `old' urban planning.

Paul Farmer

Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, American Planning Association

Michel Frojmovic

Canadian Institute of Planners/Institut Canadien des Urbanistes

Cliff Hague

President and Chief Executive, Commonwealth Association of Planners

Clive Harridge

President, Royal Town Planning Institute

Shipra Narang

Human Settlements Officer, UN-Habitat

Ron Shishido

Past President Canadian Institute of Planners/Institut Canadien des Urbanistes

Dave Siegel

President, American Planning Association

Paul Taylor

Director, UN-Habitat Brussels Office

Jan Vogelij

President of the ECTP, the Council of the European Spatial Planners

Comments and responses to this paper are welcome. They will be collated and reported to the World Planning Congress. Please send them to Yehya Mohamed Serag at yehya.serag@student.kuleuven.be

Annex 2(c)

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: THE INCLUSIVE APPROACH: EXTRACT FROM WORLD URBAN FORUM BULLETIN: TUESDAY 20 JUNE 2006

HIGHLIGHTS

Facilitator Zain Verjee, CNN Anchor, opened the dialogue on public engagement to a standing-room-only audience.

Peter Oberlander, Centre for Human Settlements of the University of British Columbia (UBC), noted a gradual move toward the inclusive, transparent and participatory discussion necessary for liveable cities.

Marcello Balbo, University of Venice, advocated tolerance, cultural diversity, and an equitable environment, and noted that governments, while playing a central role, cannot achieve sustainable urbanization by themselves.

Kay Andrews, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, UK, noted that local communities need to be empowered to address the "toxic mixture" of urban hopelessness and desperation.

Mary Balikungery, Rwanda Women's Network, stated that communities require substantive partnerships, and that they must set goals for themselves and decide how to dialogue with central governments.

Jean-Pierre Mbassi, Secretary General, United Cities and Local Governments Africa, noted the important role of local governments, which must deliver services without adequate resources.

Naokazu Takemoto, Japan's Vice-Minister of Finance, emphasized the need to ensure the effectiveness of official development assistance, and noted that increased participation leads to more effective results.

Akin Mabogunje, Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria, said current structures of engagement pose a barrier to societal involvement and described the "mixed blessings" of representative democracy, free market economy, and information technology in Africa.

Participants further discussed: interaction between government and NGOs; government leadership and commitment; and reconciling conflict between traditional and modern land ownership. They also debated the role of professional associations such as planners and architects.

One participant remarked that the media has been negligent in its role of holding elected officials accountable. There was widespread agreement that women need to be further engaged in meaningful ways. Many called for greater transparency in policy and project decisions, with one panelist arguing that although this is difficult to achieve, once accepted as a norm it is difficult to rescind.

Some questioned the inevitability of urbanization, and called for policies that will strengthen the viability of rural living. One participant remarked that the needs of people with disabilities are closely linked with the MDGs and need to be better acknowledged. Several delegates urged greater youth involvement, and called for funding targeted at youth-led initiatives.

Annex 3

Making planning work

A GUIDE TO APPROACHES AND SKILLS

BY CLIFF HAGUE, PATRICK WAKELY, JULIE CRESPIN AND CHRIS JASKO, ITDG PUBLISHING, 2006

The scale, rate, and even the nature of urban development has changed dramatically in recent times. The manifestations—rapid urbanization and the urbanization of poverty, increased social diversity, industrial restructuring, more environmentally-friendly suburbs—differ globally, but South and North share the opportunities and problems of one planet. The search for sustainable solutions for settlements crosses international boundaries. Professionals and NGOs in different places and cultures are inventing new forms of urban governance and planning. How do they do it? What practical skills are being used?

Making Planning Work shows why new urban skills are needed so urgently, and what can be done to grow skills and enhance capacities. The authors demonstrate how successful development and governance of human settlements depends upon collaboration and establishing effective partnerships, and how much can be achieved by working together, sharing skills, being creative, and learning on the job. Making Planning Work features extensive case studies from some 20 different countries. The authors conclude by looking at the way ahead, and calling for international commitment to skills development at all levels.The book is essential reading for planners, architects, engineers, housing providers, lawyers, politicians, environmentalists, community activists, NGOs, and community organizers—all those engaged in the processes of planning and managing towns, cities, and settlements from the very local to national and international levels.

Cliff Hague is a Past President of the Royal Town Planning Institute and President of the Commonwealth Association of Planners. He has been Professor of Planning and Spatial Development at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh. He now does freelance writing, research and training.

Patrick Wakely is Professor of Urban Development and former Director of the Development Planning Unit, University College London. An architect by training, he has research, consultancy, and teaching experience in housing and urban development in over 20 developing countries.

Julie Crespin holds Master's degrees in Political Science and Urban Development Planning. She has worked in urban development in London, China, and Africa.

Chris Jasko is a development consultant. He has an MSc in Urban Development Planning from the DPU, UCL, and work experience in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America.

This guide was prepared for the United Nations World Urban Forum III and the World Planning Congress in Vancouver in June 2006. The aim of the guide is to focus international attention on the urgent need to increase global understanding of sustainable urban development processes and pro-poor planning practices.

Although the text refers extensively to "planners", it is for all those engaged in the processes of planning and managing towns, cities and settlements: political leaders, professional planners, engineers, architects, lawyers, health and social professionals and technicians, and many others in national, regional and local government, non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations and private sector consultancies and enterprises, all of whom have a vital contribution to making and maintaining sustainable settlements

Section 1 explains why a step-change is necessary. There is a need for more people with the knowledge and skills to make a difference but, equally important, new skills and attitudes are required, especially in conditions of rapid urbanization and the urbanization of poverty.

Section 2 demonstrates ways in which professionals and NGOs are creating and delivering innovative responses, often in situations of extremely scarce resources and conflictive competition for access to resources. Not all the examples are `best practices'; successful innovators are those who learn from their mistakes. Nor is it suggested that all practices are transferable from one country or city to another. Transfer can only be based on local judgements and understanding of different cultures and values. We ask only that those who read this guide reflect on whether their own skills and practices could be enhanced, and whether the skills discussed here could help to make settlements more sustainable.

Section 3 briefly looks to the future. Its tone is optimistic, but not utopian. The global challenge of urbanization is daunting, but as Section 2 shows, imagination and skills can make an impact. This guide is a start, and hopefully a catalyst. It does not pretend to be comprehensive. Many readers will have experiences of their own of making planning work. We invite them to share those ideas.

Making Planning Work

THE WAY AHEAD

This short section reflects on some of the ideas in the preceding chapters. It raises several questions. What are the implications of getting to grips with the sorts of skill sets outlined in Section 2? Can they and should they be institutionalized by urban planners and managers? What does it mean for the planning profession and planning education systems?

NEW PLACES, NEW PLANNING, NEW SKILLS?

The problems of urban growth and the urbanization of poverty that are outlined in Section 1 are are becoming familiar internationally. The response, however, is often one of resignation and inertia in the face of their seemingly insurmountable scale. The benefits and opportunities of urbanization, also described in Section 1, receive less attention and can easily be overlooked, even by people who themselves benefit from urban lifestyles and livelihoods.

Many examples given in Section 2 show how problems of urban development can be turned into opportunities. They provide an insight into approaches and practices for the planning and management of towns and cities that build upon the potentials and resources (most of them human) that are provided by the process of urbanization itself. They also describe the sorts of skills that can make a difference when combined with the efforts and energies of people and institutions. Many of the skills have been learnt through practice and were not part of traditional professional training.

There was never an intention to present the case studies in Section 2 as "best practices", and many of them show what can go wrong as well as what works. Nevertheless, taken together they make an optimistic narrative. They also show that, while conditions vary widely between the rich countries of the global North and the poorer countries of the South, many of the generic skills required for more sustainable settlements are very similar.

This is not a prescription for their direct and uncritical adoption in other situations. Local conditions, resources and cultures must be filters on transfers—adaptations will always be necessary and are entirely legitimate. However, it is suggested that globalization in its many guises is posing some very similar challenges in different places. Cities are spreading and putting pressure on the environment, the gap between rich and poor is widening, governments are weaker and need to work with other partners, international networking opens new possibilities, and above all, the barriers of social exclusion need to be broken down. The experiences outlined in the preceding chapters show that urban planning and management need to change, have changed and are changing.

CHANGING PLACES, CHANGING SKILLS, CHANGING PLANNING

Despite these general observations, the quantitative and qualitative changes that are happening in settlements and regions have not yet been fully comprehended, even by many planners who, perhaps more than any other single profession, should be engrossed in urban analysis. It is these changes that are driving the people who contributed to our case studies, and many more like them, to try to find new ways of working, new relationships between governments and civil society, and new skills.

Many of the skills now needed are fundamental to a planning process: collecting and analyzing information, managing competing demands, creating visions for the future, monitoring and evaluation are all examples. Indeed there will be some who argue that Section 2 is not about new skills at all, but a reassertion of traditional planning skills, albeit sometimes in new settings and with new emphases. However, the novelty really lies in the extent to which active engagement and networking with very diverse groups and individuals, and proactive consensus building amid conditions where conflict is often deep rooted, are seen as fundamental to achieving more equitable and sustainable development and to everything planners do.

Thus urban planning cannot be separated from the management of urban development or the administration of urban services. It is ironic, however, that urban planning as a profession is still often demarcated by a concern only with the location and distribution of land uses and the control of its development, and is seen as almost exclusively based in the public sector. The double irony is that this marginalization of planning means that an integrated and practical approach to human settlements has also been marginalized. There are signs that this is beginning to change. The planning and management of urban development embraces a great deal more than land use. Those engaged in urban development have roles to play in the political process of decision making, the managerial functions of implementing development policies, programmes and projects, and intervening in the day-to-day administration of infrastructure and service delivery.

The extent to which different actors have separate roles principally depends on the human resources that are available. In a wealthy Northern city a relatively high degree of professional and technical specialization may be expected, but in many towns and cities of the South one or two public sector professionals, who may or may not be planners, often have to take responsibility for a wide range of issues. These not only span the processes of planning, management and administration, but also entail operating at a variety of different levels: for instance with policy makers and politicians; donors and aid agents; technical and professional consultants; civil society and faith-based organizations; community leaders and local political groups; private enterprises and associations; and their peers in other departments of the administration—health, education, works and so on.

Thus, in addition to developing the sorts of skills outlined in the chapters in Section 2, urban planners and managers, particularly those in countries with a scarcity of professionals and technicians, have to have at least a basic understanding of many different disciplines: civil engineering and the extension and maintenance of infrastructure; urban design and the use of public land; environmental health and conservation; land management and property markets; urban sociology and community development; urban economics and public revenue management; municipal law and development control standards and legislation. This is not to say that urban planners and managers replace the need for all other professionals. Rather it shows that, especially in situations of rapid urbanization and few skilled staff, professionalism has to become more generic. The old professionalism was about excluding outsiders and erecting boundary fences around knowledge and skills. This is the very antithesis to conditions now known to foster creative thought and innovation. Professionals need to share their knowledge and skills with each other and with non-professionals with whom and for whom they work. The more barriers they cross the more likely it is that the outcomes will contribute towards sustainable settlements.

WHERE NEXT?

Most planners and planning researchers and academics are in rich countries that are far removed in almost every way from the less developed countries where 93% of the increase in the world's urban population is expected to take place over the next 15 years. There is not only a gross spatial maldistribution of professional planners, there is an urgent need for a transformation in capacity for the governance, planning and management of settlements globally.

This implies quantitative change—many more people with the right knowledge and skills—and qualitative change, which means identifying and developing key skills. Local knowledge and understanding will always be vital to the good governance of human settlements, and the nature of governance will be shaped by different traditions and cultures. However, it should be possible to modernize planning through globalizing the knowledge and skills networks and in particular through finding ways to develop capacity quickly in those places where the pool of skills in urban planning has not kept pace with the rate of urbanization.

Capacity building, however, is not only a question of developing skills, important though they are. If the development of appropriately equipped professionals is to be made more effective by training and encouraging them to operate in different ways and in conjunction with different partners, they need responsive and supportive organizational environments in which to exercise their new understanding and skills. However, many local government departments, in which many planners work, are structured in ways and with traditions that do to not allow new initiatives or encourage inter-agency collaboration or cooperation with civil society and community groups. Thus, simultaneous changes in the organizational structures, particularly of local government, are needed in order to allow new approaches to planning and management to flourish. But the ability of government departments and agencies to change is often constrained by higher level national institutions, legislation and regulations. Thus, institutional change, that entails national-level political and legislative intervention, is also simultaneously required.

In addition to the three components of capacity building—institutional development, organizational development and human resource development—the ability to increase the relevance and effectiveness of urban planning and management is constrained where professional education has not been modernized, opportunities for continuing professional development are limited or non-existent, and traditions of professionalism are defensive and exclusionary. Formal education and professionalism have a vital role to play in delivering the kind of approaches and skills that this guide has identified but they are only part of the picture. Sub-professional training, training the trainers, accreditation of experiential learning (the know-how picked up in civil society organizations, for example) and continuing professional development are of paramount importance.

Much could be achieved if the international community, governments, professional associations and higher education institutions worked together to actively promote more inclusive and participatory approaches, such as those outlined in Section 2, and to ensure that access to appropriate skills was easily available in places where they are urgently needed. The mandate for this was given by the Istanbul Declaration and Habitat Agenda, endorsed by 171 member states at the United Nations City Summit a decade ago.

At the same time, there is a range of more immediate and pragmatic actions that need to be taken at different levels. Important among these are:

— Making better and more effective use of the internet to spread and build knowledge and to forge new networks and exchanges of experience between professionals and all others engaged in integrated and participatory approaches to sustainable urban planning and management and poverty reduction. It is often pointed out that in many situations not even professionals, or the institutions and agencies in which they work, have access to the internet or the technical and language skills to benefit from it. However, this situation is changing extremely rapidly and it should certainly not be used as an excuse for inertia. Nevertheless, imagination is still needed to develop ways to publicize appropriate websites and to make them easier to understand, use and interact with.

— Greater investment in the development and delivery of affordable and accessible distance learning opportunities for appropriate planning-related education and skill training. Where possible, such programmes should also carry credits towards the award of recognized qualifications, not only to provide incentives, but also to legitimize their beneficiaries professionally in order to help advance them on their local career ladder and to add weight to the content of the alternative education and training that they provide.

— More coherent approaches and proliferation of training on-the-job, for-the-job and by- the-job that help build structures that encourage and support the "reflective practitioner", and create ladders of opportunity for those outside professions, but who are actively engaged in trying to manage urban change in sustainable ways. Such training support is increasingly becoming part of international planning consultancy contracts and NGO activities in countries of the South, but it needs reinforcing and extending to a wider range of support agencies. As with distance learning, it needs to receive greater formal recognition and legitimization.

— Increased networking and combined pressure and support by the international professional bodies and associations to raise the political profile of urban issues and the urgent need for a significant change in the level of political commitment and investment in all three components of capacity building. Many international professional associations, partners in the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, are already committed to this end, but their ranks can grow and their efforts can be redoubled.

— Encouraging greater media awareness and popular publicity to the success stories and related messages concerning the impact of more participatory approaches to the development of settlements, such as those in Section 2 of this guide. The power of public pressure on policy and procedural reform, in whatever political system, cannot be underestimated. However, people need positive and progressive examples in order to develop visions and make demands of their leaders, but virtually all of the current press coverage and commentary on urban growth and change is negative, alarmist and doom-laden. Good news needs to be made newsworthy.

As with all the messages in this guide, these exhortations are not new. The have been made before and they are all already being implemented in many places by many people. However, if the Millennium Development Goals are to be met, in urban and rural areas alike there will have to be a quantum shift to more sustainable approaches to the planning and management of settlements in the coming half-decade. This will not be easy but it can be done.

Contested Space

STREET TRADING, PUBLIC SPACE, AND LIVELIHOODS IN DEVELOPING CITIES

THE URBAN MANAGEMENT SERIES

Contested Space unpicks the world of street trading and street traders. It breaks new ground in linking together the literature on the informal economy and on urban poverty reduction with new research on the use, the management and the design of public space in cities. It does this by exploring the strategies that street traders employ to gain and retain access to public space.

Many cities have a large and significant informal sector. Informality is often the response to rapid urban growth and the inability of poor cities to enter the global market place. For poor women and men entrepreneurs in such cities, access to public space for informal sector trading is a critical, but often unrecognized, livelihoods asset.

In most urban centres in poorer counties an enormous range of activities takes place in or around the street: vending and hawking items such as clothes, shoes, vegetables, cooked food, sweets, cosmetics, medicines, electronic goods and many others; services such watch and shoe mending, hair cutting and braiding, secretarial services, etc; manufacture including carpentry, handicrafts, metalwork; and transport including portering and an array of public transport. In addition, urban street trading supports an extremely complex and largely hidden economy of suppliers, money-lenders, landlords, importers and exporters. Yet this economy is largely unrecognized by urban authorities, whose response is too often to confiscate goods, and harass, relocate, or evict traders.

A series of in-depth case studies bring into sharp focus the implications of blinkered action by municipal politicians and planners. Their attempts to control public streets by limiting street trading ignore the human or economic price of their actions. The case studies vividly illustrate the drastic effects of such insensitive management of public space. But they also highlight examples of good practice that can help traders realize their rights, strengthening individual livelihoods as well as the city economy. The book shows that adopting a rights-based approach to this issue can and should lead to fundamental changes in the way that society views and manages urban public space. The authors emphasize that recognition of rights to city space and rights to legal work is the foundation for more secure livelihoods and more vibrant urban economy.

This book fills a vital gap in our knowledge about cities and citizenship.

Nick Hall

Series Editor

FOREWORD

The world is witnessing an increasing urbanization of poverty, and in many poor countries the proportion of the urban poor is increasing faster than the overall urban population. Despite the international focus on the Millennium Development Goals to which all 191 UN Member States were signatories that amongst other targets sought to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by the year 2015 and to improve the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020, urban poverty looks set to persist. Supporting urban livelihoods, particularly those accessible to the poor, thus has a key role in the global campaign to reduce poverty, and the global campaigns to improve urban governance and land tenure, towards the "inclusive city"—where everyone has an appropriate opportunity to be part of, and make a living in, the city.

This book contributes to these campaigns, breaking new ground in linking the literature on the informal economy, urban livelihoods and public space. Based on a research study in four developing cities—Dar es Salaam, Kumasi, Maseru and Kathmandu—it explores the survival strategy of street traders and their relationships with city governments.

Two key themes run through the book. The first theme is the role of urban public space in supporting the street economy, which is rarely recognized. Instead public space is often an arena for contest—between municipal governments or other vested interests and street traders, whose activities are circumscribed by restrictive social norms, ambiguous legal status, street violence, or an official response that vacillates between indifference and eviction. Too often the street economy is dismissed as survivalist, chaotic or peripheral, although it employs large numbers of people in both the developed and developing world. And yet it is these street traders that are the bedrock of the urban economy where each successive layer above (office worker, shopkeeper, industrialist or city manager) utilizes to their advantage the low cost of fast food, goods and services provided by these valuable people.

The second theme is the livelihoods analysis, which brings a fresh perspective to understanding the street economy. Rather than analysing street trade in conventional economic terms, the livelihoods framework identifies some key resources used by households engaged in street trading, how these contribute to livelihoods strategies, and what facilitates or constrains access to and use of those resources.

Culture and history have a profound impact on the character of modern street trade, with huge variations in its size and composition. There is also a striking gender dimension to the street economy. In many cities women form the majority of street traders, especially where women have a tradition of economic independence, and are often successful entrepreneurs who dominate street trade. Although many street traders are poor, it is often forgotten that the street economy includes profitable enterprises, and can be a stepping-stone to secure work for the young and ambitious.

Despite widespread social acceptance of the street economy, it remains unenumerated and unrecognized, with little understanding of its dynamics, sectors, or development trends. As the authors highlight, street traders are often in legal limbo—subject to regulations that are draconian, inappropriate, or inherited from outdated notions of urban order that are impossible to observe.

The question is posed, "Is public space used by street traders a human rights wasteland?" In many cities, it seems that it is. The book argues for a "rights-based" approach to public policy, that acknowledges traders' rights to work followed by a recognition of their rights of access to and use of urban public space. However, rights also entail obligations, and there is a need to reconcile and accommodate the needs of all users in urban public space.

The human costs of failing to lift people out of poverty are significant, but rights-based approaches are providing a fertile basis for innovative policy initiatives across a number of areas. It is to the advantage of everyone in the city economy that low-cost street traders are given space in the locations that are convenient for their trade. This book argues that extending the concept of rightsbased development to street trading, and recognizing the important role of urban public space in supporting the street economy, are important steps in developing a pro-poor urban management agenda.

Michael Mutter

Michael Mutter OBE, RIBA, MRTPI, is a chartered architect and town planner.

He was formerly Senior Urban Advisor at DFID, an Urban Development Advisor involved in setting up the Ministry of Municipalities in Iraq, and is now Senior Advisor to the Slum Upgrading Facility at UN-HABITAT in Nairobi.

BRIDGING THE FINANCE GAP IN HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PREFACE

I write this preface as a celebration of my longstanding friendship and association with Ruth McLeod and Homeless International. I am sure that I am joined in spirit by many people who have been drawn into this circle of friendship. One of them is Professor Arjun Appadurai, who in the mid 1990s joined this group as a contributor to "naming" the moments or processes that all of us experience in the deepening of friendships and relationships that are both personal and organizational. I asked him to remind me of the name of the concept that he used to describe this relationship. This is what he wrote back to me, which I have taken below as his quotations (in italics):

Some decades ago, social historians, particular of classical Europe made an interesting discovery. They realized that the stories of individual kings, saints and heroes were always connected to the stories of other people whom they knew, grew up with, and worked with, often during their most important adult years. This led these historians to invent a field called "prosopography" or "collective biography" which tries to tell the stories of these friendships and alliances together. In telling these stories of the relationships between important individuals, prosopography lets us see more about social change, about the nature of politics and about the power of shared visions.

The story of the Indian Alliance of SPARC Mahila Milan and NSDF in India, Shack Dwellers International (SDI), the Asian Coalition of Housing Rights (ACHR), and Homeless International, IIED, Cordaid, Misereor, Selavip and Ford Foundation, is in many ways a perfect example of why we need to tell our stories about the friendships between special individuals as elements of a collective biography. In today's world, friendships continue to be seen as one element of a traditional, personal, intimate world which has little to do with the public world of politics, money and change. As a consequence, the story of many social movements becomes mysterious and abstract, as if social movements come out of project proposals and social change comes out of a committee. The reality is that many of our best ideas and our most powerful visions come out of the accidents of history and biography, and of the luck through which we meet our closest allies. Jockin started the National Slum Dwellers Federation (NSDF) in 1974 at the time when he was fighting evictions in his settlement of Janata Colony, in Mumbai. Srilatha Batliwala, Rajesh Tandon, Celine D'Cruz and many others helped start SPARC in 1984, and we began to work with NSDF and Mahila Milan in 1986 as part of a collective commitment to work with the poorest communities in Bombay, the pavement dwellers, to help them to get secure homes. In 1986-87 a grant from the IYSH Trust UK helped us to develop a strategy by which more than 500 women from eight pavements began to explore issues of habitat and shelter in the city. In 1988-89 I was in the UK on a sabbatical from SPARC and I met with Ruth who had just come from Jamaica where she had set up and worked with the Women's Construction Collective, and who had moved to Coventry as the newly appointed Director of Homeless International, the successor organization to IYSH Trust UK. I was invited to be part of the Gender and Habitat Committee of Homeless International, which met at IIED in London. It was there we developed the first transnational community exchange between Bombay and Bogota« community groups. This concept was so hard to describe in terms of what it could facilitate in knowledge creation and transfer, but it became the most well used development tool of SDI.

Two significant milestones occurred in the 1990s that can be linked directly to events described in this book.

In 1992 soon after my colleagues Celine and Jockin visited South Africa, Joel Bolnick started People's Dialogue and we helped set up the emerging South African Homeless People's Federation through exchange visits with financial help from Homeless International. It subsequently led to Homeless International (and the other northern NGOs mentioned) raising grant support for various federations that now form SDI. Around the same time, it became clear that once federations of the organized urban poor (like NSDF) negotiated for land, they wanted to undertake construction themselves. This could not be financed at scale through grants and so it became crucial to explore obtaining loans for project finance and individuals. Father Jorge Anzorena, who represented Selavip, and has been a friend and guide to all of us since 1984, helped us to get a guarantee from their bank to secure an Indian currency loan from the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO). The Homeless International focus on finance, and on creating guarantee funds, emerged after that experience.

In 1997-98 our negotiations with Citibank for a loan to take on a community anaged housing project with the Rajiv Indira Housing Cooperative, led to all of us learning to calculate financial risks and start a dialogue with bankers and financial service providers. That in turn created the basis for the "Bridging the Finance Gap in Housing and Infrastructure" research project that led to the establishment of the Community Led Infrastructure Finance Facility (CLIFF). It was in 2000, while we were going through these experiences, that Ruth and I spent a long session with Arjun where we started looking at how community federations and their capacities to manage social and political risks actually make them very strategic trustees of venture capital to initiate housing by and for the poor themselves. Today, five years later, and with CLIFF operational we can see the beginnings of how communities of the urban poor, organized as federations, and we as non-profits assisting them, are beginning to adopt and appropriate practices for managing these funds and producing housing and infrastructure projects. This helps to produce the credibility that deepens dialogue with government, banks and other resource providers and encourages them to create policies and practices designed to increase direct access by the poor to land and housing.

Within SDI this has triggered a reflection on how community practices for xiv Preface managing savings and credit can be linked to housing finance and how organized communities can connect their activism to methods for gaining resources for secure habitat.

This story, which merits a longer study in its own right, tells us many things. It tells us that friendships, especially long-term friendships, count. It tells us that new visions for change require the long-term evolution and testing of ideas and values which only deep friendships can bring. Such friendships bring each individual involved a precious resource in terms of the fortitude and courage required to hold unorthodox ideas and fight long and otherwise lonely fights.

It demonstrates that the resources of a cohort of real friends make learning a dynamic, pleasurable, passionate experience in which new knowledge can be exchanged in a framework of trust. Last, but hardly least, since each individual in this story has their own changing and growing network of friends, collaborators, supporters and allies, the core group has growing access to a bigger bank of social capital.

This form of social capital, which multiplies trust and links it to risk-taking in the realm of social change, has hardly been studied. My friendship with Ruth is a privilege in itself. But it is also part of an untold story of friendships—and collective biographies—as a precious long-term asset of transnational activism and of many serious visions for social change.

Sheela Patel, with inspired help from Arjun Appadurai (as written in italics) 2006

CONFRONTING THE CRISIS IN URBAN POVERTY

MAKING INTEGRATED APPROACHES WORK

THE URBAN MANAGEMENT SERIES

Confronting the Crisis in Urban Poverty focuses on interventions in South Asia and Africa that have been guided by the principles of the sustainable livelihoods framework. It concentrates on the work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The case study material on offer here ranges from fresh analysis of some well known programmes in Pakistan and South Africa to several case studies that provide rare insights into countries whose urban dynamics have rarely been discussed in development literature, like Angola and Sudan.

Analyzing development through a Sustainable Livelihoods lens ensures that a comprehensive understanding and forward looking perspective structures the interventions of development agents. Through this lens we can focus on the practical realities and priorities of poor men and women—what they actually do to make a living, how and where they live, how they manage the assets that they are able to draw upon and understand the problems that they face.

The conclusions of this book resonate with the findings presented in all the other volumes in this Series. Quite simply, effective urban management depends on public-spirited collaborative effort. Individual self-interest is ultimately counterproductive leading, as history shows that it always does, to a few with great wealth but living in fear of a majority whose exclusion degrades the whole of society. Therefore, both government and non-government organizations should always promote the interests of groups over the self-interest of individuals, encouraging collective action by communities of common interest.

Annex 4

VANCOUVER AND SEATTLE CITY GOVERNMENT VISITS (NOTE BY J.BOWREY & K.THORPE, DCLG)

BACKGROUND

1. This paper offers some reflections on civic leadership and governance in Seattle and Vancouver—2 cities regularly lauded for their high quality of urban life.

VANCOUVER

2. These comments are our impressions of the city, issues and governance based on the series of meetings we had (not only with Vancouver city officials) and our own views. Vancouver comes across as a prosperous, attractive, clean multi-ethnic city (Asian, predominalty) in a spectacular location.

a. Not yet a fast real link from the airport to the city centre but one is due to open in 2009.

b. Less sprawl than American cities with people actually walking about. We were told that 70% of trips downtown were made on foot.

c. Reasonable levels of traffic congestion on some of the main streets into and out of the city centre. The city itself has no freeways within its boundary—unusual for a North American city.

d. The downtown area does feel very different—densely packed high-rise buildings, often very new, and very few much older than the 70s, with seemingly more residential blocks than offices. (Some critics say the city has favoured condominiums at the expense of office jobs). The downtown area, where WUF was held, was pedestrian friendly, clean and felt lived in and safe. Great care has been taken in planning the public realm and getting the detail right before apartment blocks/ commercial buildings are constructed.

e. Our impressions were there were no "must do" features, unless walking in Stanley Park or climbing Grouse Mountain (which overlooks the city) counts, "just" a very well maintained urban environment—plenty of places to eat, shop, wander, look around.

3. The population of the city of Vancouver is growing slightly faster, due to the policy of densification, than the rest of the city-region (Greater Vancouver population forecast to rise from c2m now to c4m in 20-30 years). The city economy is based on services, tourism, knowledge and creative industries, but is also an important port for both imports and exports. Vancouver is using the 2010 Winter Olympics to regenerate some relatively old and deprived parts of the city.

4. The big issues for the city seem to be:

a. Affordability—esp. of housing—anecdotal evidence e.g. average house price in W.Vancouver (the nice bit admittedly) $1 million plus and over half of people's salaries go on housing costs). While people have adjusted to this denser style of living some attractive areas of family housing are being lost and replaced by flats. Housing is a provincial responsibility, although Vancouver unusually for Canadian cities does have an active housing function and uses its land holdings/planning to leverage provincial funding for affordable housing.

b. Traffic congestion—doesn't seem as bad as some cities, but still quite heavy, and perceived as a problem.

c. Drugs and crime—apparently there is quite a high level of property crime, and fear of crime—over lunch someone mentioned fear of crime as a reason why fewer students are walking to school. Also a particular issue with drugs i) Vancouver is a main entry point for drugs into Canada and ii) it is the only major city in Canada where its possible to live on the streets all year round! Downtown Eastside is the district with the biggest drugs problem—a currently ungentrified part of the city with many houses in multiple occupation and people living on the streets. This has a racial dimension as a high proportion of problematic drug/alcohol users are urban aboriginals. This geographic concentration of the problem is likely to disappear or at least move elsewhere in the city as the neighbourhood is gentrified in the run up to the 2010 Winter Olympics.

5. Didn't really get too much sense of governance. Mayor Sullivan is relatively new (though a long serving city councillor), youthful, energetic, opinionated. Keen on visioning and leadership and a believer that politicians should stay out of micro-management. 10 City councillors elected every three years, meeting twice a month plus standing committees for planning and environment, city services and budgets and transportation and traffic. Didn't have a chance to ask how the city councillors related to neighbourhood level activity or to politics—I'm sure it isn't apolitical. but none of the documentation refers to councillors political allegiance.

6. There are also Greater Vancouver governance arrangements for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Greater Vancouver Regional Transport Authority and Police Board—the latter two bodies include representatives form the provincial government. We didn't get a consistent view on how well these arrangements were working.

SEATTLE

7. 600k population in Greater Seattle area of 3.5m. Located on Puget Sound, Seattle is a commercial, manufacturing, cultural and advanced technology hub for the US Pacific NW and a major port. Home of Boeing 9even though corporate HQ now in Chicago), Microsoft, CostCo and Starbucks. Also important bio-medical sciences sector associated with the University of Washington. Prosperous, growing city with a reputation for high quality lifestyle. By US standards a strong culture of social welfare and environmental protection.

8. Our impressions:

a. No fast rail link from the airport (currently being built due to open late 2009).

b. Downtown, wider streets, older buildings than Vancouver—fewer people and less going on in the city centre in the evening.

c. Some interesting and impressive public architecture e.g. City Library (designed by Frank Gehry), new City Hall, and a pleasant urban environment. Pike Place Market probably most interesting neighbourhood.

d. Felt a bigger, more dispersed and more industrial city—Boeing and the port—with a stronger jobs base than Vancouver, which has more emphasis on residential development.

9. There is a long standing policy of trying to restrict urban sprawl and promote densification within existing urban areas. 1990-91 State Growth Management Act set boundaries to urban growth and required all planning authorities to produce plans in accordance with each other and with the State law (this has worked reasonably well). On the back of this Act, the sub-region has developed a strategy around a series of urban villages within the metropolitan area which are areas of higher density living could support potential public transport hubs.

10. Gary Lawrence, our host and now working for Arup is ex-Seattle Planning Director, was excellent on the background and the politics. The policy has been successful in getting more people to move back into the city (although it's a small and not a random sample, none of Arup's Seattle office (15 people) drive to work, they either walked/cycled or caught the ferry. One thing the City Council were keen to differentiate themselves from Vancouver was the success in keeping major corporates in the city. Aided by the interstate running through the centre of town it is still a CBD not just a residential area.

11. Key issues for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels are:

a. Get Seattle Moving—incl. what to do with Interstate Highway No5 which runs along the shorefront and suffered earthquake damage—proposal is to build a tunnel for $5 billion. This would remove constant traffic noise and greatly improve the attractiveness of the shorefront area.

b. Creating jobs and opportunity for allc. Building strong families and healthy communities e.g. affordable housing issues—Median sales price $325k (cf Dallas $147k, DC $441k, San Francisco $722k) v median family income $72k. Starting to work with employers and TUs around key workers' affordable housing.

d. Keeping our neighbourhoods safe. There's a strong emphasis on community engagement at neighbourhood level to understand the issues local people see as important.

12. Environmental action agenda—City Council's local environmental initiative contains a package of action around reducing the City Council's use of products, reduction of energy use across the city as a whole and support for neighbourhood level action. The Mayor also established a Green Ribbon Commission on Climate Protection consisting of 18 civic leaders from private, non-profit, government and academic communities. Its report published March 2006 made recommendations to:

a. Reduce Seattle's dependence on cars and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 170,000 tons.

b. Increase fuel efficiency and use of bio fuels and cut greenhouse gas emission by 200,000 tons.

c. Achieve more efficient and cleaner energy for our homes and businesses and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 316,000 tons.

d. Build on Seattle's leadership.

e. Sustain the commitment through Seattle's Climate Action Plan.

13. Public Transport is the key environmental issue as Seattle's electricity supply since 2005 has been carbon neutral (hydro-electric). We met Julie Earl, CEO of Sound Transit—the public transport authority for the area. Established in 1993 by federal law and eligible for federal funding it's a partnership between the State, County and Municipalities (Puget Sound Regional Council). Sound Transit had a slightly troubled gestation, but is now successful and has major expansion plans including a new light rail service linking the airport to the network, plus a programme of new rail/bus interchanges. Also commissions bus services, esp. from King County (not ideal, but pragmatic). We got the impression at State level that public transport and highways are kept separate. Sound Transit is in part paid for by a 0.4% Retail Sales Tax (8.8% in total—6.5% to the State) with other funding coming from vehicle and rental car taxes and fares.

14. Again not really enough time to delve into governance issues. Complex public admin. structure with federal, state (state capital Olympia is just outside Greater Seattle, county (King County) and municipalities, together with Puget Sound Regional Council—a four County metropolitan transport and regional planning agency. Within the City the Mayor and nine City Councillors are elected on four year terms. Mayor Nickel has been Mayor since 2002. City Council responsible for most functions, although King County responsible for criminal justice, strategic issues, waste management and elections. As well as the City/ King County relationship, which along with the State seem to be the key players, there are also relations with other neighbouring municipalities. The inevitable big city/suburban tensions are exacerbated by competition over retail development as retail taxes are the one property tax which makes a municipality any money (domestic and business just about pay their way) [Apparently Minneapolis/St Paul is one of the few metropolitan areas where retail property taxes are pooled].

Annex 5

JOINT WORKING BETWEEN DCLG AND DFID

1. Joint working between the two departments began on initiatives to address deprived localities in England, though the Neighbourhood Renewal and Social Exclusion Units, and on policies to address homelessness, reflecting a shared interest in policies to reduce poverty and tackle disadvantage. It was furthered by collaboration between DCLG's Urban Policy Directorate and DFID's Urban and Rural Change Team on the role of cities and city-regions as drivers of regional and national economic development. At the WUF 2, held in Barcelona in 2004, DCLG participated in a networking session, organised by DFID, on this issue.

2. This collaboration continued through DFID's membership of a Working Group on City-Region Development, chaired by officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's (ODPM) Urban Policy Directorate. This Group explored the potential of the city-region idea in enhancing the economic performance of towns and cities and their surrounding regions and delivering sustainable communities. DFID also participated in ODPM's Advisory Group overseeing work on the State of the English Cities Report (launched in March 2006). A consultant on city regions (Professor Alan Harding, University of Salford) employed by DCLG has also served as an advisor to DFID officials on city-region approaches in India.

3. Since the closure of DFID's Urban-Rural Change team, the two departments have continued to work together on a range of bilateral issues. For example, both departments, together with the Academy for Sustainable Communities (ASC), Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Development Planning Unit at University College, were members of the advisory group guiding preparation of the DFID funded "Making Planning Work" handbook. The handbook was launched at WUF3, to increase understanding of sustainable urban development processes and pro-poor planning practices.

4. The two departments also share learning and best practice on policies and programmes of mutual interest. This has included work to: turn the concept of sustainable communities into action; build capacity in local government and empower local communities; and enhance place-making skills. DCLG's participation in periodic meetings of the Urban Poverty Group, hosted by DFID, demonstrates the potential for urban and city-regional policy approaches in the UK to inform approaches to urban change in the developing world and vice versa.

Annex 6

THE INVOLVEMENT OF UK AND GLOBAL PLANNING BODIES AT THE 2006 WORLD URBAN FORUM

1. This annex sets out the process leading up to the involvement of planning bodies in the 2006 UN-HABITAT World Urban Forum, the success of that involvement and the necessary next steps. The addendum has been drafted by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) but covers the work of a number of global planning bodies, notably the Commonwealth Association of Planners (CAP).

BACKGROUND

2. The first UN conference on human settlements was held in the Vancouver in 1976. This led, amongst other things, to the establishment of UN- HABITAT. For much of the period since that landmark conference, planning has received surprisingly little attention within the global debate about urbanisation. This reflected perceptions that planning was a statist practice inimical to markets and economic development. During the 1990s the UN process began to change and embrace civil society, not just dialogues between governments. This was evident at the second Habitat conference, held in Istanbul 20 years after the first. However, planning and the planning profession remained marginalised. The changes that had taken place in planning in many countries, where the planning profession led almost all the others in embracing community involvement went virtually unnoticed.

3. More recently, there were signs that there was a reassessment of the role that planning can play in addressing the global challenge of rapid urbanisation and the urbanisation of poverty. UN-Habitat's "State of the Cities" report published in 2004 included a full chapter on changing cultures of planning. There was a workshop on "Urban Planning Revisited" organised by UN-Habitat at the second World Urban Forum in September 2004, and that was also the theme for the issue of Habitat Debates published in 2004. However, planning still remained peripheral at WUF2.

4. The need for planning is undeniable. Next year, not only will the world's population change from being predominantly rural to being predominantly urban but the number of people living in slums will exceed one billion. One in every three urban dwellers will be slum dwellers and it is estimated that by 2033 one in three of the total global population will be slum dwellers. The UN's millennium development goals require an improvement to the lives of 100million slum dwellers by 2020—yet since that target was set, the number of new slum dwellers has risen by 86 million. It is only by planning to help to prevent slum formation that we stand any chance of seeing any overall improvement to the lives of slum dwellers by 2020.

5. The need for a re-invented planning is also undeniable. Old concepts of zoning, of the compact city, and of not working with informality need to be questioned and, in many cases, overturned. In many countries, notably Zimbabwe, housing clearances have been forced through in the name of proper planning.

PREPARATORY WORK FOR WPC AND WUF3

6. The task facing UK and global planners at the third World Urban Forum (WUF3) and at the World Planners Congress that preceded it, was to consolidate such gains in the global perceptions of planning and to continue the process of changing decisions makers views of the efficacy of planning.

7. With this in mind, the RTPI, the American Planning Association (APA), the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP) and the Commonwealth Association of Planners (CAP) met at the APA conference in 2003 to start to take joint steps try to ensure that planning as a part of the solution figured much more prominently at WUF3.

8. This joint work culminated in the preparation of a Global Planners Declaration (http://www.globalplannersnetwork.org/pdf/06declarationenglish.pdf), which set out a commitment to work together, and with others, to tackle the challenges of rapid urbanization, the urbanisation of poverty and the hazards posed by climate change and natural disasters. The Declaration asserts that, "there can be no sustainable development without sustainable urbanisation and no sustainable urbanisation without effective planning".

9. The Declaration was signed initially by the four bodies in 2005 with the intention that signatures should be sought from bodies representing planners around the world. The group continued to meet at each other's conferences and then drew in UN-Habitat to work through a series of monthly global conference calls. The result of this was a paper—Re-inventing Planning—which is attached to this evidence. This set out ten principles that embody the type of planning to which the national bodies were committed and was designed both to show a commitment to identify and develop effective approaches to planning and to promote discussion on the principles behind such approaches. These include:

— Embedding sustainability.

— Promoting integrated planning.

— Integrating planning with budgeting.

— Planning with Partners.

— Achieving subsidiarity.

— Being market responsive.

— Facilitating access to land.

— Using appropriate techniques.

— Being pro-poor and inclusive.

— Recognising cultural variation.

During the discussions of the paper at the WPC and at WUF3 an additional principle was proposed—that of "transparency". A further draft of the paper will incorporate further comments made at, and since, WPC and WUF3.

MAKING PLANNING WORK

10. Soon after WUF2, the RTPI started negotiating with the Department for International Development (DFID), the Academy for Sustainable Communities, the then ODPM and others to support a printed and web-based publication as the UK report to WUF3. DFID agreed to cover all the costs of the print version of a report on the skills needed globally to create sustainable urbanisation. This is entitled Making Planning Work and was written by Prof. Cliff Hague, then President of the Commonwealth Association of Planners, and Prof. Pat Wakely, with Julie Crespin and Chris Jasko of the Development Planning Unit at University College London. The RTPI funded the placing of the book on its partner website—.

11. The book was launched at WUF3 by UN-Habitat Executive Director, Dr Anna Tibaijuka. The fact that she agreed to launch it and to write the foreword demonstrates the importance given to this work by UN-HABITAT. At the launch, she stated, "I would like to acknowledge the involvement of the Royal Town Planning Institute of the UK, with which UN-HABITAT looks forward to engaging with more deeply in the future, and which has done so much to deepen the international dimensions of the planning profession."

WORLD PLANNERS CONGRESS

12. Work on the Declaration and on Re-inventing Planning was refined at the first World Planners Congress (WPC) which had been organised by the CIP to take place just before WUF3 in Vancouver. UN-Habitat Executive Director, Dr Anna Tibaijuka gave an opening address to WPC and, after the years of joint working outlined above, it was heartening that she stated that, "I know that the planning profession has changed and continues to change. I know that many of you have been in the vanguard of pioneering new and effective approaches to stakeholder involvement and partnership approaches to planning. UN-HABITAT fully endorses the evolution you are fostering in the planning profession and would like to give its support to you in whatever way it can."

13. The work to promote planning continued through the WPC and culminated at the affirming WPC closing session in which the UN HIV/Aids special envoy praised the Declaration as a strong and timely document. During that day, sixteen planning associations from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and Australasia pledged to sign the declaration and to implement its provisions.

WUF3

14. As a result of this joint working, planning was much higher on the agenda at WUF3 than at any previous UN-Habitat conference. Such an achievement can be measured by this issue's place on the programme of the Forum. The "re-inventing planning" initiative was the subject of one lively "network meeting" (workshop) organised by the CAP, a dialogue session (sub-plenary), a special session on the "Future of Cities" and a plenary session on "Urban Growth and Environment". Recognition of the role of planning was also given in a session on "Leadership for Sustainability". During WUF3, the RTPI President had a meeting with the UN-HABITAT Executive Director to discuss re-inventing planning at which she confirmed her full support for this initiative.

15. The sessions on re-inventing planning at WPC and at WUF brought out inevitable tensions with some planners stating—correctly—that the paper reflected good practice that was being carried out already and others stating that planners themselves need to be more active in promoting the value of the work that they undertake. However, the overwhelming feeling was that this was a very timely initiative which needed to be developed and promoted.

16. The work at WUF culminated in the UN's closing report () which identified Re-inventing Planning as one of the four highlights of the Forum and which stated that:

The Forum placed a strong emphasis on planning as a tool for urban development and environmental management, and as a means of preventing future slum growth. This view was accepted not just by Government officials and urban planners themselves but also by civil society groups that wanted planning to be more inclusive, transparent and ethical. The Forum stressed the importance of planners as agents of change and underlined the importance of sustainability as the backbone of new forms of planning.

This UN statement is a measure of the success of the whole re-inventing planning initiative in which UK and Commonwealth planners played a crucial role.

THE LEGACY

17. The planning bodies involved were clear before the Vancouver event that the work would not stop at WUF3 but that this event would both provide a legacy of support for planners worldwide and would provide a springboard for further actions. In addition to the Declaration and the Re-inventing Planning paper, the specific legacy to date is that:

— A website has been set up—www.globalplannersnetwork.com—through which information can be exchanged, documents—including the Declaration (now translated into French and Chinese with Spanish to follow) and paper—can be accessed and signposted links made to relevant organisations, effective practice and information.

Making Planning Work

— An action plan has been drawn up (see below) to take the work forward.

18. The Action Plan was drawn up at an intensive series of meetings held during the WPC and WUF and refined at a meeting of global planning bodies held in London during the 2006 RTPI Planning Convention. It sets out five areas of future work:

1. Develop a Global Planning Knowledge Base.

2. Further Develop the World Capacity for Planning.

3. Define and Promote the Concepts of Sustainability and Sustainable Urbanization.

4. Promote Human Equity and Empowerment in Planning.

5. Promote active involvement in achieving the objectives outlined in the 2006 Global Planners Declaration.

In addition, lobbying has started to establish a second World Planners Congress to be organised to run in Nanjing, China in 2008 before the planned WUF4.

19. It is clear that any significant further work on this must be fully resourced. The RTPI looks forward to working closely with its international partners and with the DCLG and DFID on this. It believes that that the Academy for Sustainable Communities and bodies such as the LGIB could potentially play a significant role. If funding is not available, however, the RTPI's commitment to this will have to be set at a more realistic level.

20. The RTPI is now drawing up a work programme based on the action plan set out above. This will detail individual pieces of work, the ways in which they will be undertaken, deadlines and resource implications. A further meeting with DFID is planned to discuss support. Discussions have also started with the Academy for Sustainable Communities about this initiative, with particular emphasis at this stage on the use of communityplanning.net to hold comparative international material. A meeting has already been held with a representative from UN-HABITAT to maintain the momentum after WUF3.

CONCLUSION

21. The progress made at the WPC and then, particularly, at WUF3 was enormous. The joint work has brought planning as part of the solution back onto UN-HABITAT's and global agendas. The task now is to ensure that the promises made are delivered with real progress being made by WUF4 in 2008 with that progress being shown not simply in terms of developing the Global Planners Network but in demonstrating the real benefits that planning can have in addressing the issues of global urbanisation and rural development.



© Parliamentary copyright 2007	Prepared 16 April 2007