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

Integration of urban development in India: any answers?

Delhi metro

Delhi: rapid transport helps integrate some parts of the city

 

The workshop on integrated development in India was valuable, but it would be naïve to expect that one an a half days would give all the answers. It was good to get a range of experiences from India as well as International inputs from Cities Alliance, World Bank, (Capacity Development for Infrastructure in Asia (CDIA) and Metropolis.
For me, the significant points were:

  • 1) First that the conference took place and the Ministry took an active and leading role;
  • 2) the recognition of the  issue of limited capacity at the local level and the need for strong leadership from the local level, both political and technical;
  • 3) the openness to listen to experiences from South Africa, Nigeria, Philippines Korea, and to open up the thinking on the Indian situation;
  • 4) the highlighting of the  need for both statutory and strategic planning and for the relationship to be made more operational.

I talked about the need for real benefits from integration and  the concept of “smart connections” between plans. This is not very complicated.  It means that in the rules and during the process questions have to be addressed as to how the plan being worked on relates to other plans. How  conflicts are recognized and avoided, and perhaps more important, that synergies should be identified and  actively pursued.  This “common sense” approach does, however mean that some people, leaders, managers, planners need to actively pursue the goal of achieving better results.   The difficult task is to introduce this   approach in situations where local government is weak.

Lessons

  • The potential benefits of an integrated approach need to be clear to drive the process. This realization should be widely held, especially by leadership and not only by the technical staff involved.
  • As far as is possible, it is good to keep the initial sophistication at a basic level for smaller, weaker municipalities . A progressive development through incentives can be used to simulate stronger municipalities.
  • Examples from other countries showed that with will, initiative and creativity it is possible to make changes. However, this does not come easily, a strong integration of capacity development is vital.
  • The main focus was lessons to feed into the second phase of the the national programme JNNURM to support local integrated infrastructure development, but it was recognised that the City Development Plans (CDP) are a tool with much wider potential use.

Questions

Do you have comments or further examples?  You can post here.

I also posted a link to groups on LinkedIn (urban planning and IHS Alumni) and you can also follow some of the discussion there if you belong to those groups.

Integration in planning: Is it worth the effort?

Integrated development is still the “holy grail” of planners, but does it work? How do you make it work?

I have just been invited to India to talk about integration in planning at what should be a very interesting workshop. The aim is to set the framework of the second generation of City Development Plans. These are a form of strategic urban planning. They aim to provide a participative process to ensure ownership and an integrated framework for cross-sectoral  infrastructure investment.

Topics

Issues that will be addressed include:

  • how to improve multi-stakeholder working and local ownership of the development plans;
  • how to better link the development plan to the land use plan;
  • how to better mobilise financial resources.

I hope I can later share some highlights from the workshop, and links to useful materials.  I will also post more material on integration on the website.
In the meantime, if you would like to share your experiences of integration, or “smart connection” between different forms of plans, it would be good to hear from you.

Rotterdam Renewal: Mayor promotes co-creation

Co-creation

Rotterdam’s Mayor Ahmed Abu Taleb gave an inspiring talk at the graduation of the Urban Management and Development Masters programme at IHS, the Netherlands. The place was the Floating Pavilion, part of the city’s Climate Change Initiative. The participants of the course might have been focusing on getting their diploma’s, but the Mayor helped them on their way with some stimulating final lessons.
Co-creation is a popular concept in business management, but Abu Taleb promoted its use in city development. He spoke of his holding neighbourhood meetings where 9 out of 10 ideas typically come from local residents. He illustrated this with a story of two residents who had improved a run down house through a city scheme. In the scheme, a property in a difficult area is sold at a very low price on condition that it is thoroughly improved.
“I met two people who had an old house at a low price and had transformed it into a beautiful place. They turned their attention towards the public area. A piece of grass that was neglected by the community and government for a long time. They had an idea to transform that piece of land into a wonderful small park serving the neighbourhood. They used the opportunity of the presence of the Mayor to share ideas with me on the wall. I was really impressed ”
Having improved the property the residents used the Mayor’s visit to promote the transformation of an untended open space into an attractive and useable micro-park.

The Mayor simply said “please do it”, and offered €5,000 to get the work started .  He invited himself to a barbecue there in a years time. This, he said, would make sure that his service departments would also give support.
Why not offer to have his departments take over the project? It would take too long and loose the energy of the initiators.

Diversity to go

The second lesson, linked to the first, was on diversity.
In the Mayor’s words “I used to look for someone who fits in the team. Now I’m looking for people who are not fitting in the team, who ask different questions and have new ideas, other ideas. With this friction of ideas, new things are born. Don’t be afraid of diversity”.

A timely message in a city which has a very diverse population.
This is the second time I have been inspired by a mayor(or former mayor) in two weeks. The other was the former mayor of Medellin – see my post from the World Urban Forum in Naples.

Co-creation is a dynamic way to describe participation – with the emphasis on generating an outcome and not only on going through a process. A strong leadership from the mayor is very important in ensuring that local government is responsive and follows up on the energy that can be generated through participative planning. The alternative is letting the enthusiasm cool and turn to frustration.
Congratulations to the graduates of the IHS class of UMD 8. I hope they take these lessons home with them.