Learning from urban projects: why and how we should unlock the learning potential of urban development projects and programmes

In an earlier post I mentioned that I had been asked to put down some thoughts on learning from urban projects. The thoughts have now been published open source. Link to full text

Forbes Davidson (2022) Learning from urban projects: why and how we should unlock the learning potential of urban development projects and programmes, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, DOI: 10.1080/19463138.2022.2042305

The images below show how a project changes over time, but long term monitoring and evaluation and needed to learn the lessons.

Ismailia Hai el Salam 1982
Ismailia Hai el Salam same location 2007

For more information on the Ismailia projects see here for downloads and links , and here for a list of references. Photographs can be accessed here for early stages in the project and here for more recent images.

Here is the abstract:

Urban projects are developed partly to solve local problems but often have wider aims to influence policy and practise. However, there is very little long-term evaluation carried out, and few systematic efforts to link the experience gained in project development and implementation to wider learning and capacity building. I have written this opinion piece based on my experience both in practise in the public and private sectors and in teaching and research. The paper is divided into three parts. First, why urban projects and programmes are important for learning and capacity building. Second, how we learn from projects and the opportunities and barriers to learning. Third, how we could increase learning by explicitly including learning objectives in project planning and evaluation, strengthening links between practice and learning, and improving long-term access to project materials with learning potential.

I would appreciate any feedback and thoughts that you might have.

A small scale “capital investment project” supported by UN-Habitat in Kosovo to improve local conditions and build capacity in local communities and government. 2014

Istanbul and the case of the elusive Urban Development Guidelines

2010-05-09 08-39-00 Turkey Istanbul 7342 FD

Guidelines on why and how to develop integrated plans and projects were a key output from European countries participating in Habitat II in Istanbul in 1996.  Now, in the build up to Habitat III in 2016 it is useful to ask “What happened?”

The story begins in Istanbul.  At the Habitat conference in Istanbul in 1996 many member states had urban departments in their develop co-operation organizations.  During the conference they came together and decided that they should promote an integrated urban approach for development cooperation from the EC.  The result of this was an initiative to develop a policy together with guidelines on how it could be implemented.

Which should come first?   The urban development policy or the guidelines?  The practicalities dictated that it was better to first develop draft guidelines.  A team of development institutions were commissioned to develop the outline.  These included Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, in Netherlands, the Development Planning Unit in United Kingdom and  HDM at Lund University in Sweden.  I was  the  team leader,  which is why I have kept an interest in their progress.

Integrated urban development is very important.  Everyone recognises this, but it is difficult to implement.   European development aid has tended to be sectoral.  It is easier to manage large infrastructure projects than complicated integrated programmes.   The challenge was to try to develop a framework to encourage integrated “urban” approaches where synergies could be developed and conflicts minimised.  The approach had to be simple enough to be understandable, had to make sense and also had to fit with the procedures of European development aid.  Not an easy assignment!   Interestingly, during development of the guidelines it turned out that an overlapping work was being written on  urban environment.  It was agreed to integrate the two  – a rare case of  synergistic thinking and flexibility!

The draft guidelines went through a number of formats, were tested in regional workshops and in  EC projects.  They were finally made available in 2001 on  World Habitat Day.

cover of EC guidelines 2001Cover of 2001 version of the guidelines

Reorganization within EC meant that the guidelines disappeared from view.   They were re-discovered and  updated as Consultative Guidelines for Sustainable Urban Development Cooperation.  These were introduced for discussion early 2012.    The current status is no clear.   They are updated but are largely the same as the original work.  If you want to look at them they  are available for download via the above link.

I think that the guidelines still provide a very useful guide to thinking through integrated approaches, especially linking planning, infrastructure development  and governance.  They also show how to connect  these to the project cycle management used by EC and other agencies for development projects.

If you find this publication useful, or have any comments, please let me know – but  also it is very important to give feedback to EC on their Capacity 4 Dev page.  A direct link is  here.

7S diagramKey diagram of the guidelines

First day at World Urban Forum, WUF

20120904-074745.jpg
First day of WUF.
Impressions? Not as quiet as my first impression in the photo! For me the main thing, despite all the sessions that are organized, is meeting people, often after a few, sometimes after many years.

In sessions, presentations are often too short to really get into and discuss subjects. Attendance ranges from the crowding of doors and sitting on the floor of a session of slum dwellers international, to an empty room for a session that just didn’t happen.

Anything memorable apart from meeting old friends? A presentation on planning in Palestinian refugee camps, told in stories, with the question of how to plan with people for future development of a camp where they don’t want to be in the future. The answer? Talk of improvement and not development, but get on to address intolerable living conditions. Subtle, but important in the context.

In the same session, the moderator asked what presenters had learned from their experience. One lesson shared was that participation in planning was not just about asking a lot of people questions about what they felt, but a negotiation where the planner has to engage with their own contribution. Participation is not abdication of the responsibilities and contributions of the professional, but an ongoing exchange where all sides should contribute. That sort of participation needs to be based on trust, and that takes time and needs the experience that comes from time spend in the field.

Let’s see what day 2 has in store.