Istanbul + 5

Parallel Events Report

HABITAT Professionals Forum
'The Relationship between the Global Campaigns for Tenure and Governance with Finance for Development'

Rapporteur: David Mammen

A. Introduction

Friday, June 8th, 2001, 1pm to 3pm, Conference Room C, UN

Michael Cohen, Director of the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University in New York and a Visiting Fellow at the International Center for Advanced Studies at New York University (NYU) provided a brief presentation, followed by a discussion with all participants facilitated by Dr. Eva Hedman, Expert of the National Board of Housing Building and Planning of Sweden and member of the Swedish delegation to Istanbul +5.

The event was the third of a series of three lunchtime discussions organized by the Habitat Professionals Forum to exchange professional views concerning key aspects of the Habitat Agenda. Each session featured one resource person who was asked to make a brief presentation; a discussion with all participants followed. About 50 participants attended the panel discussion.

The Habitat Professionals Forum was established in 1999 at the initiative of the International Federation of Housing and Planning (IFHP), the International Society of City and Regional Planners (IsoCaRP), the International Union of Architects (UIA), the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), the Centre for African Settlement Studies and Development (CASSAD) and the Arab Urban Development Institute (AUDI). The Forum was organized under the auspices of UNCHS (Habitat) with the enthusiastic support of Dr. Klaus Töpfer, then Ag. Executive Director of UNCHS and presently United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Nairobi and is now supported by Mrs. Anna Tibaijuka, the new Executive Director of UNCHS (Habitat).

B. Discussion

Presentation

Michael Cohen, Director of the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University in New York and a Visiting Fellow at the International Center for Advanced Studies at New York University (NYU) was asked to make a short presentation.

Michael Cohen worked at the World Bank from 1972 to 1999 and was responsible for much of the urban policy development of the Bank over that period. He has worked in over 50 countries and was heavily involved in the Bank's work on infrastructure, environment, and sustainable development. He is currently completing a study on urban inequality in Buenos Aires where he worked in 1998-1999 as well as a larger project on the lessons of international urban assistance in 10,000 cities and towns around the world from 1970 to 2000.

On a hand-out Michael Cohen suggested the following points for discussion:

1. A Realistic appraisal of the Impact on Urban Aid
2. The Financial Limits of the International Community
3. Assessing Domestic Financial Capacity
4. What is to be financed? Capital Investment? Operations and Maintenance? What Else?
5. Necessary Conditions for Financing Urban Development
   A. Multi-Sectoral Approach
   B. Understanding Institutional Levels
   C. The Role of Public Policy
   D. Appreciating the 'Non-Public' Sector
6. How important are Tenure and Governance?

In his presentation Michael Cohen included the following remarks:

1. A Realistic appraisal of the Impact on Urban Aid
   
2. The Financial Limits of the International Community
   
3. Assessing Domestic Financial Capacity
   
   From 1970 - 2000 international aid community (bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors) have implemented projects in a total of 10,000 cities and towns around the world. In it's sum this should be regarded as an important social experiment. A total of US$ 60 billion was spent. While this appears to be a lot of money, it is not really very much considering the timeframe and the size of the problem. (In comparison, for example $US 60 billion is only 20% of the annual US defense budget.)
   
   What difference was made? This is a presumptuous question - not much difference could be made. The amount spent could only affect a few projects in a few countries. What are reasonable expectations?
   
4. What is to be financed? Capital Investment? Operations and Maintenance? What Else?
   Urban Infrastructure: Between 1970 and 2000 $US 150 billion were spent each year on urban infrastructure by the developing countries themselves. Often these investments generate a bad rate of return, as they are not maintained well. These experiences suggest that rather than investing in new systems, more money should be spent on training (to improve operations and maintenance) and on maintenance itself.
   
5. Necessary Conditions for Financing Urban Development
   The 'single-sector view of the world' is the reason for many problems. Better coordination between sectors such as infrastructure, housing, health, education etc. is crucial. So far the disciplines and the programs are not converging. Often the sum of the projects (in a city or country) is less than the whole, as they don't interconnect at all.
   The task for public policy therefore is to create platforms for players to cooperate.
   
6. How important are the Campaigns for Tenure and Governance?
   The Campaign for Tenure is important, but we need to decide what we are really trying to achieve. In the 70s cadastral systems that were far too complicated and very expensive were sold to poor cities and countries. This was not useful at all.
   Campaign or Governance: Local Knowledge needs to be the key, not 'Global Knowledge - Local Implementation'.
   How do professionals come into the picture?
   We need to learn more about each other's professions and exchange across disciplines.
   Process matters. It needs to be tailored to local circumstances.
   65% of aid projects change along the way (from planning to actual implementation). A lot of time is spent on drafting and re-writing proposals and reports, but more time should be spent with citizen participation during preparation and implementation.

Discussion

The following points were raised during the discussion

• The connection of the two campaigns to Finance for Development is important. It was not really addressed in the presentation.
  A lot of knowledge has been gained from 1970 to 2000 and we have learned from our mistakes.
  
• Guaranteeing 'Security of Tenure' starts a process within a country (example: history of squatter settlements in Turkey), and these implications need to be considered. Tenure therefore needs to be linked to Governance.
  
• The problems are too big to be left to the international community, they need to be addressed on the local level.
  
• Standards need to be determined locally. Or example, the 'World Bank-standard' is not the Nigeria-standard. Replication of 'best practices' without adjustments of the standards is not very useful. It gets too expensive. The fact that standards are often not adjusted locally, explains some of the failures of aid projects.
  Interdisciplinary is often talked about, but not often translated into action. The Habitat Professionals Forum needs to convey these ideas and thoughts to the UN and the donor community.
  
• How can we make a real impact with relatively small amounts? Usually the aid money is a small percentage of the local economy. Micro-credit schemes offer opportunities for large impact with little cash investment.
  But, despite it's relatively small impact, international aid should by no means be reduced. It is vital, especially in many African countries that can't generate their own resources.
  Security of Tenure is important, because 'the fear of the bulldozer' will prevent all investment.
  
• Over the last 30 years the situation around the world has actually deteriorated, despite all the investment. Political change is crucial real change.
  
• There are many 'unprofessional professionals', especially when it comes to participation of the public. Empowering the communities is what 'Finance for Development' should be focusing on.
  
• Professionals need to pay more attention to the importance of politics. Indicators to measure political structures and their influence on citizen involvement must be developed.
  
• The experiences made in Rio, Brazil, are examples of 'un-connectedness' of various projects.
  Administrative and governmental flexibility is important in order to improve 'connectivity'.
  The concept of secure tenure will only work, if the authority to regulate tenure issues is given. Development of construction and building codes also go hand in hand with 'security of tenure'.
  
• It's important to keep in mind that multi-nationals are influencing local knowledge. The flow of information is an important aspect.

C. Conclusion

As the moderator Eva Hedman had intended, this session was more than a "table of statements"; it was a lively discussion with many viewpoints. And as befit an event sponsored by the Habitat Professionals Forum, the session dealt not only with technical issues but also raised important questions about what it means to be a professional relative to the Habitat Agenda.

Michael Cohen challenged participants to think about the topics of tenure, good governance and finance in new ways. Yes, tenure matters. Bulldozers are waiting to clear "illegal" settlements. Security of tenure can stop the bulldozers, and initiate a process that can lead to place-making by local residents. Yes, good governance matters. But we should be wary of the claims made in the name of universal standards. Local knowledge is needed, and as the thematic sessions at this Istanbul + 5 conference have demonstrated, there is ample local experience to draw upon -- including learning from our mistakes. Professional experts can help identify local knowledge, and make it accessible.

And what is to be financed -- only new investment? The total value of urban infrastructure in developing countries is estimated at US $ 3 trillion. About US $ 150 billion is spent each year on urban infrastructure by developing countries; of that amount, US $ 3 billion at most comes from donors. Therefore, most of the money spent on urban infrastructure comes directly from developing countries, not from the international community. "The urban business" of development aid is not a lot of money in relation to the problems, or in relation to total aid.

Using these estimates, the annual "flow" is 5% of the "stock". If we, as professionals concerned with urban problems, could help get 5% more out of what already exists, that would be equal to the existing flow. How can finance be used strategically to get more out of what already exists? This is an important challenge for professionals, and suggests a reorientation towards operations and maintenance, rehabilitation, and training.

We need to find ways to manage across sectors, to find multipliers through convergence. But the boundaries of professional practice and academic disciplines can sometimes be obstacles to convergence, and the single sector view of the world can mean that the whole is less than the sum of the parts. By fostering cross-disciplinary discussions such as the ones held during Istanbul + 5, the Habitat Professionals Forum can help urban practice that will advance the Habitat Agenda.

More information about the Habitat Professionals Forum at Istanbul + 5

This page is maintained by the FIG Office. Last revised on 04-03-12.