partnership for local capacity development

Partnership for LocalCapacity Development

NairobiMay 2003

Building on the Experiencesof City-to-City Cooperation

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

World Association of Cities and LocalAuthorities Coordination (WACLAC)

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoeveron the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or regarding its economic system or degree of development. The analysis,conclusions and recommendations of the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Human SettlementsProgramme (UN-HABITAT), the Governing Council of UN-HABITAT or its Member States.

Excerpts from this publication may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated.

© United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 2003

ISBN: 92-1-131680-4

HS/687/03E

United Nations Human Settlements Programme publications can be obtained from UN-HABITAT Regional and Information Offices ordirectly from:P.O. Box 30030Nairobi, KenyaFax: +(254-20) 624060E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.unhabitat.org

1

Partnerships for Local Capacity Development

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................2

Chapter 1 Partnership for Local Capacity Development (PLCD)1.1 Laying the Foundations........................................................................................................................................41.2 Partner Needs and Priorities ................................................................................................................................61.3 Emerging Consensus on the Way Forward ..........................................................................................................6

Chapter 2 Background and Context of City-to-City Cooperation2.1 The Idea of City-to-City Cooperation (C2C) ..........................................................................................................82.2 C2C and Development Cooperation ....................................................................................................................9

Chapter 3 The Purpose and Scope of the Initiative3.1 Advancing Understanding of C2C and Strengthening C2C Practice ....................................................................103.2 The Approach and Structure of the Report ........................................................................................................10

Chapter 4 City Priorities and Practices in City-to-City Cooperation4.1 Framework for Comparing City Priorities and Practices ....................................................................................124.2 Cities’ Capacity-Building Priorities ....................................................................................................................12

• Improving Aspects of Urban Management ......................................................................................................12• Improving Individual Local Government Functions..........................................................................................14

4.3 Defining Features of C2C Practice ....................................................................................................................17• Geographical Scope ......................................................................................................................................17• Cooperation Structures ..................................................................................................................................18• Active Participants ........................................................................................................................................20

Chapter 5 Organising Support for City-to-City Cooperation5.1 Framework for Comparing C2C Support Options................................................................................................225.2 Types of External Support ..................................................................................................................................22

• C2C Support Modalities..................................................................................................................................225.3 Organisation of External Support ......................................................................................................................24

• Geographical Focus........................................................................................................................................24• Funding and Resources..................................................................................................................................24• Facilitating Institutions ..................................................................................................................................25

Chapter 6 Issues Arising from Experience 6.1 Key Features and Trends in C2C Practice ..........................................................................................................286.2 Key Features and Trends in C2C Support ..........................................................................................................306.3 Priorities in C2C Practice and Support Policies ..................................................................................................32

Annex 1: Information Sources ..........................................................................................................................................36Annex 2: International Associations and Networks of Cities and Local Authorities ............................................................37Annex 3: International City-to-City Support Programmes..................................................................................................44Annex 4: UN-HABITAT and DFID: Sustainable Urbanisation, Foreword, 2002 ....................................................................51Annex 5: UN-HABITAT and partners: Coalition for Sustainable Urbanisation,

Introduction and Partnership for Local Capacity Development, 2002..................................................................52Annex 6: Contributors ......................................................................................................................................................56

Contents

Photo credits: Topham Picturepoint, Topham/UNEP, Bernd Decker and other UN-HABITAT colleagues.

2

Introduction

Purpose

This publication is background documentation for the dialogues with local authorities andother Habitat Agenda partners during the 19th session of the Governing Council of UN-HABI-TAT. It is designed to support the dialogue on the Strengthening of Local Authorities, thesecond of a two-part dialogue on Effective Decentralisation and the Strengthening of LocalAuthorities held in plenary during the afternoon session of Tuesday, 6 May 2003, and themorning session of Wednesday, 7 May 2003.

During the three-hour dialogue on the Strengthening of Local Authorities, designated repre-sentatives of local authorities and other Habitat Agenda partners make short substantivepresentations followed by discussions between Government delegations and panellists.Once adopted, the Chair’s conclusions and the recommendations from the dialogue serveas guidelines for follow-up action by Governments, local authorities, other Habitat Agendapartners and UN-HABITAT. To be substantive, action-oriented and focused on both the con-ceptual and operational aspects of strengthening local authorities the dialogue is organisedto address from a variety of perspectives specific questions such as the following:• Why strengthening of local authorities is important and what the priorities are.• Whose cooperation is required (e.g. local/national stakeholders in cities, support pro-

grammes and donors) and what roles they should play.• What practical lessons can be learned from the concrete, operational experience of the

dialogue participants.

There are many good examples of concrete international initiatives for developing local capacities. UN-HABITAT alone supports dozens of globalcampaigns, programmes and projects with most, if not all, aimed specifically at local capacity development. Among these, the Partnership for LocalCapacity Development (PLCD) has been selected. The reasons behind this choice include: (a) The PLCD is a broad and growing partnership involv-ing more than 20 multilateral and bilateral support organisations, associations of local authorities, Non-Governmental Organisations, and otherHabitat Agenda partners; (b) The purpose of the PLCD is to review and improve the match between local capacity development needs and availableinternational support; (c) The PLCD is specifically designed to support implementation of the Habitat Agenda and the settlements dimension of otherglobal agreements such as the Millennium Development Goals and the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development; and (d) the PLCDis a joint initiative between the United Nations and the Global Associations of Local Authorities.

Origins

When, in 1996, the Governments of the world met in Istanbul at the HABITAT-II City Summit to discuss the enormous challenge posed by globalurbanisation and our rapidly growing cities, they reached a number of historic agreements and enshrined them in the Habitat Agenda. One of thesewas forging a new partnership approach involving not only central governments and civil society, but also local authorities in a joint plan for sys-tematically addressing the future of the world’s cities and other human settlements. The United Nations also recognised, for the first time, the sta-tus of local governments officially at one of its global meetings. This was significant progress towards recognition of local governments as inter-locutors with the United Nations, and their participation in the key decisions affecting and requiring cooperation from the cities. Indeed, local author-ities were recognised as the closest partners of national governments for the implementation of the Habitat Agenda.

In early 2001, UN-HABITAT agreed to cooperate with the United Towns Organisation (UTO) - the latter acting on behalf of World Associations of Citiesand Local Authorities Coordination (WACLAC) and the United Nations Advisory Committee of Local Authorities (UNACLA) - to support a series of eventsconcerned with city-to-city cooperation. These events emphasised the benefits of city-to-city learning and mutual support. They also highlightedthe broad range and diversity of city-to-city cooperation practices, showcased the variety of complementary options for supporting cities in theircooperation, and drew and agreed on forward-looking conclusions regarding opportunities to improve the scope for both city-to-city cooperation andsupport. The series of events culminated with an event on city-to-city cooperation during the 25th Special Session of the United Nations GeneralAssembly (Istanbul+5) in New York in June 2001.

The report prepared for Istanbul+5 was entitled City-to-City Cooperation: Issues Arising from Experience. It was endorsed as a basis for jointlylaunching a more permanent initiative on city-to-city cooperation, designed to maintain an up-to-date inventory of the various forms of city-to-citycooperation as well as of the modalities of international support. The latest up-date of this report reflects the preparatory process for the 2002 WorldSummit on Sustainable Development including prominently the first Session of the World Urban Forum. During this process Habitat Agenda partnersconcluded that local capacity development is an important prerequisite for sustainable urbanisation (see Annex 4). They also recommended aPartnership for Local Capacity Development (PLCD) , and made the PLCD a key component of the Coalition for Sustainable Urbanisation which wasUN-HABITAT’s main contribution to the Johannesburg Summit (see Annex 5).

3


Message

This joint report of the United Nations and the global associations of local authorities has come a long way since 2001, evolving from a simple descriptive invento-ry of capacity building approaches to a systematic database with concrete action-oriented recommendations. The change from the old title City-to-City Cooperation– Issues Arising from Experience to the new title Partnership for Local Capacity Development reflects this evolution. At the same time the joint message carried bythe report has become sharper and more immediately relevant to recent global agreements such as the Millennium Development Goals, the Declaration on Citiesand other Human Settlements (Istanbul+5) and the conclusions of WSSD. All these emphasise the importance of local capacity development for such fundamentaldevelopment objectives as poverty alleviation as well as social, economic and environmental sustainability.

More specifically, the Commission on Human Settlements, in its Resolution 18/11, asked the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT to intensify dialogue among govern-ments at all levels and Habitat Agenda partners on issues related to effective decentralisation and the strengthening of local authorities. Further, by its Resolution18/10 on the role of local authorities, the Commission invited the Habitat Agenda partners, with the support of the Secretariat, to strengthen local authorities in theirimportant role in implementing the Habitat Agenda through, inter-alia, improved training, peer-to-peer learning, city-to-city transfers and international exchangesbased on documented best practices, good policies and action plans. In this report the United Nations and the local authorities respond to this mandate. The mes-sage of the report can be summarised in the following six points:• Local authorities and their associations are key actors in local capacity development and they are ready to assume their important role in close collaboration with

the United Nations and other Habitat Agenda partners.• City-to-city cooperation, peer-to-peer learning and other forms of decentralised cooperation are among the most effective approaches to local capacity develop-

ment. These approaches, practiced by local authorities with the support of their associations for more than half a century, have emerged in the past decade asa new technical cooperation paradigm of the United Nations, which emphasises the demand-led sharing of operational experience among practitioners ratherthan the traditional provision of ready solutions.

• Support available for local capacity development differs in many important ways, reflecting the tremendous diversity of interests, purposes, institutions, resources,and situations among support programmes and the cities with which they cooperate. However, this support is often supply-driven rather than demand led andthere are significant overlaps and gaps in the support provided by international programmes.

• There is room for improving the match between local capacity development needs and available international support. International support can be made moreresponsive to local priorities. In the interest of cohesion and collective efficiency, gaps in available support can be filled, overlaps reduced and strategic comple-mentarities can be realised.

• A systematic partnership between key interest groups must be organised to improve the match between local capacity development needs and available sup-port. This must involve (a) local authorities and other stakeholders at city and national levels, (b) international support programmes, and (c) donors.

• The Partnership for Local Capacity Development (PLCD), described in this report, is one option for improving collaboration among the key interest groups. ThePLCD consists of (a) an information service based on an inventory of city needs and available support; (b) a periodic report on issues arising from experience; and(c) regular meetings of the interest groups to address arising issues and to chart the way forward. These meetings are to be held as part of the biennial sessionsof the World Urban Forum.

Organisation

The main text of this publication (Chapters 1-6) has been prepared and agreed in close collaboration between UN-HABITAT and the global associations of local author-ities (represented by WACLAC and UNACLA) in preparation for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). For the purpose of this publication the con-cluding chapter of the original text has been moved to the front and minor editorial corrections have been made to improve presentation without affecting the sub-stance. Accordingly, Chapter 1 presents the conclusion of the report by outlining the emerging consensus on the way forward, i.e. the Partnership for Local CapacityDevelopment. Chapters 2 and 3 summarise the historical background and the conceptual basis of the report, highlighting the need to review separately city capac-ity development practices and priorities on the one hand, and available international support on the other. Chapters 4 and 5 present methodology and initial findingsof a survey of city practices (Chapter 4) and of international support programmes (Chapter 5). Chapter 6 provides an overview of issues arising from the operationalexperience of both city practitioners and representatives of the international development support community.

The expanding inventory of city practices and available international support is presented in Annexes 2 and 3. For space reasons, survey returns have not been includ-ed in their entirety as they have been in earlier versions of this report. Instead, brief descriptions of key programmes and organisations are reproduced as they werereceived during the survey and any information that could be presented in tabular form has been processed into Excel tables for further analysis in Chapter 6. Excerptsfrom two highly relevant publications prepared for WSSD are reproduced in Annexes 4 and 5 for ease of reference. Annex 6 lists some of the main contributors tothis report.

Jochen EigenChief, Technical Advisory Branch, UN-HABITAT,May 2003

...recent global agreements... emphasise the importance of local capacity developmentfor such fundamental development objectives as poverty alleviation as well as social,economic and environmental sustainability

4

1.1 Laying the Foundations

Several factors are bringing the practice of city-to-city (C2C) cooperation into the limelight as never before: The increasing importance of develop-ment policies based upon decentralisation and partnership, the recognition of cities as key actors in local and national development, and the deter-mination of cities to address their responsibilities effectively. As a result, C2C has acquired a new and growing significance, now being recognisedwidely as a vital element for the achievement of sustainable development.

Foundations for this were built up through a series of significant events during 2001, notably those which were part of the Istanbul +5 reviewprocess, and which focused international attention upon the need to emphasise implementation of the Habitat Agenda and upon its ambitious com-mitments for efforts at all levels to support and facilitate decentralisation and partnership.

The first edition of this report, the Interim Report of May 2001, was prepared in support of the Istanbul+5 events and it explored C2C in a system-atic way, establishing an analytical framework for assessing C2C in terms of city practices and support options. It was based upon a wide-rangingbut incomplete inventory of C2C of activities as then documented; it was aimed at expanding and strengthening debate by informing all of the var-ious interested parties (city leaders, local authority associations, national governments, international programmes and donors, representatives of UNpartner agencies, NGOs, researchers) about the “state of the art” of City-to-City Cooperation and about the potential for more effective collaboration.

The findings of the Interim Report were discussed at a workshop session on decentralised cooperation within the framework of the IULA/UTO UnityCongress in Rio de Janeiro (May 2001). The representatives of local authorities from both South and North endorsed the report and the broad thrustof its findings. They welcomed its analytical framework as a means of advancing understanding of the various forms of C2C and of devising waysof facilitating such cooperation. The need for enhanced dialogue with international institutions about improving the effectiveness of available sup-port was also emphasised. The workshop also highlighted the need to integrate institutional strengthening of local governments (and their associa-tions) more fully in the various sectoral support programmes of international institutions and agencies; as well as the importance of associating citiesmore closely in the formulation and implementation of the evolving urban agendas of these institutions.

Partnership for Local Capacity Development (PLCD)1.

5


These concerns were also addressed at the Second World Assembly ofCities and Local Authorities (WACLA II) convened on the occasion of theIULA/UTO Unity Congress in Rio de Janeiro to formulate local govern-ment’s collective input to Istanbul +5. The WACLA II Declaration reaf-firmed local authorities’ wish to intensify their collaboration with UN-HABITAT as their primary linkage with the United Nations system, andcommitted them to promoting direct international cooperation betweencities and their associations. The Declaration called upon national gov-ernments to recognise and support direct cooperation among cities, andto develop partnership models to ensure complementarity with bi- andmulti-lateral cooperation programmes.

The concepts and ideas of the Interim Report were also introduced bythe Executive Director of UN-HABITAT in her opening address at theMeeting of Mayors on C2C, which took place within the framework ofthe Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries(Brussels, May 2001). That Meeting also underlined the value whichcities place upon partnerships and peer-to-peer exchanges as compo-nents of sustainable capacity-building and institutional strengthening,calling in particular for further development of under-utilised potentialof South-South links.

Concluding this first round of activities, WACLAC and UN-HABITAT joint-ly organised a parallel event on city-to-city cooperation during theIstanbul +5 UN General Assembly Special Session in New York on 7June 2001. This event reviewed the findings of the Interim Report andinvited debate on cities’ C2C needs and priorities in the light of the par-ticipants’ own C2C experience. The meeting looked ahead to the nextstage in the practice of C2C as a factor of growing importance in devel-opment policy, providing tangible benefits for local authorities and theircitizens through peer-to-peer exchange of operationally relevant infor-mation and experience. The key stakeholders represented on this occa-sion endorsed the orientation and thrust of efforts to date, confirmedtheir interest and commitment to continue exchange and cooperationon C2C through a more structured process of dialogue among cities andtheir associations, international support programmes and donors, andurged UN-HABITAT to pursue its work in this area in partnership with theinternational associations of cities and local authorities. The meetingidentified the need to develop and maintain an authoritative inventory ofthe state of the art of C2C, within a structure which will allow continu-ous updating and refinement and serve as a reference framework forfuture policy development.

The final milestone event in 2001 was a round table meeting convenedduring the International Forum on Urban Poverty organised by UN-HABI-TAT in Marrakech on 16-19 October 2001. Participants at the roundtable endorsed the value of C2C as a significant contributor to the prac-tical measures that can be taken to tackle urban poverty, and urged UN-

HABITAT and WACLAC to give priority to developing this area of work.

The results of these discussions on C2C, as well as other issues withinthe Istanbul +5 process, were reviewed by WACLAC’s Committee ofPresidents at a meeting in Barcelona on 24 January 2002. WACLACconfirmed the strong wish of its members to take forward the processof developing C2C and asked that the matter be placed on the agendaof the UN Advisory Committee of Local Authorities (UNACLA) for itsmeeting in Dubai on 17-19 February 2002. It also suggested that a spe-cialist working group be convened to prepare concrete recommenda-tions to be put to the Advisory Committee. On the basis of these rec-ommendations, UNACLA “confirmed its vision of C2C at the centre of anew development cooperation paradigm which is decentralised, bot-tom-up, demand-driven, and rooted in inclusive partnerships”. UNACLAalso approved a series of specific next steps comprising:• further collaboration on developing the C2C inventory and the estab-

lishment of an ongoing information system and clearing-housemachinery;

• recognition of the need to establish a structured dialogue betweenlocal authorities, support programmes, and donors, with the aim ofreducing duplication, filling gaps, and exploiting synergies; and

• commitment to involve all relevant partners (i.e. continued fullinvolvement of WACLAC’s member associations, as well as of supportprogrammes from UN bodies, IGOs, associations of local authorities,national governments, NGOs, the private sector etc).

UNACLA further urged that this work on C2C be placed within theprocess of preparing inputs to the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, linked to UN-HABITAT’s theme of ‘SustainableUrbanisation’ and with a particular focus upon the building of localimplementation capacities which can link the sometimes disparateefforts of the various actors involved. It saw the World Urban Forum, tobe convened by UN-HABITAT in Nairobi on 29 April to 3 May 2002, asproviding a major opportunity for moving ahead on building the neces-sary C2C policy partnerships. Accordingly, a thematic session during theForum was devoted to C2C. It provided an opportunity for C2C to beintegrated into the development of UN-HABITAT’s inputs into the WSSDpreparatory process.

UNACLA also welcomed the steps being taken to put C2C at the heartof a series of regional forums on local capacity-building and trainingneeds organised jointly by UNITAR and UN-HABITAT, in collaborationwith WACLAC and various UN agencies, during the period December2001 to July 2002.

Finally, there was the announcement that World Habitat Day 2002 inBrussels would have City-to-City Cooperation as its theme, giving exten-sive publicity and impetus to the further development of C2C ideas.

UNACLA “confirmed its vision of C2C at the centre of a newdevelopment cooperation paradigm which is decentralised,bottom-up, demand-driven, and rooted in inclusive partnerships”

6

1.2 Partners Needs and Priorities

Thus, in the period since the publication of the Interim Report there has been asteady build-up of support for C2C – and a broadening of awareness of its sig-nificance and of the potentially great role it can play in achieving sustainableurbanisation. Indeed, in terms of the “challenges of sustainable urbanisation”,identified by UN-HABITAT as the central focus of human settlements inputs atthe World Summit on Sustainable Development, the relevance of C2C is clear:(a) The important contributions that cities and other human settlements canmake to social, economic and environmental sustainability are far from beingrealized; (b) local actors, especially local authorities and their partners in civilsociety often lack the capacity to effectively play their crucial role in sustainableurbanization; and (c) external support to local capacity-building is often supply-driven, disjointed and collectively inefficient.

Helping build linkages between local capacity-building needs and availablesupport is one of the core functions of C2C, and it is a particularly suitable rolefor the United Nations to lead efforts to develop mechanisms and processes thatmake external support more coherent, effective, and collectively efficient. In sodoing three groups of partners are of particular importance:• Cities• Support Programmes• Donors.Each of these groups of C2C actors has its own needs and priorities, althoughthese are clearly inter-related and inter-dependent, as shown by the evidenceof this Report.

The first group comprises cities – primarily local authorities – together withtheir national and international associations (spearheaded by WACLAC as theircollective voice vis-à-vis the United Nations). This group will increasinglyinclude local authorities’ partners in civil society such as the private sector, theacademic and professional communities, NGOs and CBOs, relevant depart-ments of national and/or regional government, etc. The key needs for this groupare:• to identify and clarify local capacity-building needs and priorities• to identify most appropriate support modalities and mechanisms• to identify and effectively link with available support programmes.

The second group of C2C actors comprises those who provide support to citiesin a variety of ways, primarily (a) international support programmes (of the var-ious bi-lateral or multi-lateral development cooperation organisations) and (b)regional and international associations of local authorities (which have long hada major role in facilitating C2C). For these support agencies, key objectives are:• to better understand and evaluate cities’ needs• to increase their visibility to both cities and donors• to identify appropriate niches in the overall C2C system• to identify overlaps, gaps, and potential complementarities• to increase the individual as well as collective efficiency of their support

activities.

The third group comprises those who provide strategic funding to both the localauthorities and the supporting organisations – donors, especially in bilateral andmultilateral funding institutions, foundations, the international private sector,etc. For these funding providers, their key objectives in relation to C2C are:• to identify strategic investment opportunities• to better fit their own agendas and priorities to those of the cities and sup-

port programmes• to gain greater efficiency in the use of their resources.

The C2C practices outlined and analysed in this Report show how the differentneeds of these three groups can fit together – to the benefit of all – within thegeneral C2C framework described. Thus not only is there strongly demonstrat-ed international agreement on the importance of pressing ahead with C2C,there is also a convergence of interest based on the benefits to be gained fromsystematic joint action. To capitalise on this emerging consensus, establishmentof a Partnership for Local Capacity Development is proposed.

1.3 Emerging Consensus on the Way Forward

The findings of this Report, and the results of the international discussions sum-marised above, show the need - and demand - for an effective framework forcontinuing and further developing C2C ideas, practices, and dialogue. Thisframework will comprise the three groups of key actors identified above,brought together into a Partnership for Local Capacity Development (PLCD) andmobilised initially by UN-HABITAT and WACLAC. The focus of this partnershipwill be on the “issues arising from experience” as high-lighted in this Report.On this basis, and factoring in key considerations such as the role of the UnitedNations and the global consensus emerging from the WSSD process, the appro-priate activities would include the following three components:• Information Service (interactive web-site with database)• Periodic Analytical Report • Periodic Policy DialogueThere would also be a secretariat function to support these components.

The proposed Information Service aims to provide a thorough but highlyfocused overview of C2C, within an analytical structure which will facilitate con-tinuous updating and refinement of the information. It would also be a referenceframework for the relevant partners, serving a key “clearing-house” function tobring them together with each other and with the progressively developed C2Cdatabase; its main component would therefore be a dedicated interactive C2Cwebsite.

The initial information base for this website would be the data gathered aboutC2C practices and organisations gathered during the preparation of this Reportand its predecessor, especially the survey-based inventories of internationalsupport programmes and international associations. This would be progressive-ly supplemented by information contributed by cities and organisations aboutexisting C2C policies and practices, about city needs and priorities, and aboutfacilities offered through support programmes. Web linkages would be made toother relevant databases (such as UN-HABITAT’s Best Practices site) thus mak-ing information accessible without duplicating it. The main focus of the websitewould be to systematically gather experiences and practices that have replica-tion potential and, by organising them in a systematic framework, make themreadily available to those who can best use them. In this way the website couldbuild up a valuable clearing-house function focused specifically on bringingtogether cities, support programmes and donors within a framework whichhelps match demands from cities, for example, with the appropriate expertiseor mechanisms of support.

There would also be Periodic Analytical Reports, the second of which is thispresent document and the first of which was the report published in May 2001.Future reports would analyse progress being made in C2C, with a particularemphasis on examining important new or arising issues – for instance,analysing strategic bottlenecks which need to be addressed. Additional reportscould be prepared on other topics, depending upon what is identified by theusers as being most critical. These reports would both draw from and add to theinformation base which underlies the website.

The progressively developing information system, and particularly the periodicanalytical reports, would provide the basis for a Periodic Policy Dialogue.

...it is a particularly suitable role for theUnited Nations to lead efforts to developmechanisms and processes that makeexternal support more coherent, effective,and collectively efficient

7

Focused on strategic issues arising from C2C experience, for instance the poli-cy dialogue, events would bring together relevant partners of the PLCD to reviewand explore these issues, leading to concrete recommendations which can bereported back to the membership and, if appropriate, also reported throughother channels, such as the UNACLA. The working procedures of the policy dia-logues would have to be well designed to ensure a clear focus on outputs, aswell as carefully organised, to ensure balanced participation from cities, supportprogrammes, and donors. Policy dialogues might be organised to coincide withlarger international events (such as future sessions of the World Urban Forum,general congresses of associations, etc).

There would need to be a modest Secretariat function to support these activi-ties - to maintain the web-site, arrange for analytical reports, and organise pol-icy dialogue. This secretariat could be provided by one of the PLCD members,or perhaps be set up through a consortium of PLCD sponsors.

Through these various activities, the Partnership could address a variety of dif-ferent issues and topics, such as:• What are the local authorities’ needs and priorities? Answers could address

the contribution of C2C on improving aspects of urban management, orimproving the quality of individual local government services, as well asexamining the geographical scope of links, the cooperation structures beingemployed, and the range of partners actively involved (see Chapter 4).

• How can a city use documented lessons of experience to optimise C2Carrangements for its specific needs and circumstances? The aim would beto help cities design successful combinations of thematic focus, geographicorientation, linking modality, etc., for example to gain a better understandingof how to associate the private sector, NGOs, professional associations, andthe research community in developing best practice in C2C and spreading itsbenefits.

• What type of support is most effective for what type of C2C practice?Pursuing this question could help cities to make better and more informedchoices from available options for facilitating structures, funding andresources, and support modalities (see chapter 5).

• What type of C2C support is best adapted to which type of urban develop-ment support agenda? Answers to this question could assist support organ-isations in better tailoring their C2C support to their specific areas of man-date and thematic specialisation. It could also help national governments inthe preparation of strategies for effectively integrating C2C schemes withnational development programmes.

• What complementarities and synergies among the activities of supportorganisations can be exploited, what critical gaps could be filled, what

duplications or even conflicts could be avoided? This is a critical area ofinvestigation, and results here could do much to improve the coherence,effectiveness and collective efficiency of international support activities. Thiscould, for example, result in better coordination of C2C support schemes,extension of their geographical spread, and improvement of their accessi-bility to cities and their associations. It also could result in the extension ofexisting international urban capacity-building programmes to incorporateC2C opportunities.

• Where would additional funding have the most beneficial impact in relationto a donor’s specific support agenda? Answers to this question would helpdonors to strategically target their investment, while also promoting trans-parency and donor confidence, as well as providing a framework for attract-ing funding to C2C.

• How is the potential of working with the private sector and civil society part-ners best realised in given sets of circumstances? There is relatively littleexperience or understanding of this issue, and focused examination throughthe PLCD could help to substantiate the effectiveness of multi-actor partner-ships and perhaps develop experience-based guidelines to assist C2C effortsmore broadly.

• How should the successes and failures of C2C practices and support bemeasured and monitored? This is a difficult topic, but one of central impor-tance to cities, support organizations, and donors. Accumulation of experi-ence and development of ideas could lead to the preparation of analyticaltools for monitoring and evaluation of C2C practices and their contribution tothe achievement of local, national and global development goals.

All consultations on C2C over the last 18 months, and all the input to this reportprovided by local government associations and international support pro-grammes, suggest that the time is ripe to create this new Partnership for LocalCapacity Development. The establishment of the PLCD together with the mech-anisms to support its concrete activities, would significantly raise the visibilityof C2C as an important component of development policy and at the same timehelp “mainstream” C2C in the overall sustainable development context. A rela-tively modest investment in the potential of new information technologies, com-bined with the creative use of existing international frameworks, could providea realistic way of building upon the practical advantages of C2C outlined in thisReport and produce a constructive response to the policy issues identified. Thepublic launch of the ‘Partnership for Local Capacity Development’ at the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development, for example, clearly asserted the deter-mination of governments and civil society at the local level, and of their institu-tional partners in the UN system, to combine their local capacity-building effortsin common with the coalition for sustainable urbanisation.


Background and Context of City-to-City Cooperation2.

8

2.1 The Idea of City-to-CityCooperation (C2C)During the last two decades of the twentieth century, cities becameactive participants in international relations as never before – or at leastsince the Middle Ages, when Europe’s city states had more power thanmost of the national governments. Three reasons can be attributed this.Firstly, urbanisation is a growing trend in all developing countries,matching in some respects the rapid development of urban areas whichcharacterised the first industrial revolution in the North. Secondly, glob-alisation has led to a clearer recognition of the determining position ofcities in a world which is both interdependent and committed to shar-ing finite quantities of natural resources. And thirdly, city governmentshave taken initiatives to assert their place in the world and to developinternational links which will contribute to their future economic andsocial well-being.

Cities and local authorities have been developing their internationalcooperation for many decades. The first international association oflocal authorities was set up in 1913, principally for the purpose of gen-eral information exchange and mutual support, and a small number ofdirect city-to-city links were established. But it was in the aftermath ofthe Second World War that direct links between local authorities of twoor more countries really began to spread. Most of the early initiativeswere among the developed countries of the North, but it was not longbefore the first links with developing countries began to be formed.

With the marked trends towards democratisation and decentralisationof the 1980s and 1990s, the scope for concrete cooperation betweenlocal authorities on practical issues of mutual interest expanded con-siderably. Moreover, cities were increasingly responding to their role incombating the root causes of poverty and fostering sustainable eco-nomic and social development, as the political entities closest to theneeds of their communities. These advances at the local level coincid-ed with the growing recognition in the international community that theprocess of urbanisation, particularly with the movement of populationtowards the cities of the developing countries, raised major issues ofgovernance - as well as of economic, social and environmental policy –which called for new approaches to capacity-building at the local level.

Before taking this discussion further, it is important to state that theterms ‘cities’ and ‘city-to-city cooperation’ will be used in this reportwithout any preconceptions about the size or historical importance ofthe settlements concerned. Thus, the word ‘city’ will be used in the

American English sense of an urban settlement or cluster of settlementsof any size, with its own elected or appointed local government body,which may go under a whole range of administrative entities such as‘municipality’, ‘township’, ‘town’, ‘borough’, ‘district’, ‘metropolitanarea’ and so on in all possible language variants. The term ‘cities’ isalso frequently used loosely in international contexts to refer to othertypes of local authorities such as ‘counties’, ‘provinces’, ‘departments’etc, which exist at an intermediate level between the municipality andthe state and may contain a number of larger or smaller urban settle-ments within their boundaries.

‘City-to-City Cooperation’ - neatly if inelegantly shortened to ‘C2C’ -thus becomes an umbrella term to cover all possible forms of relation-ship between local authorities at any level in two or more countrieswhich are collaborating on matters of mutual interest, whether with orwithout external support. There is also a highly relevant dimension ofcooperation between national associations of cities and local authoritiesfor capacity-building purposes, which in turn facilitates cooperationbetween cities within a single country. Of course, such national-levelcooperation takes many forms beyond that of development-orientedcapacity-building which is the focus of this report. The term city-to-citycooperation is sometimes used synonymously with the term ‘decen-tralised cooperation’, although the latter concept (first embodied in theEuropean Union’s Lomé Convention in 1990) embraces a wider range ofactions for development carried out by ‘non-state actors’ and locally-based institutions and voluntary associations of all kinds. Decentralisedcooperation policies are based upon the principle of partnership andjoint working between public authorities, non-governmental organisa-tions and community-based organisations, cooperatives, the privatesector, and the informal sector, a principle which is increasingly beingincorporated in C2C approaches.

‘Shifting decision-making power closer to poorcommunities by devolving authority to localgovernment can help promote poverty reduction- as long as the new responsibilities are accom-panied by resources and capacity building. Butthat is only half the story. The other half is help-ing poor communities organize themselves toadvance their interests. A major source ofpoverty is people's powerlessness - not justtheir distance from government. (…) ‘If povertyreduction programmes are to succeed, localgovernment must be strengthened - and heldaccountable both to the central government forthe funds allocated to it and to its constituents

for how it uses them. Central government has tocontinue its involvement, monitoring how localgovernment exercises its new authority and dis-burses funds - and helping prevent the captureof power by local elites. ‘In the long run buildingstronger and more accountable local govern-ment is the only way to make decentralisationpro-poor. But it requires time, resources andcapacity-building. For the poor the lasting ben-efits will outweigh the immediate costs. Thecurrent fad, however, is to opt for quick-dis-bursing mechanisms, even though they areunlikely to be sustainable’.Source: UNDP Human Poverty Report 2000

...cities were increasingly responding totheir role in combating the root causesof poverty and fostering sustainableeconomic and social development, asthe political entities closest to the needsof their communities

9


2.2 City-to-City Cooperation andDevelopment Cooperation

The inherent weaknesses of ‘top-down’ development cooperation pro-grammes have become increasingly apparent in recent years. Therehas been a notable, though still incomplete, shift in development coop-eration on urban issues away from the provision of ready-made solu-tions and textbook approaches through consultants and through out-reach from the established western centres of expertise. Decentralisedcooperation, whereby cities (and indeed other institutions) work togeth-er on defining their problems and devising appropriate solutions on thebasis of shared experience among peer groups is increasingly recog-nised as a powerful means of advancing collective know-how andimproving governance at the local level. However, there are signs of acontinuing confusion or mismatch between the facilities and servicesbeing provided through the international community, and the needs anddemands of the cities themselves. Thus a further move is indicatedaway from a supply-driven approach towards one based upon moreeffective understanding of demand and of the potential of the variousagencies and intermediaries to meet such demand.

C2C may take place between cities in neighbouring countries orbetween cities at opposite ends of the globe. Town twinning providedthe framework for the earliest examples of C2C, and official municipaltwinning and partnership links are continuing to develop as the base fora wide range of very productive cooperation activities. But in recentyears the practice and scope of C2C has widened considerably on theinitiative of city leaders, with the encouragement and assistance of theinternational associations and networks of local authorities and withsupport from a growing number of national and international agencies.Strengthening the capacity of cities to deal with their own problems, inclose touch with their citizens and all relevant stakeholders, is now anacknowledged international policy goal. Partnerships between citiesare gaining recognition as a cost-effective and sustainable componentin achieving that goal. Cities are increasingly working together on top-ics affecting their responsibilities, enabling their personnel to exchangeexperience on a peer group basis and transferring and adapting suc-cessful practices to new contexts. Cities are also becoming increas-ingly involved as direct participants in international programmesaddressing the problems of urbanisation and sustainable development.

There has thus been a notable convergence between the growth of C2Cpractices initiated by cities and the growing focus upon urban issuesamong the international institutions. The challenges of urbanisation andthe roles of the various civil society stakeholders as partners in policyformation at local, national, regional and global levels were stronglyunderlined during the series of major United Nations conferences in the1990s. This process started at the Rio Earth Summit 1992, and theIstanbul City Summit 1996 went much further in recognising that citiesand local authorities, as the level of governance closest to the people,are essential partners of national governments and the internationalinstitutions in the processes of translating international agreements oneconomic, social and environmental issues into effective action on theground. Agenda 21 adopted in Rio, recognised that these global prob-lems have their roots in local actions and that cities are thus key actorsin the quest for sustainable development. The Habitat Agenda adoptedin Istanbul underlined the role of cities in socio-economic developmentat local and national levels, and set out an extensive Global Plan ofAction, drawn up in an evolving partnership with representatives of localauthorities, for addressing the challenges of achieving sustainablehuman settlements development in an urbanising world.

In response to the trends and political developments outlined above,cities and local authorities have also taken significant initiatives of theirown to define and project their role as partners in the international pol-icy processes addressing urban issues. With the aim of supplanting thetraditional top-down approaches which had too often left unworkablesolutions behind them, cities and their associations have stated theirwish to participate in drawing up the ground rules for future interna-tional programmes and to engage in sustained dialogue with the inter-national community about development priorities and approaches. Forthis reason they sought, and were readily admitted to, active involve-ment throughout the HABITAT II Istanbul City Summit process. Throughjoint action by all the major international associations of cities, they con-vened the first World Assembly of Cities and Local Authorities on the eveof the Summit to draw up and project their collective policy input to theglobal debate.

As a direct follow-up to the City Summit a series of steps was taken todevelop the dialogue between the UN and local government on theimplementation of the Habitat Agenda. Local authorities’ representa-tives were enabled to participate in the proceedings of the Commissionon Human Settlements and the Preparatory Committee for the ‘Istanbul+ 5’ Special Session of the General Assembly (New York, June 2001), inwhich they played an active part. In accordance with a Memorandum ofUnderstanding drawn up between UN-HABITAT and WACLAC in 1997,joint work was initiated in a number of areas.

In response to the growing calls for local authorities to be involved on amore institutional basis in policy development, the Executive Director ofUN-HABITAT was mandated by the UN Commission on HumanSettlements to set up an Advisory Committee of Local Authorities toassociate the cities and their associations still more closely with thedevelopment of UN-HABITAT’s policies and programmes. This advisorycommittee met for the first time in January 2000 and was activelyinvolved in a number of the issues on the agenda of the 18th session ofthe Commission on Human Settlements in February 2001. At subse-quent meetings the working partnership between the local authoritiesand the UN-HABITAT has been progressively elaborated across a num-ber of urban capacity-building areas of mutual interest, includingnotably C2C.

Given these developments, both at the city level and at the internation-al policy level, it seems timely to carry out a review of the current stateof practice of C2C in all its diverse forms, to identify the lessons learnedso far, to define the most effective means of extending and improvingits implementation, and to establish partnership machinery for takingthis forward. This second Interim Report aims to provide a sound foun-dation of information, experience and lessons learned to assist thatprocess. The scope and approach of the report are explained more fullyin the next Chapter.

Strengthening the capacity of cities to dealwith their own problems...is now anacknowledged international policy goal.Partnerships between cities are gainingrecognition as a cost-effective andsustainable component in achieving that goal.

The purpose and scope of the initiative3.

10

3.1 Advancing Understanding of C2C andStrengthening C2C Practice

The fundamental purpose of this initiative is to provide a coherentframework for analysing the by now very wide range of forms in whichcities (in the widest sense, as above) cooperate with one another, alongwith the support mechanisms which have been called into being tofacilitate and expand this cooperation. This should then provide a basisfor assessing the opportunities and the pitfalls which exist in this field,the complementary factors and also the gaps in current practices, andthe policy issues that arise in relation to the further development of C2C.The aim will be to present the cities’ current practices and the supportoptions available to them in a meaningful and comparable fashion, asthe basis for a continuing process of collective learning which will beprogressively further developed. It is hoped thereby to achieve anenhanced common understanding among all interested parties of thecurrent state of C2C concepts and principles, as a basis for informedpolicy-making which takes full account of the cities’ perspective.

The issues which the initiative addresses were at the heart of the agen-da for the International Union of Local Authorities / United TownsOrganisation Unity Congress held in Rio de Janeiro on 3-6 May 2001under the theme ‘The Community Agenda’, and the practice of C2C wasspecifically addressed at a workshop devoted to decentralised cooper-ation. The demands and concerns formulated by local governmentworldwide on the occasion of the second World Assembly of Cities andLocal Authorities as part of the Rio congress programme in turn provid-ed the basis for the cities’ collective input to the Istanbul + 5 GeneralAssembly Special Session in New York on 6-8 June 2001, at which thefirst published version of this report was provided for reference.Account is also taken of the results of the Meeting of Mayors on City-to-City Cooperation convened by UNCTAD in collaboration with UNDP-WACAP (World Alliance of Cities against Poverty) and UN-HABITAT inBrussels on 15-16 May 2001 within the framework of the Third UnitedNations Conference on the Least Developed Countries.

These issues featured prominently in the dialogue between the nation-al governments and representatives of local authorities held at theSpecial Session, and were discussed in detail at a parallel event on thisoccasion organised in collaboration with the United Nations AdvisoryCommittee of Local Authorities. At this Special Session concrete meas-ures for stepping up the implementation of the Habitat Agenda in allcontinents were mapped out by international agreement in the form ofthe Declaration on Cities and other Human Settlements in the NewMillennium. This means that the institutional base for any future devel-opment of support or coordination measures through the United Nationssystem for C2C has taken significant shape during the last year.

It is hoped that the new report and the debate it engenders will serve abroader purpose for the cities themselves and for the international com-munity. They should provide a point of reference and comparison, bothfor cities which are already engaged in C2C and for others interested inentering this area of activity for the first time. The intention is to furnisha framework for such users to assess their needs against the back-ground of others’ documented experience, and help them identify andcompare possible support mechanisms to which they could turn. Andfinally, for the United Nations Agencies and the other international andnational organisations involved in providing support to C2C pro-

grammes, the report should offer a frame of reference enabling them toidentify complementary factors, overlaps or gaps in provision, and tofocus upon new policy development or organisational needs. This inturn should help donors to target their funding in this area more strate-gically.

3.2 The Approach and Structure of theReport

As already indicated, there is a very wide range of activities which fallunder the heading of city-to-city cooperation (or “decentralised cooper-ation”). All share a commitment to working directly between andamong cities, on the fundamental premise that cities have a great dealto learn from and teach to each other and that cities are the best judgesof their own needs and priorities. City-to-city activities differ, however,in many important ways, reflecting the tremendous diversity of inter-ests, purposes, institutions, resources, and situations.

One purpose of this initiative is to provide the basis for a systematicreview of C2C practices and activities, to illustrate the great range anddiversity of different ways in which cities work with one another. But asimple listing, however extensive, would not significantly extend ourunderstanding of city-to-city cooperation in its many and various forms.It is therefore a fundamental purpose of the initiative to take a furtherstep and establish an analytical framework which will allow the fullrange of C2C practices and support systems to be charted in a moremeaningful and comparable way. This framework provides a rationalefor organising and sharing information, in a manner which facilitates aconstructive exchange of experience and enhances mutual learningamong cities, their groupings and associations, and their partners.

The starting point of this analytical framework is a basic distinctionbetween the practices of C2C, on the one hand, and C2C support activ-ities on the other. For clarity of understanding, we should look first andseparately at the actual city practices in C2C - the things which citiesdo in cooperation with one another. This, after all, is the core of our con-cern: To comprehend the full richness and diversity of activities whichcities undertake in direct cooperation with other cities. We can thenlook separately at the various associations, programmes, and institu-tions which support cities in undertaking their C2C activities. Havinglooked at C2C practices and needs, on the one hand, and at C2C sup-port activities and capabilities, on the other hand, it then becomes pos-sible to systematically compare the two, thus identifying gaps, unmetneeds, overlaps, mis-matches, complementarities, and potential oppor-tunities. In other words, a systematic approach makes it possible tolook system-wide at how best to strengthen and facilitate city-to-citycooperation as a contributor to meeting development needs and how tomake external support more effective.

Looking at City Practices in C2C. Actual city practices in C2C differ inmany ways, and the task of an analytical framework is to establish sen-sible categories which will help clarify those differences. As shown inthe left-hand column of Table 3.2, five categories (or sets of character-istics) are proposed:• Two categories related to city capacity-building priorities:

1. Aspects of urban management 2. Performance in individual local government functions

11

Partnerships for Local Capacity Development• Three categories related to C2C practices:3. Geographical scope4. Cooperation structures5. Active participants

Any particular example of C2C practice can then be looked at in termsof the descriptions indicated under each main set of characteristics. Forinstance, a general city twinning activity might be characterised asbeing: North-South (geographical scope), one-on-one (cooperationstructure), between local authorities (active participants), having no par-ticular focus in terms of urban management functions, but having a spe-cific social/cultural emphasis (functional aspect). Any particular exampleof C2C practice may be described in relation to all or only some of thecategories shown, and it could also be associated with one or more ofthe detailed descriptions within a particular category. The framework isthus not designed to be limiting or restrictive, but instead intended tohighlight the variety and detail of each C2C activity by characterising itin ways which facilitate systematic comparison.

Looking at Support for C2C. Similarly, support for C2C includes a widerange of different activities, approaches, programmes, and organisa-tions, and the analytical framework can help these to be seen moreclearly. Four main categories (or sets of characteristics) for comparingsupport options for C2C are proposed, as seen in the right-hand columnin Table 3.2:• One category for the type of external support:

1. C2C support modalities

• Three categories related to the organisation of the external support:2. Geographical focus3. Funding and resources4. Facilitating institutions

Each particular example of support for C2C can then be described inrespect to the various characteristics listed under each main categoryheading. For illustration, the Urban Environment Forum (UEF) supportedby UN-HABITAT might be described as follows: Under modality of sup-port, the UEF focuses on networking support and exchange of informa-tion and technical knowledge; in relation to geographical focus, the UEFis global, not restricted to any particular region or countries; in terms offunding and resources, the UEF relies primarily on the participatingcities’ own budgets and the use of development programme or projectbudgets; and finally, in terms of facilitating institutions, the UEF involvesboth individual city authorities and bilateral and multilateral aid organi-sations.

When C2C practices and support to C2C are analysed in this way, interms of well-defined sets of characteristics, there are several importantbenefits. First, it becomes possible to see more clearly the definingcharacteristics of individual practices (or support activities) - informationwhich is typically lost when only generalised (and non-systematic)descriptions are given. Second, being based on a common set ofdescriptive categories, the information generated is more readily com-parable across otherwise highly divergent cases. Third, and followingfrom the first two, this approach demonstrates the richness and widerange of different C2C practices which might otherwise appear quitesimilar.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, providing this carefully-structureddisaggregation of information helps identify the complementary, over-laps and gaps which exist between C2C practices and support for C2C -information which is important both for cities and for support organisa-tions. Cities benefit from knowing more about the range of different C2Cactivities and approaches utilised in other cities; and they also benefitfrom seeing what kinds of support are potentially available. Supportprogrammes benefit from knowing more clearly what cities actuallyneed and want to have in the way of C2C activities and support, andfrom seeing as well what other organisations or programmes are doing

in relation to C2C support. Development agencies and donors benefitfrom being able to see more clearly how the needs of cities can best fitwith their own capabilities and mandate, and to discern what are thebest opportunities for partnership - the scope for complementary actionand for reinforcing other development-related interventions.

By following this approach, the report will be able to display the vastrange of city-to-city cooperation options while also illustrating the vari-ety of complementary international support available from the UN, asso-ciations of cities and local authorities, NGOs, bilateral and multilateralaid agencies, and others. Moreover, doing this in a systematic way willprovide the basis for identifying important patterns of practice and sup-port - and for drawing useful insights and lessons of experience.

The analytical framework used here is not the only one possible, nor isit definitive. It is instead a “work in progress” which shows the advan-tages of a systematic approach but which can, and should, be furthermodified and refined as its use progresses. For instance, different maincategories might be proposed, and more or different descriptions mightbe listed under each main category. These, however, will essentially besecondary adjustments to the basic approach of using a systematic ana-lytical framework, an approach which remains fundamental to the jointUN-HABITAT/WACLAC effort to maximise the potential of C2C. InChapter 4, City Practices in C2C are presented and described in accor-dance with the categories and characteristics of the analytical frame-work (Table 3.2). In Chapter 4, Support for C2C is presented anddescribed in a similar way.

1. City Priorities & Practices in C2C

1.1 City Capacity-Building Priorities:

1.1.1 Aspects of Urban Management:• information & technical expertise• policy development & decision-

making• policy implementation• institutional strengthening• managing change & using external

support

1.1.2 Local Government Functions:• municipal finance• environment• urban infrastructure & services• housing / shelter• gender / poverty• employment / economic

development• security / disaster management• health / education• social / cultural

1.2 City C2C Practices:

1.2.1 Geographical Scope:• North-South• South-South• North-North• West-East• Global

1.2.2 Cooperation Structures:• One-on-One• Groups

1.2.3 Active Participants:• local authorities• NGOs and CBOs• private sector• academic / research• national associations of local

authorities

2. External Support for C2C

2.1 Type of External Support

2.1.1 Principal Modality of Support• direct C2C / other decentralised

cooperation• network support• demonstration-replication & guidelines• documentation & dissemination of

best practices• provision & exchanges of specialised

expertise• training and human resource

development• strategic capital investment

2.2 Organisation of External Support

2.2.1 Geographical Focus:• multi-regional / Global • Africa• Asia• Latin America & Caribbean• Middle East & North Africa• Central & Eastern Europe / former

USSR

2.2.2 Funding and Resources:• programme’s own budget• local partner budgets• development project / programme

funds• other grants and loans• self-funding activities• foundations, trust funds

2.2.3 Facilitating Institutions:• individual local/regional authorities• associations of local authorities • national governments• bilateral/multilateral aid organisations• professional associations• national/international NGOs• private sector organisations

Table 3.2: C2C Analytical Framework

12

4.2 Cities’ Capacity-Building PrioritiesImproving Aspects of Urban Management

Many C2C activities, especially those which have evolved with a devel-opment initiative, are focused on particular aspects of the urban man-agement process. This is a logical response to the difficulties faced bycities, particularly but not only in lower income countries, in addressingthe increasingly severe urban development problems they face. Therehas also been a growing awareness that limited management capabil-ities, not lack of technology or capital, is generally the key constraint toachieving sustainable urban development, and that therefore changesin approach, policy and governance are required. This has focusedattention on the process of managing urban development and growth.In this context, cities have become much more interested in learningfrom one another, in other cities have overcome these constraints andhave worked out better structures and methodologies for urban man-agement.

The art and science of urban management comprise a complex web ofinteracting components. Among these, the following five core areashave been identified by a number of global city networks concernedwith sharing information and experience in upgrading their urban devel-opment planning and management processes:• information and technical expertise• policy development and decision-making• policy implementation• institutional strengthening• managing change and using external support.

Access to and effective utilisation of information and technical expert-ise, applied to a wide range of thematic tasks, is a key aspect of mod-ern urban management. This is an area of activity, moreover, for whichdirect city-to-city cooperation is well suited. The provision of technicalexpertise to a partner city by temporarily seconding specialist staff hasbeen a feature of many North-South C2C projects, for example. Thereis also a growing trend toward direct exchange of staff among cities, asa device for mutual learning by sharing information and experiencebetween the professional staff of both partner cities (“peer-to-peer”);this is seen also in some South-South C2C activities.

City Priorities and Practices in City-to-City Cooperation4.

C2C Context: Under the Municipal PartnershipProgram supported by the Federation of CanadianMunicipalities and following a successful pilot phase,San Fernando and Langley have agreed upon a two-year programme of capacity-building in the areas ofland use planning and disaster management.Economic and population growth have placed severestrains upon the city's medium-term strategic devel-opment plan, creating urgent needs to deal withunregulated development and urban sprawl and toenforce the observance of planning regulations.Results/Outcomes: While many of the plannedsteps in the programme have still to be completed,the partners are confident that at the end of the twoyears San Fernando will have a Comprehensive LocalUrban Plan which can be effectively implemented incollaboration with both the local ‘barangays’ and theprovincial government. San Fernando has allocated aproportion of its own budget funds to cover its

involvement in the programme. The work will includeextensive staff training, restructuring and develop-ment, the production of tools and systems to improveplanning processes, and the introduction of bench-marking for future monitoring of performance.Issues Arising: Care will need to be taken to ensurecompliance with the national legislation governingplanning and to secure central government approvalof the Comprehensive Local Urban Plan. Enforcementof land use regulations will be a continuing chal-lenge, in which ‘win-win solutions’ for all parties willneed to be demonstrated. The Emergency ResponsePlan and Operations Manual to be developed as thesecond element of the partnership programme willneed to be dovetailed with the Plan and the neces-sary central government approvals obtained on thisbasis.Source: San Fernando / Langley PartnershipAgreement, 2002

4.2.1 San Fernando, Philippines, strengthens its capacity to manage land use development and emergency preparedness throughpartnership with Langley, Canada

4.1 Framework for Comparing City Prioritiesand Practices

The last chapter has outlined the developments leading to the presentwide range of activities involved in C2C practices, but has said little ofthe content of the activities involved. That is the purpose of the presentchapter. No report on this subject can aspire to present a fully compre-hensive picture of what is going on, because there is no central data-base, let alone coordination, of activities. The purpose of the analyticalframework outlined above is, however, to enable C2C priorities andpractices of action to be classified within the broad categories listed inthe left-hand column above. The following sections outline the range ofpriorities and practices within each category and provide some illustra-tive examples of the wide scope of initiatives underway.

It may be that, as this analysis of the state of the art of C2C is furtherdeveloped, some additional categories may need to be incorporated inthe reporting structure to do justice to the whole spread of C2C prac-tices. However, the authors’ hope is that this framework will provide aworkable structure for analysing and comparing the key features of C2Cpractices. As more and more evidence of the benefits, but also the pit-falls, of C2C is assembled, those actively involved in C2C initiatives arewarmly invited to provide further inputs of material and illustrativecases that will find their appropriate places within the overall structurethat we have traced.

The purpose of the illustrative boxes contained in this part of the reportis to provide a representative array of concrete examples of the types ofpractice being described in the main text, referenced to the specific cat-egory of practice under discussion and indicating the lessons learnedand any policy issues arising. Space permitting, many other equallyrepresentative examples could have been included. Chapter 5 similar-ly illustrates the characteristics of the various forms of external supportprovided to C2C initiatives. Chapters 6 and 1 then draw some tentativeconclusions, and in particular discuss how the international communitycan help provide the most favourable environment for developing C2Cand how the policy issues arising for local authorities and their associ-ations, for support agencies, and for national and international donors,should be taken forward.

13


4.2.3 Peer-to-peer exchanges give Poznan, Poland, new capacity

C2C Context: Rapid development of open land com-bined with its low elevation result in Bangkok suffer-ing from frequent flooding. Officials of the BangkokMetropolitan Administration learned that innovativeflood control methods had been developed by Yoko-hama in the face of similar problems and soughttheir advice.Results/Outcomes: Experts from the Sewage WorksBureau of Yokohama visited Bangkok to work with localofficials on implementation of the concept of ‘retentionponds’ for rainwater as now widely used in Japan. Fol-lowing further joint work, the Bangkok engineers are

now so confident of the validity of the approach thatthey are developing an application handbook and com-puter program with Chulalongkorn University to assistin countrywide application of the technique.Issues Arising: A relatively simple technique alreadywidely used in Japan but unknown in Thailand wastransferred effectively through direct peer-to-peerexchanges. Widespread replication of the techniqueacquired through a C2C initiative is now being facili-tated.Source: Citynet Guidelines for Transferring EffectivePractices, 1998

4.2.2 Bangkok, Thailand, transfers techniques from Yokohama, Japan’sflood control system

In addition, there are numerous international programmeswhich have sought to increase the flow of technical informationto cities; some of these (such as the UK Know-How Fund’s LocalAuthority Technical Links Scheme for Central and EasternEurope) aim to deliver technical expertise specifically on a city-to-city basis. Most, however, function primarily on the basis ofassistance from the programme to the city, drawing in theprocess upon the programme’s experience with other cities fac-ing similar issues (“indirect C2C”). In a few cases this has stim-ulated the formation of C2C networks, through which technicalinformation is spread directly from city to city.

The process of policy development and decision-making - iden-tifying and assessing options, analysing benefits and costs, bal-ancing resource requirements - is an aspect of modern urbanmanagement which is quite different from traditional forms ofcity administration. It involves not only technical processes ofanalysis and assessment, but also participatory activities toensure the support of, and information from, a full range of localstakeholders.

Within the framework of a wide variety of international pro-grammes (such as the Sustainable Cities Programme, the UrbanManagement Programme, Localising Agenda 21, the CitiesAlliance, etc.) new approaches are being worked out throughdirect action in a variety of cities. So far, most of these activi-ties have been implemented through programme-to-city rela-tionships, but there is considerable scope for direct city-to-cityforms of cooperation; indeed, this has already begun to devel-op on an ad hoc basis, as in the cooperation on sustainableurban development between Nakuru and Leuven.

Policy implementation is perhaps the most challenging aspectof managing cities today, and to be successful it requires awider range of more complex activities than has traditionallybeen designed into local government systems. This involvesuse of the full range of instruments including regulatoryapproaches, strategic investments, economic incentive mecha-nisms, public information strategies etc. It also involves thedevelopment of action plans, the synthesis of different imple-mentation techniques and capabilities, the mobilisation ofresources, and the strengthening of operational management.

There has been relatively little work specifically focused on thisaspect of the urban management function, other than throughthe international programmes which deal with the processoverall (such as the Sustainable Cities Programme). However,some C2C partnerships which focus on particular sectors haveoften had strong elements of focus on implementation andrelated operational aspects.

C2C Context: Having developed new links with part-ners in the West in the context of the democratisationprocess, Polish cities were keen to learn the tech-niques necessary to upgrade their services to meetrising public expectations. The UK Government’sKnow-How Fund Local Authority Technical LinksScheme offered a mechanism to facilitate suchtransfers.Results/Outcomes: As existing twinning partners,Nottinghamshire County Council and the City ofPoznan were among the first applicants to thisexperimental scheme of support for short-termexchange projects. The introduction of new wastemanagement methods and recycling techniques, therestructuring of the city’s transport service, thedevelopment of the airport for tourist traffic, thetraining of dairy and meat specialists, and the devel-

opment of a business school were among the proj-ects undertaken.Issues Arising: The Technical Links Scheme waslaunched in 1992 and ended in 2001. After an initialperiod it was operated by the Local GovernmentInternational Bureau on a delegated basis. 153 proj-ects were carried out, all submitted jointly by a UKlocal authority and a partner city in one of the targetcountries. Assessments of the effectiveness of theprojects were mostly favourable, but it was notthought appropriate to make a scheme of this kindpermanent as it cuts across established develop-ment cooperation approaches. Where the partnercities did not have an enduring link the sustainabili-ty of the projects was less readily assured.Source: Local Government International Bureau,Nottinghamshire County Council, 2001

4.2.4 Direct city-to-city partnership in formulating sustainability strategydevelops out of the international Localising Agenda 21 initiative (Nakuru,Kenya and Leuven, Belgium)

C2C Context: Through the Localising Agenda 21 pro-gramme of UN-HABITAT technical expertise fromLeuven participated in the early stages of work inNakuru. From this start, there developed a longer-term “pact” between the two cities, to formalise theircooperation in formulating sustainable developmentstrategies for Nakuru.Results/Outcomes: The direct C2C links betweenthe two cities have developed steadily, not only inrelation to sustainable development strategies buteven leading to wider forms of city-to-city coopera-tion, such as education, exchange of information,and cultural understanding. Creation of the directC2C linkage was not an intended consequence of theoriginal LA21 initiative but instead grew out of it, in a

“natural” way.Issues Arising: The stimulus of an international ini-tiative can boost the idea of C2C, but it requires asignificant commitment by the two intending part-ners, particularly in the North city which needs toallocate financial and other resources. Also, in thisparticular case the introduction of Leuven was indi-rect and fortuitous, not part of the LA21 programmedesign; this suggests that a more deliberate orexplicit city-connecting element could usefully beintroduced into international development supportprogrammes.readily assured.Source: LA21 programme office, UN-HABITAT;reports from Municipality of Leuven, 2001

There has been a growingawareness that limited managementcapabilities, not lack of technologyor capital, is generally the keyconstraint to achieving sustainableurban development

14

Management of the process of institutional strengthening encompasses many different fea-tures of a city’s organisational structures, procedures, relations to civil society, etc. - featureswhich are central to a set of issues that are sometimes referred to collectively as “gover-nance”. This area of concern has been a focus for certain C2C programmes, especiallyNorth-South partnerships and city-focused interventions by international programmes.Institutional aspects, particularly in relation to democratisation and transition to a marketeconomy, have been an important part of both C2C and international programme activitiesaddressing the needs of the transition countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

A notable feature of recent developments in urban management has been the need toimprove techniques for managing change and using external support. Globalisationtrends, new information and communications technologies, advances in organisational think-ing, more enlightened approaches to human resources management and planning, readinessto explore a wider range of service delivery mechanisms including collaboration with non-governmental organisations, new openings for partnership with the private sector – all thesehave combined with the enhanced interest of the international agencies in capacity-buildingat the local level to create a new dynamic for change in local government. Positive as thesedevelopments are, they in turn create the need for urban managers and policymakers toacquire new skills, and C2C relationships have played a significant part in facilitating thetransfer of such skills.

Improving Individual Local Government Functions

Clearly, the scope of substantive topics addressed through C2C practices can span the wholerange of local government activity - as well as encompass areas which are largely outsidethe responsibility of local government. As a result, one may find C2C undertakings focusedon one or more of a great variety of different sectoral themes: municipal finance, environ-ment, water supply, solid waste management, transport, housing, public health, economicdevelopment, education, etc. These might be oriented towards specific projects (e.g., build-ing a new sewage treatment works) or involved more with long-term collaboration (upgrad-ing of local tax collection and financial accounting). In either case, a sectoral focus is rela-tively easier to operate for C2C cooperation simply because both partners tend to be organ-ised in broadly similar ways and focused on generally comparable municipal tasks.

Traditional official twinning links often evolve into a focus on particular local governmentdepartments or functions, depending upon the needs and capabilities of the partner cities.Municipal finance, for example, attracts considerable attention in North-South and in West-East relationships. In the field of urban renewal, the extensive recent experience of a Northpartner (Rotterdam) underpinned a highly-focused cooperation project with the South twin(Shanghai) which included training and technical expertise as well as a field demonstrationand which also involved the Dutch international development agency.

In relation to basic municipal services, solid waste management has attracted considerableattention among C2C projects. For example, Haarlem (Netherlands) supported Mutare(Zimbabwe) in developing strategies and plans for solid waste management (domestic, indus-trial, hazardous) and in subsequent implementation. Transport was the focus of cooperationbetween Kirklees (UK) and Kampala (Uganda), in which personnel exchange and related tech-nical support led to a road and traffic plan which was accepted by the World Bank for imple-mentation.

Health and social services are another municipal sector on which C2C cooperation hasbeen focused, for instance with training of health workers, operational support, and con-struction of new facilities.

An interesting example in the sector of security has stemmed from the UN-HABITAT SaferCities Programme, through which a number of cities in South Africa were stimulated to setup their own network for direct city-to-city exchange of experience.

In recent years the urban environment has become a more frequent focus of activity, pri-marily through international programmes which work with cities (for example the SustainableCities Programme of UN-HABITAT/UNEP), but also through networks which have developedout of such work, for instance the Urban Environment Forum. Local Agenda 21 has been apowerful motivating factor for a number of cities, particularly in the North. It is striking, forexample, that more than 750 local authorities and associations are members of the EuropeanSustainable Cities and Towns Campaign, which has been sponsored by the European

C2C Context: This cooperation project supported by the EU’s TACIS CityTwinning Scheme addressed ways of formulating a strategy for communi-cating official city information to the public, as a vital step in strengtheningdemocracy and overcoming historic public suspicion of officialdom in theformer capital and second city of the Ukraine.Outcomes/Lessons: The work plan started with a review of the city admin-istration’s activities and means of communicating them to their target audi-ences. Trainees from Kharkov studied the various techniques and mediaused for city communications and observed these in operation in a variety ofcontexts. The second stage focussed upon the day-to-day responsibilities ofthe Kharkov staff by providing them with extensive contacts with people inthe public and private sectors in Lille aimed at demonstrating how positivecommunications networks operate in practice.Issues Arising: It became clear that the transition to open public informa-tion is necessarily a step-by-step process in a country where the populationis still highly suspicious of official information. Thus the project had to bekept concrete and realistic, and not too ambitious. There were some tensionsbetween the partner cities at both political and administrative levels over theselection of trainees, the implementation and monitoring of the programme,and the consequential restructuring required in the services.Source: adapted from the TACIS Compendium of Projects, EuropeanCommission 1998

C2C Context: Hillerød is a town of 35,000 population not far fromCopenhagen with a mixed occupational structure. Darkhan-Uul with 86,600population is the second largest city of Mongolia, with rich mineralresources, a growing SME sector, wide educational facilities, but also manytraditional farms. The cooperation project supported by the EU’s TACIS CityTwinning Scheme was aimed at capacity-building and organisational struc-ture development in the education service, in order to improve educationprovision in reinforcement of the local and regional development of democ-racy and the market economy. Key features were human capacity-building,institutional linkages and personal relations as a basis for project imple-mentation.Outcomes/Lessons: The project focused upon the development ofMongolian expertise through intensive study visits to Hillerød institutions.Four Mongolian educationalists spent three months in Denmark, acquiringthe expertise to select priority areas for service development and to act astrainers on their return. Subsequent seminars and workshops in Mongoliaon standards and indicators, together with the production of handbooks,have helped to spread a confident new vision for the education service.Issues Arising: The critical issues were seen as: partnership based uponopen and flexible attitudes, ownership of the project by those responsible forimplementation, sustainability through this high degree of local commitment,and monitoring and evaluation of performance at every stage.Source: adapted from the TACIS Compendium of Projects, EuropeanCommission 1998

C2C Context: An established link with Hinton, Canada enabled Chegutu todraw upon Canadian municipal expertise in financial management.Outcomes/Lessons: Chegutu’s finance and treasury departments werecomputerised, such improvements enabling the town’s revenue base to beimproved substantially to a tax collection rate of 75%. Once the town’saccounts could be audited on a regular and timely basis, it qualified toreceive World Bank funds under the national infrastructure programme.Issues Arising: This is a classic instance of peer-to-peer exchange in amainstream local government function of major importance to the efficientfunctioning of a city. Schemes for replicating such exchanges within andbetween countries of the South would make tangible improvements to localgovernment capacity and sustainability.Source: UNDP Report ‘The Challenges of Linking’, 2000

4.2.5 Kharkov, Ukraine formulates a public informationstrategy through the TACIS partnership with Lille, France

4.2.6 Institutional reform in the education servicethrough the partnership between Hillerød,Denmark and Darkhan-Uul, Mongolia

4.2.7 Financial management improvements inChegutu, Zimbabwe through partnership with Canada

15

C2C Context: Rotterdam, the Netherlandsand Shanghai, China have a long-standingtwinning relationship. In the late 1980sRotterdam was considered a leading city inthe field of urban housing renewal, a taskShanghai was just beginning to address.Jointly with experts from the Institute ofHousing Studies (IHS) (supported by theNetherlands Government), the municipalityof Rotterdam undertook a series of trainingevents, held in both cities, and followed upwith a demonstration project of renewal in ablock of old housing in Shanghai.Outcomes/Lessons: The exchange of expe-rience through professional visits and train-ing in both cities provided a good foundationfor the following demonstration project,which itself succeeded in physically renovat-ing an old housing block thus showing analternative approach and illustrating newtechnologies for renovation.Issues Arising: This cooperation showed asuccessful way of combining a direct city-to-city collaboration with support from a nation-al government development programme.The lack of follow-up to the demonstrationproject, however, limited the impact of theundertaking.

Source: experts from IHS

C2C Context: Within the context of a broad-ly-based twinning relationship formed in1992, Haarlem, Netherlands and Mutarehave worked together under the banner ofLocal Agenda 21 on improvements to sever-al municipal services including housing,social services, education, and waste man-agement.Outcomes/Lessons: The programmeincluded the preparation of a master plan forhandling domestic refuse and industrial andhazardous waste, and to control dumpingand leakage. The plan is being implementedprogressively in conjunction with an NGO.The link has provided assistance with vehi-cles and training, and has also led to the pro-duction of national guidelines on the man-

agement of hazardous waste. Funding hascome from Haarlem’s own budget, commu-nity sources, and technical assistance fundsadministered by the Association ofNetherlands Municipalities.Issues Arising: The priorities in serviceimprovements have been determined byMutare but input from Haarlem has servedas a catalyst in achieving better living con-ditions. Reciprocity is a basic principle inthe relationship, expressed through dia-logue and input of expertise on both sidesrather than at a material level. NGO partic-ipation is fundamental at both ends of thelink.Source: UNDP Report ‘The Challenge ofLinking’, 2000

C2C Context: Bamako has been twinnedwith Angers, France since 1974, and a widerange of municipal services have benefitedfrom inputs of funding and expertise, withthe participation of many community groupson both sides.Outcomes/Lessons: A major area of coop-eration has been in the development of pri-mary healthcare services through the provi-sion of several community health centres,upgrading of hospital facilities, training ofdoctors and nurses, and provision of medicalsupplies.

Issues Arising: As well as contributing sig-nificantly to quality of life in Bamako, theflow of technical assistance from Angersinstitutions (including significant private sec-tor engagement), supported by FrenchGovernment aid, has had the effect of mobil-ising public solidarity. The wide span ofactivities within the link, including major cul-tural components, has helped to promotemulticultural understanding and to combatracism in Angers.Source: UNDP Report ‘The Challenge ofLinking’, 2000

C2C Context: Within the framework of theSister Cities International / USAID pro-gramme, Charlotte, North Carolina, throughthe Charlotte Sister Cities Program workedwith the Voronezh community and the mediato raise awareness on disability issues, andend the prejudice which disabled personsexperience in Voronezh, where there is nolegal protection for the disabled.Outcomes/Lessons: The partners devel-oped an outstanding project that contributedto equal opportunity, improvement of accessand expanded participation of people withdisabilities in Voronezh. Charlotte supported

the Voronezh Rehabilitation and TrainingCentre (VRTC) through the donation of med-ical supplies and the exchange of healthcareprofessionals. VRTC specializes in theanalysis, rehabilitation, and job skill trainingand placement of young adults with disabil-ities, and encourages a medical, social andvocational approach to disability rehabilita-tion.Issues Arising: This project shows profes-sional staff working together in a relativelyundeveloped service area, as part of abroader C2C partnership.Source: Sister Cities International, 2002

Commission in collaboration both with the European local government associationsand with the WHO Healthy Cities Programme to promote best practice exchange.

Action in the urban environment field has been stimulated and guided in many casesby the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which has pro-moted a wide range of opportunities for the exchange of information and experiencebetween cities in environmental management and produced extensive guidancematerials. As well as denoting a more inclusive approach to policy development,addressing economic and social considerations as much as environmental con-cerns, Local Agenda 21 calls for the fostering of global awareness regarding the useof resources, and some cities have placed it at the centre of their international rela-tions policies. Under a programme supported by the Dutch Government, a series of‘sustainability charters’ have been worked out between linked pairs of cities in Northand South, involving jointly elaborated and monitored policies for moving towardssustainability.

4.2.9 North-South cooperation upgrades waste managementin Mutare, Zimbabwe

4.2.10 Bamako, Mali expands access to primary healthcarethrough French connection

4.2.11 Charlotte, USA, helps develop a new service fordisabled people in Voronezh, Russia

4.2.8 C2C provides the basis for a housing renewal project(Rotterdam and Shanghai)

...one may find C2C undertakingsfocused on one or more of a greatvariety of different sectoral themes:municipal finance, environment, watersupply, solid waste management,transport, housing, public health,economic development, education, etc.


16

C2C Context: The Safer Cities Programme of UN-HABITAT works withcities to help develop strategies and plans for urban security based onlocal partnerships. The beginning stages involve the use of experts(often provided by cities in the North) to assist in local analysis of thesituation as well as training, before moving on to a local participatoryformulation of strategies.Outcomes/Lessons: The approach has worked well in many cities,particularly in Africa and Latin America. A notable success has beenthe exchange of expertise among cities, sharing of experiences, andmutual learning - much of which involves directly initiated city-to-citylinkages with the Programme acting as facilitator.Issues Arising: The foundations laid through the Programme’s workwith individual cities have enabled the formation of local and regionalnetworks of cities, to encourage greater C2C collaboration. Cities with-in South Africa have made the greatest progress, responding to anawareness of shared problems and establishing their own network.The regional networks have not made similar progress.Source: the Safer Cities Programme Unit, UN-HABITAT

C2C Context: The Urban Environment Forum (UEF) is a global network of cities and urban development practitioners (including partners from international support programmes), defined byits members’ shared concerns for urban environmental management. It evolved from a global project of UN-HABITAT, focused on the environmental planning and management (EPM)process, which held regional meetings and assembled case study material.Outcomes/Lessons: The UEF came into existence because of the benefits seen by cities (and by international support programmes) in having a forum of exchange focused specifically onthe key issues of urban environmental management. Global, regional and thematic meetings have brought cities together around specific environmental planning topics and have suc-cessfully involved those international support programmes which are concerned with the same issues. City experiences have also been documented and published in the widely-circulat-ed EPM Source Book.Issues Arising: It is clear that the UEF met a real need, by providing a global forum devoted specifically to the issue of urban environmental management, since a focused network is moreeffective than one with generalised aims. Source: the Urban Environment Unit, UN-HABITAT.

C2C Context: In the course of an advisory visit by theUK Association of County Councils aimed at developinga technical cooperation programme with its Ugandancounterpart association, an initial contact with Guluwas made by Lancashire’s County Planning Officer. Ajoint project for developing a Local Agenda 21 pro-gramme was then drawn up with Gulu and imple-mented with co-funding from the European Union.Outcomes/Lessons: After the funded project wascompleted, Lancashire decided to reduce its directcommitment and transfer responsibility for the linkwith Gulu to a non-profit company, which is continuingto exchange Local Agenda 21 information and seekingto develop broader exchanges and community projects

with Gulu. The county council is represented on theboard of the company but has no continuing financialcommitment to the link. Measures to strengthen thecapacity of the link and expand community engage-ment are actively underway at both ends following thecessation of guerrilla activities in Northern Uganda.Issues Arising: Relatively few European Local Agenda21 programmes have comprised an explicit North-South element. This one came about through theenthusiasm of an individual officer taking part in anadvisory mission for his association and has survivedsubsequent organisational challenges on both sides.The link is now institutionalised at community level.Source: Lancashire County Council, Global-to-Local

C2C Context: The Urban Environment Forum (UEF) isa global network of cities and urban development prac-titioners (including partners from international supportprogrammes), defined by its members’ shared con-cerns for urban environmental management. It evolvedfrom a global project of UN-HABITAT, focused on theenvironmental planning and management (EPM)process, which held regional meetings and assembledcase study material.Outcomes/Lessons: The UEF came into existencebecause of the benefits seen by cities (and by interna-tional support programmes) in having a forum ofexchange focused specifically on the key issues of

urban environmental management. Global, regionaland thematic meetings have brought cities togetheraround specific environmental planning topics and havesuccessfully involved those international support pro-grammes which are concerned with the same issues.City experiences have also been documented and pub-lished in the widely-circulated EPM Source Book.Issues Arising: It is clear that the UEF met a realneed, by providing a global forum devoted specificallyto the issue of urban environmental management,since a focused network is more effective than onewith generalised aims.Source: the Urban Environment Unit, UN-HABITAT

4.2.12 City cooperation on urban security inSouth Africa through the Safer Cities Programme

4.2.13 C2C on urban environment facilitated through global networking

4.2.14 How Gulu’s, Uganda link with Lancashire, UK developed out ofLocal Agenda 21

4.2.15 C2C on urban environment facilitated through global networking

Over 350 cities*50 International Support Programmes** 2000

17

C2C Context: Birmingham (UK) has several well-established twinnings withother large European cities and participates actively in European networkingthrough Eurocities and other channels. A mutually agreed action pro-gramme is drawn up for each link and regularly reviewed. This incorporatesjoint projects for which EU support can be obtained.Outcomes / Lessons: Joint work is carried out with partner cities across thewhole range of the city’s responsibilities. Examples of recent projects, mostbenefiting from EU support, include: a joint project with Lyon on the illumi-nation of public buildings; a joint scheme with Leipzig on canal regeneration;a network of chief officers from all European partner cities to share experi-ence of benchmarking schemes in city services; the ‘Headlamp’ schemewhereby every newly appointed head teacher in the city’s schools is sent onattachment to a corresponding school in a twin town to widen their experi-ence of the education system and develop potential new links; and partici-pation in a major exhibition in Milan of works by young artists from partnercities.Issues Arising: Cooperation with the partner cities across a wide range ofareas facilitates mutual learning and contributes to tangible improvementsin the delivery of services. Through their action programmes the partnersset mutually agreed goals in the context of their enduring relationships anddefine means of achieving them by means of the proactive use of EU sup-port opportunities.Source: Birmingham City Council, 2001

C2C Context: In 1985 a group of European cities (Bielefeld, Germany; Delft,Netherlands; Essen, Germany; Evry, France; San Felix de Llobregat, Spain;and Sheffield, UK) together with a German NGO formed a partnership withthe Nicaraguan city of Esteli, to assist with water, sanitation and ecologicalprojects.Outcomes/Lessons: Building on 10 years’ experience of cooperation, thepartners shifted the emphasis to institutional reform, specifically to strength-en democratic governance during the transition period of change to a multi-party system. This attracted support from the European Commission and ledto a series of successful local activities in Esteli aimed at citizens and newlyelected mayors and councillors, and including technical support on aspectssuch as finance and administration, planning, international relations. Oneresult was strengthening of the links between Esteli and the six Europeancities.Issues Arising: This was one of the first North-South C2C partnerships tofocus on institutional reform and governance issues. Its concern for opera-tional aspects of local democracy is probably the strongest feature, givingthe partnership a concrete purpose and leading to visible results. This caseis notable also for involving six cities from the North working together withone city from the South.Adapted from “Europe - Central America Decentralised CooperationProgramme”, UTO, 2000

4.3 Defining Features of C2C Practices

Geographical Scope

Historically, the first C2C links in the modern age were within Europe, i.e. North-North,and this still represents by far the largest category in numerical terms - although theleast relevant to the principal purpose of this initiative. These links number many thou-sands of traditional twinnings, which are based upon more or less equal resources andthe principle of reciprocity, and whose primary focus is upon exchanges of people andgroups of all kinds. The European Commission reported the existence in 1995 of some7,000 twinning relationships among the local authorities of its 15 member states alone,many of these being among quite small municipalities and communities, and the twin-nings with communities in the other European countries would add significantly to thisnumber.

While the focus of most North-North links may have been social/cultural, rooted in the aimof bringing people together across national boundaries to reinforce peace - and, in the caseof many of the European links, explicitly or implicitly to help build a united Europe - manyof the links between larger towns also include technical/professional cooperation activitiesand, increasingly, economic development components. A number thus have a focus in theurban management function and/or a thematic focus on one or more local governmentresponsibilities.

European Union funding programmes in the areas of regional development, transport,environment, energy, research etc have also led to the formation or reinforcement ofmany North-North links and networks. In some cases, project proposals have come for-ward to EU programmes from cities already linked; in others EU research programmeson a wide range of thematic areas related to local government functions have attractednew involvement by cities in C2C practices. These programmes have stimulated exten-sive networking among elected members and officials of the participating cities and haveled to the formation of ongoing collaborative structures loosely facilitated by theEuropean associations of local authorities. The dissemination of the results of these pro-grammes to a wider group of cities which could benefit from them, not only among theEU countries but also more widely, offers considerable potential for an expansion of C2Cpractice addressing concrete local government responsibilities.

The next category to develop, albeit much more slowly, was North-South links, mostoften initiated from the North, frequently on the basis of previous colonial links. A signif-icant number of new links also arose from associations with solidarity movements, themost striking case being that of Nicaragua, where coordination mechanisms were set upamong the European cities involved in cooperation programmes.

North-South links were sometimes, but not always by any means, seen primarily as con-stituting a humanitarian aid / charity rather than a technical cooperation / partnershiprelationship. However, some which started in that way have developed a broader basethrough subsequent activities and through the realisation that the link truly brings two-way benefits.

There are examples of North-South links between cities in nearly all the European coun-tries and countries of the South, and there are many North-South links involving partnersin North America, Japan and Australia.

The development of West-East links started well before the end of the cold war, beingpromoted notably through the Embassies of the USSR. They were politically controver-sial, and were supported in particular by those who saw them as a means of establish-ing contacts with partners in cities at a human level, without thereby giving any signal ofapproval for the nature of the central regime. This area has expanded greatly since 1990,assisted by a number of national and European programmes to promote democraticpractice and facilitate technical cooperation. Many of the links established in the earliertimes have endured through the major political changes, and have been at the forefrontof those taking part in the new cooperation programmes. An interesting extra dimensionhere has been the promotion of North-South-East links, a concept promoted by theNetherlands Government in particular and given an extra push through a TrilateralMunicipal Cooperation Programme projected jointly with IULA as a follow-up to the IULAWorld Congress on Municipal International Cooperation held in The Hague in 1995.

4.3.1 Birmingham and its European partners buildupon EU opportunities

4.3.2 North-South partnership for improving publicservices and strengthening democratic governance:Europe and Nicaragua


Cooperation Structures

The majority of C2C links comprise a one-on-one partnership between just two com-munities. Many communities in the North have more than one twinning link, and somehave as many as 20 twinning partners - though a proportion of these may be of histor-ical importance but involve little concrete activity - as well as participating in ad hoctechnical cooperation links with other cities or networks. Where communities have twoor three twinnings in other countries, these are most often discrete links with their ownhistory, personalities and characteristics, with each one steered by its own twinningassociation. In a significant minority of cases, however, bilateral links have beenwidened to take in another of the partner community’s own links, leading to tri- or multi-lateral links, a proportion of which also include partners in the East or South.

Not all one-on-one C2C links take the form of conventional twinnings or enduring part-nership links, however. The recent emergence of funding schemes aimed at promotingtechnical cooperation between municipalities - such as the UK-funded CommonwealthLocal Government Good Practice Scheme, the EU’s TACIS City Twinning Scheme andAsia-Urbs programme, or The Netherlands Government Inter-Municipal DevelopmentCooperation programme - has led to new C2C practices which involve mutual commit-ment only for the duration of the externally supported project. Recent experience withsupport programmes of this kind for the East and South has indicated that those citieswith existing twinning links are the best placed to present effective project proposalswithin a short timescale, because they already know and are used to working with theirpartners. However the existence of these schemes has led to the formation of manyentirely new C2C relationships. It will be interesting to assess in time how many of thesebecome formalised into enduring links.

18

C2C Context: Mount Hagen, Papua New Guinea, and Orange City Council,Australia, have a long- standing sister city relationship and welcomed theopportunity to access Commonwealth Local Government Good PracticeScheme funds to implement a practical partnership project on planning.Results/Lessons: The partners have recently finished designing a project onplanning, which will help build the technical capacity of Mount Hagen andenable them to work together on the delivery of a practical demonstration proj-ect. The strong relationship between the partners already involves active cul-tural links and they have started shooting a video, which will cover the wholeproject period. The footage to date is used to explain why Orange City Councilis involved in the project work and what they feel the City will gain from sucha partnership.Issues Arising: Cities which are used to working together are well placed tobenefit from new external funding opportunities, and can bring into a techni-cal project wider aspects based upon their existing relationship. This projectalso illustrates the importance given to providing feedback to the 'donor'community.Source: Commonwealth Local Government Forum, 2002

C2C Context: A three-year trial programme of cooperation between partners inthe Netherlands, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Nicaragua was initiatedin 1992 with a view to integrating experience of democratisation and develop-ing relevant cooperation projects in the East and the South. Within this pro-gramme, administered by the Union of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG), ‘triads’of municipalities were established in cooperation between the local authorityassociations concerned through which the Czech and Slovak municipalitiestransferred municipal skills and assistance to development projects inNicaragua, with financing from the Netherlands partner. The Czech and Slovakcities then used their experience of these projects to raise awareness in theircommunities of the need for development cooperation with the South.Outcomes/Lessons: Eight ‘triads’ were established, some based on existingcity links, and 20 concrete development projects were implemented inNicaragua. Significant awareness-raising activities concerning developmentneeds and approaches took place in the Czech and Slovak Republics, includingthe production of films for national television (co-financed by a Dutch NGO).The programme was continued for a second phase and expanded to othercountries in Central Europe and the South.Issues Arising: National platforms of the cities involved in each country need-ed to be formed to ensure continuity and overcome problems arising fromchanges in personnel and priorities. The complexity of the linkages requiredspecial organisational effort, and communication in a common language wasnot always easy. However the global perspective achieved through the collab-oration between three cultures and the correspondingly wide span of experi-ence brought to bear on problems reaped considerable rewards.Source: Adapted from IULA Publication ‘Trilateral Municipal Cooperation’, 1996

C2C Context: In response to a shared problem of collecting local revenues, agroup of municipal authorities in West Africa came together and, with the aid ofan intermediary-facilitator provided through the Best Practices Programme,exchanged ideas and jointly worked out ways to proceed. The team from eachcity included a political leader, the chief financial officer, and the town clerk.Results/Lessons: The facilitation helped the teams to understand more clear-ly the steps and processes involved in improving local non-fiscal revenue col-lection, and the intermediary undertook a comparative analysis of cost per unitof revenue collected. The teams worked in a structured learning environment,allowing the different actors to discuss and compare ideas about the systemicchanges required. Three out of five municipalities introduced changes in rev-enue collection methods and systems within three months, resulting in a 20-30% improvement in revenue collection efficiency.Issues Arising: This South-South cooperation, stimulated by an external facil-itator and operated through a carefully structured process, produced early tan-gible results for most of the group. Combined political and professional involve-ment helped to cement the cooperation.Source: UN-HABITAT Best Practices and Local Leadership Programme, 2002

4.3.3 Mount Hagen, Papua New Guinea, and OrangeCity, Australia, use Commonwealth funds to addpractical substance to their sister city relationship

4.3.4 The North-East-West-South (NEWS) programme

4.3.5 West African towns work with afacilitator to strengthen revenue collection

In recent years interest has grown considerably in the concept of South-South links,although the number of such links, especially on a one-to-one basis, is still limited. Intheory, such links between cities at a broadly equivalent level of development couldoperate on the basis of similar concepts of reciprocity and exchanges of people andexperience as apply in North-North links. Their potential relevance to the building ofcontinental and inter-continental solidarity, as happened in Europe, may also be recog-nised. Limitations of resources as well as problems of distance represent special chal-lenges for such links, particularly among the Least Developed Countries.

In addition, in some countries of the South, the development of international links is notas yet recognised as a legitimate city function in local government legislation. A numberof South-South links are, however, facilitated by networks and associations to whichcities in the South adhere. Moreover, increasing numbers of cities of the South are asso-ciating themselves in programmes of exchange of experience and good practice spon-sored by international agencies, and these experiences may provide the impetus for thedevelopment of direct bilateral and multilateral links.

In some countries of the South, the opportunities for interchange between city practi-tioners is itself a challenge. National associations of local authorities and professionalbodies are weak, and resources for such networking are severely restricted, particular-ly in the Least Developed Countries. The South-South cooperation taking place withinparticular countries as a spin-off of international cooperation programmes is indeed adimension worthy of note. Relevant examples are the replication, through a UN-HABI-TAT project within nine cities of Tanzania of aspects of the Sustainable Dar-es-SalaamProgramme and the similar replication process for sustainable cities in the Philippinesfacilitated by the Philippines League of Cities.

...in some countries of the South, thedevelopment of international links is not asyet recognised as a legitimate city functionin local government legislation.

19

C2C Context: The Government of Tanzania initiated a pro-gramme to extend to nine other cities the successful expe-rience of the Sustainable Dar es Salaam Project (SDP),which had been implemented as part of the SustainableCities Programme (SCP) of UN-HABITAT. National replica-tion was seen as a city-to-city exercise, using staff withexperience in the SDP to help support similar SCP activitiesin the other cities.Outcomes/Lessons: The replication programme has pro-gressed steadily with most of the nine cities having alsoattracted additional international support. The ability of the

replication cities to learn from the prior experience of Dares Salaam was seen as a considerable advantage, espe-cially in the early stages.Issues Arising: The manpower resources available fromDar es Salaam were insufficient for the task of supportingnine cities and had to be supplemented with a national-level support unit. The building up of direct links among thenine cities helped as well, by providing a direct peer-to-peer C2C network for information exchange and compari-son of experience.Source: UN-HABITAT, DANIDA, Government of Tanzania

C2C Context: The Commonwealth Local Government Good Practice Scheme, funded by theUK Government, supports joint technical cooperation projects between cities and associa-tions in two or more Commonwealth countries.Outcomes/Lessons: The collaboration which the Scheme has enabled between the LocalGovernment and Shires Association of New South Wales (Australia) and the Papua NewGuinea Urban Local Level Government Association has in turn led to the strengthening ofthree existing city-to-city links between the two countries (Mount Hagen/Orange,Townsville/Port Moresby, and Cairns/Lae) through individual cooperation projects.Issues Arising: C2C links can receive new impetus when they are enabled to operate with-in a broader support framework. Local government associations are important intermedi-aries in the development of C2C but often require capacity-building measures of their ownin order to fulfil their members’ expectations.Source: Commonwealth Local Government Forum

C2C Context: The European Car-Free Day is an initiative to promote sustainable transport inurban areas by raising public awareness about the environmental impact of private cars,and the advantages of less polluting alternatives (such as walking, cycling, buses and trams,etc.). The Car-Free Day started in France in 1998, and in 1999 the idea spread also to Italyand Switzerland. Since then the European Car Free Day has really taken off, with Eurocitiesplaying a pivotal role, working with the European Commission and other partners, in partic-ular through the ACCESS network (formerly Car-Free Cities Network).Outcomes/Lessons: In just two years, the initiative has spread across all of the EU MemberStates and 17 other countries, with more than 1,000 towns and cities participating in 2001.There are plans to build on the success of the Car-Free Day by holding the first “EuropeanMobility Week” in September 2002.Issues Arising: Growing concern for sustainable urban development and control of pollu-tion led a number of cities, networked by an association which facilitated EU funding sup-port, to envisage a radical way of bringing home to their populations the possible alterna-tives to expanding car use in towns, with major media impact. Ways need to be developedof opening the results of networking activities of this kind in one region to others whichcould benefit from such exchanges of experience and practice.Source: Eurocities, 2002

C2C context: Medcities was formed in 1991to provide a structure for exchanges of expe-rience and know-how on urban environmentissues among the cities bordering all sides ofthe Mediterranean. It was initiated by theMediterranean Action Programme (METAP) incollaboration with UTO. It currently compris-es 27 cities and its membership basis has re-cently been widened to allow for two citiesper country. Medcities’ aims are to strength-en the notion of interdependence and joint re-sponsibility regarding environmental protec-tion policies in the Mediterranean area; tostrengthen the role and the capacity (institu-tional, financial and technical) of the cities inimplementing local environmental policies; topromote awareness and involvement amongusers and the local population; and to facili-tate direct cooperation policies by implement-ing partnerships among Mediterranean citieswithin the framework of national strategies.Outcomes/Lessons: The Medcities ap-proach aims to integrate economic, social

and environmental considerations. Recentwork has included environmental audits, cre-ation of a public information service on theenvironment for citizens and SMEs, promo-tion of Local Sustainable Development/LocalAgenda 21, and participation in the Mediter-ranean Waste Management Programme(EU/UNDP). A model Urban Observatory inTripoli, Lebanon and an associated Air Quali-ty Monitoring Service were recently set upwith assistance from network partners andexternal donors.Issues Arising: Medcities’ core funding isprovided by the European Union and byMETAP, and individual projects are supportedby national governments or multilateraldonors. However, member cities are havingto review the means of raising new revenuesthrough charges or public/private partner-ships to compensate for reductions in corefunding.Source: UTO paper, 2001, and Medcitiesnewsletter, Aug 2000)

C2C Context: The cities and metropolitanauthorities covering the world’s largesturban centres share particular problems,which were highlighted in the HabitatAgenda, and need to work together with thebest available expertise to address these.Outcomes/Lessons: Some 70 cities andmetropolitan regions belong to METROPOLIS,together with some 50 associate membersincluding companies, research institutionsand consultancies serving the world’sbiggest agglomerations. Through fourdecentralised commissions run by membercities on such subjects as transportation,social policy, spatial planning, culture etc,

METROPOLIS organises exchanges of expe-rience and develops policies which it pro-motes through the international community.It also operates a Technical AssistanceService and an International Training Institutefor the Management of Major MetropolisesIssues Arising: The exchange of experiencefacilitated by the network is highly valued butthe work programme depends heavily uponthe input of a small number of institutions.External support would help to maximise thepotential of the network in furthering effec-tive South-South cooperation on major urbanissues.Source: METROPOLIS 99 Barcelona Report

4.3.8 A Eurocities Network facilitates the European Car-Free Day

4.3.7 City and association links fostered through theCommonwealth Local Government Good Practice Scheme

4.3.6 City-to-City replication of the Sustainable Dar es Salaam Project (Tanzania)

4.3.9 Medcities: A geographically specific North-South networkof cities focusing on environmental strategies and management

4.3.10 METROPOLIS: a decentralised urban managementnetwork among the world’s major metropolitan areas


20

Active Participants

The diversity of inter-connections between cities are very wide in this era ofglobalisation, ranging from enduring city twinnings through technical coopera-tion partnerships to individual ad hoc contacts. A distinguishing feature iswhether each city’s own local government body is formally committed to thelink. Such a commitment need not necessarily be to a long-term or indefiniterelationship, it can simply be related to the undertaking of a specific time-lim-ited programme of cooperation. On the other hand, the performance of an adhoc consultancy assignment by an individual councillor or member of staff onbehalf of an external agency could not normally be regarded as falling within thegeneral concept of C2C practice, although such assignments may also bepotential building blocks of C2C.

Equally, there may be international partnership linkages maintained by localinstitutions or organisations in a city which involve no formal engagement bythe city authorities yet which address city development issues and thus formpart of the wider C2C canvas. Many such linkages do, however, operate underthe aegis of official city links and indeed serve to strengthen and add substanceto the links. Indeed, relatively few C2C relationships or exchange of experience

C2C Context: The three main local author-ity associations in Germany have joinedwith the Federal Ministry for EconomicCooperation and Development, theDevelopment Ministries of nine of the six-teen Länder, the Carl Duisburg Foundation,and a range of other national foundations,NGOs and development agencies to form anew Service Agency ‘Municipalities in OneWorld’. Based on the principles of Agenda21 this agency will provide advice andguidance to local authorities, NGOs, andprivate sector clients over the implementa-tion of development cooperation projects,together with associated exchange of expe-rience, research and training activities anddatabase services.Outcomes/Lessons: It is too early toassess the results of this new initiative, butit builds upon the 2,000+ Local Agenda 21programmes launched by German localauthorities and also upon the experience of

a previous informal cooperation network ofcities involved in North-South cooperation.The active involvement of the Federal andLänder Ministries, the national associationsof local authorities, foundations, and repre-sentatives of the private sector, tradeunions, and NGOs in the governance of theAgency and its Programme Board is partic-ularly promising.Issues Arising: The focus upon North-South cooperation may need to be tem-pered by awareness of the practice andpotential of other forms of C2C in whichGerman cities are or could be involved.Means need to be found of associatingpartnership bodies such as this, and theiraccumulated experience of developing jointwork between sectors, in any ongoing part-nership structures that may be establishedinternationally to facilitate C2C.Source: Servicestelle Kommunen in derEinen Welt, Konzeption brochure, 2002

C2C Context: Bremen, Germany and Pune,India started their collaboration over a proj-ect in 1976 to support handicapped chil-dren in a Pune hospital. In 1980 NGOswere established in each city, known asCity Solidarity Forums, to develop linksacross a wide range of community organi-sations and institutions.Outcomes/Lessons: Official agreementswere signed between the local authorities,universities and chambers of commerce,leading to widespread exchanges, trainingprogrammes, business links, joint projects,cultural events, and education pro-grammes. This in turn led to joint work onLocal Agenda 21, and the formation of around table of administrators, scientists,industry representatives and NGOs in Pune

which spearheaded a wide range of con-crete projects for environmental improve-ments, waste management, air pollutioncontrol, solar energy implementation, andreforestation.Issues Arising: The link has been mutuallybeneficial, and in the context of LocalAgenda 21 new structures have been devel-oped through which much broader sectionsof society in both cities have participated inthe process of sustainable development.NGOs have facilitated private sector cooper-ation, and the Pune link provided the incen-tive for the University of Bremen to join theLocal Agenda 21 process.Source: Adapted from ‘Partnerships forSustainable Development – Asia’, Townsand Development, 1999

4.3.12 Stakeholder involvement – a key element in the vitalityof C2C links

4.3.13 German Local Authority Associations’ Participation in aNational Platform for Development Cooperation

C2C Context: The partnership among CebuCity in the Philippines, and Fort Collins andLarimer County in Colorado, USA, assistedCebu to address the critical service deliveryneeds of its citizens, especially in solidwaste management. The resulting actionplan defines the following partnershipobjectives: to design a frame-work for aten-year solid waste management plan thatincorporates donor and private sector pro-jected investment, to develop a pilot projectfor recycling and composting, to improvesolid waste management, and to reducethe volume of waste entering the landfill.

Results/Lessons: To date, the Cebu Citygovernment has developed a number ofpolicy proposals to support the initiativesin the action plan. Cebu has also engagedcitizens groups, NGOs, universities, andthe business community in the proposedpilot areas to secure their support andinput.Issues Arising: The C2C partnership linkwith the USA shows Cebu the potential ofworking with the private sector and a widerange of partners from all sectors in thelocal community.Source: ICMA, 2002

4.3.11 Cebu works with Fort Collins & Larimer County and withmany local partners to upgrade its waste management plans

Another recent phenomenon is the development of a wide variety of technicalcooperation networks between groups of cities. These tend to focus upon dis-creet topics of importance to the participating cities’ services, and they are setup either in response to an initiative or a call for tenders by a funding agency orelse with a view to bringing project proposals forward to such an agency, oftenthrough facilitation by an established association. Programmes addressingsectoral issues such as waste disposal or traffic management, as well as broad-er programmes to promote sustainable development or participatory democra-cy, have provided the basis for such ongoing cooperation networks to develop.Much of the work of these networks among cities in developed countries wouldbe of potential benefit to cities in other regions, and ways may need to be foundof expanding access to it. Yet another form of network is that constituted inaccordance with political party affiliation. A number of such networks haveemerged in Europe, but their potential for facilitating sustainable C2C practiceis necessarily limited by changes in political party fortunes.

A different and wider category of network is constituted by sectoral member-ship organisations or associations. These may focus upon particular city char-acteristics – examples are METROPOLIS, which brings together the biggestmetropolitan authorities world-wide, or more specialised groupings of portcities, historic towns etc – or upon a shared culture – such as the Associationof Francophone Mayors, the Union of Lusophone Capital Cities, or theOrganisation of Islamic Capitals and Cities. Some of these organisations under-take substantial and ongoing programmes of joint work, while others comprisesuch a diversity of members that the shared interest other than, for example,language, is more limited. Where these groupings comprise a lead country inthe North, they are sometimes seen as integral parts of that country’s develop-ment cooperation mechanisms leading to significant technical cooperation pro-grammes, and they all have the potential to generate interest in the develop-ment of new direct South-South links.

It is relevant also to mention here a further rapidly expanding and effective formof international cooperation among cities which does not rely upon direct C2Clinks. This is the exchange of ‘good’ or ‘best practices’, which is promoted bya number of international agencies and associations, in many cases supportedby an award scheme. Cities submit their experience to these schemes individ-ually, but the processes of dissemination may well bring them into direct contactwith other cities which wish to learn from the experience documented and adaptit to their own needs. These ad hoc contacts, which are being increasingly facil-itated by the international agencies, may or may not lead to ongoing exchangesand the creation of formal links. But the experience of international exposurewhich such schemes provide undoubtedly encourages cities to go forward inlooking beyond their own boundaries for solutions to their problems.

21

C2C Context: Local government associations have a key roleto play in development, decentralisation and effective gover-nance, but often need strengthening before they can effec-tively support their individual local government members orliaise well with central governments, donors and other actors.The IULA Association Capacity Building (ACB) Programmeaims to address this need and to promote the value of work-ing in partnership with local government associations at inter-national and national levels. The Ministry of DevelopmentCooperation of the Netherlands is the key donor of theProgramme. The United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), the United Nations Fund for Women (UNIFEM), theSpanish International Development Agency (AECI), theCanadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the

Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), the USAgency for International Development (USAID), the FriedrichEbert Foundation (FES), the German Technical CooperationAgency (GTZ) and individual member associations of IULA aremaking complementary activities possible. IULA's Capacityand Institution Building (CIB) Platform plays a key advisoryand support role in the operation of the Programme.Results/Lessons: The programme has sought to promote therole of national associations of local government at interna-tional and national levels by focussing on strengthening sixnational associations of local government in Colombia,Nicaragua, The Philippines (2 associations), Ghana andZimbabwe. Wider aims being pursued are to support South-South cooperation and networking, to promote the involve-

ment of women in local government decision-making; and toprovide evidence supporting the effectiveness and value ofMunicipal International Cooperation.Issues Arising: The limited capacity of many local govern-ment associations in developing countries severely hamperstheir ability to negotiate legislative changes in favour of localautonomy with central government or to provide effectivesupport services to their members. The associations are thuskey components of the C2C scene, and the programmeextends the classic function of the international association infacilitating exchanges of experience. The relative effective-ness of North-South links and South-South links in this areadeserves particular attention.Source: International Union of Local Authorities, 2002

4.3.14 The International Union of Local Authorities Association Capacity Building Programme makes a key contribution tostrengthening cities' capacity within particular countries

schemes, engage only the city authorities themselves. In most cases there isan involvement by stakeholders who have an interest in the cooperation under-way. Such stakeholders may in particular include private sector companies andchambers of commerce, which are increasingly recognising the extent of theirdependence upon the fortunes of their city and the potential which theirresources offer for helping to tackle urban problems and to provide a secureenvironment for the development of their businesses.

Voluntary associations and community-based organisations, universitiesand colleges, trade unions etc., are also increasingly involved in city policy-making and service provision. Just as governance at the local level is increas-ingly recognised as needing to engage stakeholders, one of the key messagesof the Habitat Agenda and Local Agenda 21, so C2C links also increasinglyinvolve the relevant partners in the community.

NGOs and CBOs are important components of many C2C practices in bothNorth and South. A large number of projects with a thematic focus upon localservice delivery rely upon NGO/CBO partners for their implementation. NGOsare often key partners of the city authorities in assessing local communities’needs and communicating these to officials, and their own international linksand networks can be brought into play in advancing C2C initiatives. The ‘jointaction’ approach to development projects promoted by Towns and Developmentfocuses upon bringing together the respective strengths of cities and NGOs incombined action programmes. Development NGOs in the North have an impor-tant further role to play in facilitating C2C, in that they can integrate these activ-ities in their own urban programmes. They can also be sources of valuablepractical advice to local authorities interested in participating in C2C initiativeswho may have limited knowledge or understanding about the circumstances ofa prospective partner community and the country concerned and may benefitfrom guidance concerning the wider contextual and cultural background to anynew C2C endeavour.

The extent to which local private sector interests become engaged in C2Cactivities also varies greatly according to the nature of the cooperation. Thepromotion of dialogue with the private sector about their contribution to achiev-ing sustainable development is a key aspect of modern, broad-based participa-tory management. The shared interest of business in the good functioning ofcities and quality of life issues is increasingly recognised. The capacity of pri-vate sector concerns to contribute resources of money and skilled staff to proj-ects, often upon a more dynamic and flexible basis than the public authorities,makes them particularly attractive partners in C2C activities. While they cannever lose sight of their primary duties to their shareholders and customers,their enlightened self-interest may in particular circumstances lead them to playa major part in providing investment in infrastructure or public services whichis beyond the capacity of the city on its own.

The involvement of academic and training institutions in C2C practices is aparticularly promising development, although one which must depend a great

deal for its quality upon the particular strengths and focus of the institutionsconcerned. Thus, for example, the City of Birmingham, UK has taken steps toassociate the University of Birmingham, which is the major national centre forlocal government studies with a large training facility for city personnel fromdeveloping countries, as an active partner in many of its extensive internation-al partnership activities. Similarly, the City of Bremen, Germany has drawn inthe University of Bremen as an active partner with corresponding institutions inthe city’s international links. The University also played a major part in drawingup the concept for the 2000/01 Bremen Initiative and international awardscheme to promote best practice in the operation of city partnerships with theprivate sector.

National associations of local authorities are less often primary cooperatingparties in the operation of C2C schemes, while undoubtedly having a key role inhelping to initiate them and ensuring the most favourable support framework.Given that their role is primarily a national one, involving policy advocacy withthe national government and the provision of general services to the member-ship as a whole, national associations are not usually in a position to participateclosely in the projects of individual member cities. They increasingly, however,have a role in facilitating C2C links and programmes, brokering new linksthrough collaboration with their opposite numbers in other countries, and pro-viding general advice and guidance. There are many examples of national asso-ciations taking initiatives to create opportunities for C2C to take place and, insome cases, administering a support scheme. There are also some recentexamples of local authority associations in the North joining with NGOs, devel-opment agencies, and other partners to create a broader national platform forthe promotion of development cooperation at the local level.

Increasingly, the strengthening of national associations of local authorities isitself seen as making an important potential contribution to development. Thishas been the focus of a major programme administered by IULA as a follow-upto the 1995 Hague Congress on Municipal International Cooperation, whichinvolved associations in North and South working in partnership with one anoth-er on the development of their representative functions and their services tomembers. It will be interesting to track the extent to which these linkages leadon to the fostering of new forms of cooperation between the associations’member cities.

In the South, the capacity of national associations to help initiate and operateC2C projects is often more limited despite the potential which they may see inthis area. However, there are examples of national associations building uponmembers’ C2C initiatives to extend their implementation more widely within thecountry.

It is also important to note, as a general principle applicable here, that the sus-tainability of partnership projects is conditioned by the capacity of each localauthority to design and maintain them effectively, through engaging the activeparticipation of a wide range of stakeholders.


22

Organising Support for City-to-City Cooperation5.5.1 Framework for Comparing C2C Support Options

An increasingly wide range of support mechanisms has developed overthe years to support the process of C2C and to broaden its scope andincrease its effectiveness. In the early period, support came throughinternational organisations of local governments (the earliest being theInternational Union of Local Authorities - IULA) and later, especially inEurope, with strong support from national governments and also facili-tated through national associations of cities (see Annex 2). As C2Cactivities spread beyond Europe and other developed countries, howev-er, the supporting frameworks become progressively more diverse.Both national (bilateral) and international (multilateral) developmentassistance agencies and programmes became important supportmechanisms, particularly as C2C activities moved more into North-South, West-East, and South-South forms of cooperation. Just as therange of C2C practices (described in Chapter 4) has become ever morevaried, so too has the range of C2C support options.

In order to make clearer not only the diversity of support options, butalso their relative strengths and focus of activity, it is important (as dis-cussed in Chapter 3.2) that support options be compared in terms of asystematic set of characteristics. For the purposes of this report, fourmain categories of characteristic are used to compare support options:• support modality • geographical focus• funding and resources • facilitating institutions.

5.2 Types of External Support

C2C Support Modalities

Initially, the modalities of C2C support were fairly limited, the links beingconcerned primarily with goodwill exchanges and similar social-cultur-al relationships, often based on shared language, language learning orhistorical background and typically with an objective to raise mutual

5.2.1 European CITIES project (Cities’ initiatives towardsemployment strategies) builds partnership between European,national, regional and local spheres of government

C2C Context: The Eurocities association facili-tated a project running from January toSeptember 2001 between the cities ofAntwerp, Barcelona, Berlin, Birmingham,Bilbao, Helsinki, Leipzig, Lyon, Rome andRotterdam aimed at supporting cities in thedevelopment of local actions plans based onthe European Employment Strategy.Outcomes/Lessons: The project was carriedout through the preparation of “mapping profil-ing reports” developed by the project partners,which included a SWOT analysis on each city’slabour market, as well as a report of the keyprocesses and partnerships involved in cities’local employment action planning. Some of thekey recommendations submitted by the projectpartners to the European Commission werereflected in its Communication on

“Strengthening the Local Dimension of theEuropean Employment Strategy” (November2001) such as, for example, the need for theconcept of multi-annual contracts between thelocal, regional and national levels to supportthe implementation of local action plans.Issues Arising: A group of cities already usedto working together through Eurocities joinedin a specialised short-term network to carryout a specific task. Such networking activitiesfacilitated by an international association pro-duced practical benefits for the participatingcities and also helped to influence future EUpolicy on employment generation. The replica-tion-adaptation of this kind of project in otherparts of the world could produce many benefitsfor cities facing employment problems.Source: Eurocities, 2002

awareness and understanding. Local authorities and community organ-isations initiated such direct C2C links of their own volition, using awide variety of channels for establishing the initial contacts. A primarymodality for this cultural linking activity was personal exchange, withgroups and individuals (youth, sports teams, musical groups etc) visit-ing each others’ cities. Exhibits and information displays, films, mediacoverage were often included as well.

In recent times, the modalities of C2C support have become very muchmore diverse, the established approaches still being used but withmany new and different avenues being introduced, particularly in thecontext of C2C associated with decentralised cooperation work.

A striking phenomenon during the last 20 years has been the rapidlygrowing emphasis on networking among cities and local authorities -establishing flexible systems of communication and exchange amonggroups of cities. This fits the emerging new paradigm of developmentcooperation and its fundamental idea that cities and urban practitionerscan most effectively learn from one another, pooling information andexchanging experience through peer group exchanges. A network isthe most basic way in which this can be done, by providing a structuredbasis for presenting and obtaining information and know-how which isrelevant and useful to the cities. The network serves its members at avariety of levels from the mayors downwards, through the senior man-agers to the professional and technical staff. In this way, networks pro-vide a facilitating structure for C2C, supporting cities in making directcontact with one another, in pairs or in groups, on practice issues ofmutual concern.

In many cases, networks have been set up on a quasi-permanent basisamong a group of cities with a strong common interest. In other cases,networks are called into being to carry out a specific joint project andthen dissolve. Some networks have been set up entirely at the initiativeof the participating cities, but more often they are helped into existenceby international programmes and funding schemes. Thus, networksoften have their origins in specific international programmes or initia-tives, and they represent a creative way of moving beyond the time andresource and geographic limitations of programmes. For example, theUrban Environment Forum (UEF) grew out a project for developing anurban environmental planning and management process and benefitedfrom a close early association with the global Sustainable CitiesProgramme (see box 4.2.15). A wide variety of networks have beendeveloped in recent years, with varying topical or geographical focus andoften as a spin-off of an international funding programme, all having theclear potential to support a wide range of city-to-city interactions.

Derived very much from national and international aid programmes’experience in the development field, the support modality of demon-stration-replication, together with the creation and dissemination ofguidelines and working tools or toolkits, has also become a feature ofmany C2C practices. The underlying idea is that a development pro-gramme will undertake a specific city project as a “demonstration” - toshow how this new approach can work out in practice. But to achievethe fullest possible impact, it needs to be implemented much morewidely by a range of cities going beyond the select few an individualprogramme can deal with directly. Therefore, the emphasis is on repli-cating the demonstration – reproducing and adapting it in numerousother cities, based on the activities and lessons of the original demon-stration.

23


5.2.2 CityNet as a South-South technical cooperation networkfacilitating transfers of effective practices

C2C Context: CityNet was established with theassistance of the United Nations regional organisa-tion ESCAP as a technical cooperation network ofcities, NGOs and private sector partners concernedwith urban services in the Asia Pacific area.Headquartered in Yokohama, Japan it runs a widerange of conferences and seminars on urban man-agement issues, facilitates transfers of experienceand learning, and participates actively in regionaland international cooperation fora.Outcomes/Lessons: Through a partnership with theUNDP Special Unit for Technical Cooperation amongDeveloping Countries and the UN-HABITAT BestPractices programme, CityNet has produced detailed

practical Guidelines for transferring effective prac-tices on a South-South basis. It provides for theexchange of expertise and experience among stake-holders on a continuing basis, identifying informationand resources needs and ways of meeting them.Issues Arising: The potential for building up effec-tive C2C practices in this large and rapidly urbanis-ing region is vast, and the challenge is to reach outto ever increasing numbers of cities, using to the fullthe benefits of new communications technologies.The relative advantages of pursuing C2C within andbetween regions should also be explored more fully.Source: CityNet ‘Guidelines for Transferring EffectivePractices’, 1998

5.2.3 Scaling up the results of an international support programmeamong Indian cities

A support modality of rapidly growing importance, greatly aidedby new information and communications technologies, is thedocumentation and dissemination of good or best practicesand related assistance in transfer of experience and replication.By documenting good practice examples of how cities haveundertaken particular tasks, it is possible to make that informa-tion known to a great many other cities - a much wider dis-semination of information than could ever be possible throughone-on-one exchanges. The leading example of these activitiesis the Best Practices Programme of UN-HABITAT (which is inturn supported by the city of Dubai through its Awards forInternational Best Practices - see Box 5.3.6) The steadilyexpanding base of information gathered through the BestPractices process, available on a web-site and on CD-ROM, pro-vides an extensive array of useful knowledge about how citieshave addressed their problems of sustainable urban develop-ment, thus facilitating the establishment of task-related linksbetween cities desiring information about specific solutions andcities with the relevant experience.

One of the more commonly used modalities, for many differentkinds of C2C activity, is the provision and exchange of spe-cialised staff expertise. This can take place in a number of dif-ferent ways, starting from the transfer of technical documenta-tion and related professional papers, especially where theserelate to specific items of technology with which one of thepartner cities is unfamiliar or untrained. It may take the form ofproviding specialist scientific skills and information, for instanceone city providing an analysis of particular water or soil sampleswhich the partner city is not equipped to handle, or assistingwith the advanced analysis of statistical information.

In many cases, the technical and professional staff responsiblefor certain activities in one city physically go to the partner cityand work with their counterparts there. Most frequently, thisinvolves staff from cities in the North going to their partner citiesin the South to assist them directly with particular work. Often,however, there is two-way exchange, which allows both partiesto learn from the different circumstances and approaches of theother. Part of the Rotterdam-Shanghai cooperation, for exam-ple, involved bringing officials from China to The Netherlands tostudy urban renewal in Rotterdam (see box 4.2.8 above), andthe TACIS City Twinning Scheme projects frequently includedstaff attachments to the Northern partner city. Such exchangesand attachments do not have to be restricted to local govern-ment staff, of course; there have been exchanges involving doc-tors and public health workers, academics and researchers, pri-vate transport operators, etc.

A natural extension of this approach is the modality of trainingand human resource development, in which staff of one ofthe partner cities take on specific capacity development taskswith their peers in the other city. An element of training is near-

An increasingly wide range ofsupport mechanisms has developedover the years to support theprocess of C2C and to broaden itsscope and increase its effectiveness

ly always involved in C2C development cooperation activities – and indeed one may well arguethat virtually all international cooperation work incorporates a staff development aspect, some-times indeed on the basis of very steep learning curves. A number of C2C practices have, how-ever, focused on human resource development as a key objective in itself. This approach isinevitably conditioned by practical circumstances and cultural considerations, and it is likely tobe easier, for example, to carry out training related to the use of specific items of new equip-ment or software than to import more complex management development techniques into verydifferent working situations. The Lille-Kharkov TACIS example in box 4.2.5 illustrates the chal-lenges of training public relations staff in a city adapting only slowly to new concepts of trans-parency and accountability.

The area of strategic capital investment currently receives little emphasis in C2C pro-grammes, possibly because the international sources of capital investment are separate fromthe support programmes addressing the needs of cities and tend to focus upon relatively largeprojects. The World Bank/UN-HABITAT Cities Alliance programme is something of an exceptionhere, with its focus upon quite large slum upgrading projects, but it does not, at present at least,comprise a C2C component.

C2C Context: As part of the preparations for thelaunch of the Indian Campaign for Good UrbanGovernance, a national city-to-city ‘sharing work-shop’ was organised. The Sharing Workshop docu-mented and disseminated recent experiences ofIndian cities in decentralisation, integration of thepoor and marginalised groups, environmental sus-tainability, improved municipal finance, transparencyand civic engagement, better municipal manage-ment, and capacity-building.Results/Lessons: About 1,500 participants fromcentral and local government, civil society and theprivate sector interacted in thematic workshops ledby 20 ‘Champions of Change’ – cities that haveattempted to improve governance, make their serv-

ices more efficient, build accountability, and developpartnerships. Cases were selected based on theirnovelty, innovation, scalability and replicability.Cities from outside India also attended, specifically tolearn from Indian cities about how to launch anUrban Governance Campaign.Issues Arising: The positive results of an interna-tional support programme’s intervention can be mul-tiplied through exchanges with other cities in thesame country, and also spread to other countries.The degree to which the approaches are more wide-ly adopted, and any handicaps encountered, shouldbe carefully evaluated.Source: UN-HABITAT Global Campaign for UrbanGovernance, 2002

5.3 Organisation of External Support

Geographical Focus

As earlier chapters have shown, support for C2C has grown up incrementallyfrom a variety of sources. On the one hand, international associations and net-works of cities have a potentially global reach, as do a number of support pro-grammes, while a substantial and growing range of activities are focused uponspecific world regions. Support programmes by national agencies focus mostheavily upon the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, oftendetermining their scope on the basis of historic colonial - and cultural - con-nections. Hence the priority given by Spanish development cooperation to thecountries of Central and Latin America, or by France to its former colonies inAfrica, or by the UK to the developing countries of the Commonwealth.

International agency programmes may also be global in their scope or, moreoften, have a regional focus. The geographical scope of the various supportprogrammes is indicated clearly in Tables 6.3.1 and 6.3.2. One of the largestdonors, the European Union, focuses its major development cooperation pro-grammes upon the African, Caribbean and Pacific area countries with which theEU has a formal cooperation agreement (as laid down in the Lomé Conventionsand now the Cotonou Agreement, which refers specifically to decentralisedcooperation involving local authorities and civil society).

However the EU, as part of its external relations policy, also runs some C2C sup-port programmes with Asian countries (AsiaUrbs) and with Latin America(UrbAL). Within Europe, it has supported a substantial range of C2C pro-

Funding and Resources

Financial resources for supporting C2C can be drawn from a wide variety ofsources, individually or in combination. This support can take many differentforms: Financial contributions toward an agreed project or programme of jointwork, longer-term financial support for the overhead costs of C2C links, under-writing exchanges of expertise and information, travel and communication costsetc. But however they may be used, the important question is how the fundsare raised and from what sources, What are the different ways in which finan-cial resources can be mobilised and applied to the support of city-to-city coop-eration? Because finance comes from a wide variety of sources, it is useful toexamine the different options for financial support for C2C.

In many, perhaps most cases, finance is derived not from one single source butfrom several sources in combination, often with different financial resourcesbeing applied to support different aspects of the cooperation activity. Forinstance, for its partnership with Bamako (Mali), the city of Angers (France) rais-es substantial funds from each of four different public and private sources (seeBox 4.2.10).

The most important option for financial support for C2C is to rely on the budg-ets of the participating cities - own-budget funding. There is some variation,reflecting the legal framework regulating local government expenditure, but ingeneral all of the cities involved in city-to-city cooperation provide significantfinancial support out of their own budgets. This may be through the funding ofin-kind services (such as paying the salaries of city employees working on C2Cactivities) or it may be through special budget lines specifically for supportingC2C (for instance to pay for travel and communication costs). Cities in richercountries typically provide a proportion of the necessary finance out of their ownbudgets - although this has become harder through the combined pressures ofpublic sector budget cuts and cost-centre accounting. Obviously in lower-income countries this is often not possible.

Another important option for raising finance for C2C is by mobilising contribu-tions from a variety of local partners in one or both of the cities. There is awide range of potential local partners: Private business and industry, charitablefoundations and trusts, community fund-raising, local institutions etc. Forexample, the small city of Boston in the UK raises the bulk of the funds for its

C2C Context: A municipal authority inSouth Asia wished to know how to dealwith an ineffective CBO-based micro-cred-it scheme, which was failing in terms ofdrop-out and recovery rates. Through theBest Practices database, a well-functioningcommunity-managed micro-credit schemewas identified.Results/Lessons: A one-week study tourbrought a political leader, a communityleader, and a loan officer from the problemscene to see and exchange ideas with thosein the municipality with the well-functioningscheme. Subsequently, changes weremade in lending policy which had an imme-diate beneficial effect. The most significantchange was the removal of loan ceilings

when it became apparent through theexchange of ideas that (i) the urban poor arenot necessarily enabled to graduate to for-mal sector financing despite a strong reim-bursement record; (ii) loan ceilings allow thepoor to become less poor but not to createwealth; and (iii) the availability of biggerloans enabled certain entrepreneurs tocome to the fore, to provide jobs for othersand to serve as role models.Issues Arising: In this instance, the accessto relevant practice information providedsuf-ficient incentive for the city to takeaction, and a well-focussed study tourenabled the exchange to take place effi-ciently. Source: UN-HABITAT Best Practicesand Local Leadership Programme, 2002

Financial resources for supporting C2C can be drawn from a widevariety of sources, individually or in combination

5.2.4 Using the Best Practices database to identify asource of relevant know-how on micro-credit

grammes to help the countries of Central and Eastern Europe apply for acces-sion to the Union (e.g. ECOS and OUVERTURE), the former Soviet Union coun-tries (e.g. the TACIS City Twinning Scheme). As part of its mandate to help buildthe Europe of the citizen, the EU also puts money into small grants in support ofmore or less conventional European twinning links, as well as investing muchlarger sums under many policy heads in a whole range of demonstration pro-grammes, action research programmes, campaigns etc in which cities andtowns from its own member states work together on a wide variety of topics.The benefits of reinforcing such C2C cooperation within a region, and the poten-tial scope for opening access to the results to cities from other regions, aresurely issues for further consideration.

Looking at UN-HABITAT’s own programmes, some have a specific regional focus(e.g. the Water for African Cities programme), several focus on the three devel-oping country regions (e.g. the Urban Management Programme, the SustainableCities Programme, the Safer Cities programme), while others (e.g. the BestPractices Programme and the local government training activities) are global inscope development and poverty alleviation as their principal goals.

24

cooperation with Jalchatra (Bangladesh) through voluntary fundraising efforts inthe local community.

The role of development programme or project funds in relation to North-South, South-South, and West-East linkages is extremely important. Indeed,this is a crucial support option for the majority of such C2C activities. The grow-ing willingness of development agencies to work with and through cities hasmeant that the financial resources of their programme and project budgets canincreasingly be tapped to provide support for C2C. Very few, if any, of theseinternational programmes are focused primarily on C2C, but many have com-ponents or parts of their budgets which can be directed towards support forsuch cooperation. Thus, several of the examples mentioned earlier illustrate theways in which cities (or their associations) can access funds from internationaldevelopment programmes or projects. For example, it was programme fundsfor the national Sustainable Cities Programme in Tanzania which funded theexchanges among the nine cities, and it was the UK Department forInternational Development’s funds which paid for the C2C activities supportedby the Know-How Fund (see box 4.2.3 above).

Self-funding activities are another option for financing C2C activities, althoughthis generally applies only to relatively narrowly defined investment projectactivities, such as two cities cooperating to establish a solid waste managementservice paid for by the users. Such self-financing activities are expected to gen-erate a stream of revenue which then pays for the original capital investments.This also promotes sustainability of the improvement and makes it easier to linkit to an international development initiative.

Another option for financial support is to secure backing from a charitable foun-dation or trust fund. Usually located in a country of the North, few such trustsor foundations will have C2C as an explicit purpose, but it is possible nonethe-less to use available funding to support specific aspects of C2C. For example,there are a number of foundations, such as the Westminster Foundation forDemocracy (UK) and the political foundations in Germany which have providedfinance for travel and expenses for staff and representatives from the partner city.

5.3.1 Ongoing C2C develops between Yokohama and Penang onengineering issues as a result of an externally funded project

C2C Context: Yokohama involvement inPenang City development was started in1983 when experts from Yokohama weredispatched to Penang under a JapanInternational Cooperation (JICA) scheme.JICA funded a three-year project on AreaTraffic Control Systems. After project com-pletion in 1986, both cities made anagreement to establish further technicalcooperation on various issues. The objec-tive was to improve the standard of urbaninfrastructure and deepen mutual under-standing. This led to a new three-year plan(1990-1993) in which fields of coopera-tion were identified, focusing on urbandesign, road maintenance and wastemanagement.Outcomes/Lessons: As budgets werevery limited, a cost-sharing concept wasintroduced and small-scale projects wereimplemented. Several exchange visitswere held within the years 1991-1993. AYokohama engineer visited Penang everyyear to stay for three months and workedtogether in the field with local engineersand technicians. Yokohama covered thetravel costs, while Penang partially metlocal costs. In term of road maintenance,Yokohama engineers introduced very sim-

ple methods to reduce traffic accidents inPenang by installing road safety equip-ment: chatter bars, reflective directionalsigns in strategic locations, marking lineetc. Second-hand chatter bars weredonated by Yokohama. They also intro-duced Penang to a mixed-asphalt tech-nique to increase the lifetime of road sur-faces. As result, the number of trafficaccidents reduced over recent years andPenang become one of the cleanest citiesin Malaysia with much improved road andtraffic conditions. The working styles ofPenang and Yokohama engineers werevery different, with much more hands-onwork by engineers on construction sites inYokohama.Issues Arising: High-level political sup-port combined with professional engi-neers’ commitment and close workingrelations and a focus on low-cost practicalsolutions ensured the success of the proj-ect, although language barriers and differ-ing professional approaches acted as con-straints. In general the C2C approachproved practical and sustainable becausecosts had to be kept low and there was afocus on basic applicable techniques.Source: Citynet, 2002

Facilitating Institutions

Perhaps the most straightforward way of characterising and comparing supportoptions is in terms of the organisational structure and function: What is thenature of the institution or group which is providing support to C2C? The mostfundamental of these, of course, is the individual local government itself:Cities themselves provide the essential support without which C2C cannot func-tion - administration, staff time, other in-kind resources, and perhaps finance aswell - and above all, cities provide the official framework within which C2Cactivities can function. In some C2C activities, especially traditional town twin-ning, there is sometimes no organisation involved other than the two local gov-ernments themselves.

In most countries of the North, and increasingly elsewhere, there are nationalassociations of local governments which link cities within that country.These generally originated as voluntary self-help organisations to promote theinterests of the country’s local authorities, for example by lobbying at nationalgovernment level or by taking part in collective negotiations. Some, however,have a basis in national legislation, and many more are recognised in law asnecessary partners for consultation about future legislation affecting local gov-ernment. Increasing numbers of associations have gradually expanded theirareas of activity and have become significantly involved in support to C2C activ-ities, not only within the country but across national boundaries, acting as aclearing-house and intermediary between member cities and cities in othercountries.

Some national associations offer modest support grants to help establish newC2C links, although more commonly they will negotiate with national govern-

5.3.2 C2C supported by community fund-raising

C2C Context: Boston, UK has been linkedwith Jalchatra, Bangladesh since 1975 andraises about $40,000 per year through avariety of promotional activities involvingmany partners for the purpose of supportingprojects focusing on health, education,income generation, and community partici-pation.Outcomes/Lessons: Extensive improve-ments have been made to healthcare andeducational facilities and water supply inJalchatra, and various measures implement-ed to expand rice and textile production.Literacy levels and incomes have improvedsubstantially, and infant mortality has

reduced dramatically. The Boston communi-ty feels close to the Bangladeshi partner andcontributes generously to upholding the link.Issues Arising: Through creative use ofrevolving funds the Jalchatra communityhas contributed to income-generating proj-ects, and it provides labour and materials forthe health and education facilities. Thestrong community base of the link at eachend and the shared decision-making ensureeffective and sustainable use of limitedfunds which can make a major impact onquality of life.Source: UNDP Report ‘The Challenge ofLinking’, 2000

25


5.3.4 A sanitation project in Peru facilitated by an international association

C2C Context: Four small towns in France (Eybens, Gières,Meylan, and Poissat ) have since 1998 been supporting thereconstruction of water and sewerage services in the poorerparts of the district of Independencia in Lima, Peru (population c250,000), where some 20% of the population are not connectedto these services. The purposes of the cooperation are toimprove basic services in the poorest parts of Independencia, tohelp strengthen local government capacity in the Lima metropo-lis, and to develop exchanges of experience between French andPeruvian municipalities.Outcomes / Lessons: The French municipalities, with FrenchGovernment funding, provide the materials and the work is car-ried out by local people under the supervision of the water com-pany, with some construction work and technical assistance

made available by the municipality of Independencia. UTOadministers the funds and coordinates the work via its represen-tative in Peru. Since it started the project has provided freshwater and sewage connections to some 5,000 dwellings. Theproject has led the local population to recognise the value of localself-government and the need for its institutional strengthening.Issues Arising: It has not proved possible to extend the cooper-ation into other fields owing to political and institutional con-straints. However, a new awareness has been generated of thevalue of cleansing public areas, to which the municipality hasresponded with new services. A need is seen to create a widerexchange of experience network in North Lima and to link upwith other support programmes.Source: UTO report

5.3.5 Global C2C network (UEF) incorporating international programmes

In a variety of ways, national governments can provide important support toC2C, both within the country and internationally. Many national governments

have promoted international C2C links by direct support to C2C activities, forinstance through national programmes which may provide a clearing-houseservice for new links or financial support (especially for North-South linkages).This is often but not exclusively, the case when the target partner cities are incountries with linguistic and/or former colonial ties. In Europe, the effort to buildgoodwill among former warring nations led the national governments of Franceand Germany to support town twinning as a way of bringing communitiestogether, and the Franco-German Youth Office still supports exchanges amongtwinned cities.

In recent years a new support approach has emerged, as national governmentsin the North have begun to give cities or their associations a bigger role to playin the implementation of international development policies and programmes(as described in the following paragraph). In the South there have also beensimilar developments. In Tanzania, a national government programme to repli-cate in nine cities the experience of the Sustainable Dar es Salaam project hasprovided explicit and direct support for C2C among the designated cities andbetween them and Dar es Salaam.

The role of international development organisations, both bilateral and mul-tilateral, has been rapidly increasing in importance for C2C. Broadly speaking,the most important shift in attitude has been the growing willingness and desireof development agencies and programmes to work in and with cities. This shiftcan be seen in the changing policies and practices of national (bilateral)development agencies in several countries, such as The Netherlands, Canada,

ments for such financial support. The Dutch local authority association(Vereniging van Nederlandse Gemeenten - VNG) for example is very active insupporting North-South C2C, and has been particularly successful in integrat-ing member cities in the Dutch development assistance programme. TheFlemish regional Government and more recently the Belgian nationalGovernment have established support programmes for C2C in collaborationwith the regional and national associations. The Federation of CanadianMunicipalities has similar achievements, both in promoting C2C and in workingas an agent of the national development cooperation agency.

In addition, there have arisen a variety of international associations of localgovernment, the fundamental purpose of which is to promote the interests oflocal governments around the world. They are the primary mechanisms throughwhich cities can make their voices heard on the world stage. These comprisethe global associations, notably IULA and UTO, sectoral associations such asthe Organisation of Islamic Capitals and Cities or the International Associationof Francophone Mayors, as well as active regional associations of local gov-ernments in Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Arab states. These var-ious associations, several of which are grouped within the WACLAC coordina-tion structure, have been increasingly instrumental in promoting and facilitatingcity-to-city cooperation as well as representing the views of their memberstowards the international support agencies.

5.3.3 A national municipal international cooperation programme administered by a national association of local authorities

C2C Context: The Netherlands Inter-Municipal DevelopmentCooperation Programme was launched in 1994 with the twinaims of strengthening local governance through peer-to-peercooperation and of fostering public support for internationalcooperation in the Netherlands. The programme, jointlydesigned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and theAssociation of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG) and operat-ed by the latter, permits Dutch municipalities to respond torequests from overseas cities for technical and managerialassistance.

Outcomes/Lessons: During the first three years more than110 Dutch municipalities and their partners took part in theprogramme, 400 advisory missions took place, and 500 munic-ipal officers from the South held internships in the Netherlands.The evaluation of the first phase underlined the effectivenessof peer group exchanges in furthering institutional develop-ment. The creation of new consultation and decision-makingbodies between cities and citizens’ organisations in housingprojects, municipal strengthening through innovative environ-mental and housing measures, improved communication

between councillors and citizens and better knowledge ofdemocratic procedures, and the development of an enablingrole for cities towards the private and voluntary sectors, werementioned as positive benefits by cities from the South.Issues Arising: The programme is ongoing and a large pro-portion of the Dutch municipalities are engaged in it, but to datefew other national governments have developed programmesof this kind. The contribution of the programme to establishinglonger-term C2C linkages is worthy of examination.Source: Association of Netherlands Municipalities (VNG)

C2C Context: The Urban Environment Forum (UEF) is a net-work of cities and international support programmes focusedon urban environmental management (see box 3.6.7). TheUEF exists solely as a network, to bring its members togeth-er to share experience and learn together how best toapproach common urban environmental problems. Althoughit originated in an international project (the Sustainable Citiesprogramme of UN-HABITAT), the UEF was established as anindependent network, with UN-HABITAT providing only the

secretariat function.Outcomes/Lessons: The UEF has sponsored a series ofglobal, regional and thematic meetings and workshops, whichhave been quite successful both for experience exchange andfor raising awareness of common tasks and of the potentialfor C2C collaboration. It has been particularly successful inbringing international support programmes together with thecities for whom their support is aimed. Experiences havebeen documented in a series of publications (the EPM Source

Book and meeting reports) and a web-site has been estab-lished.Issues Arising: The UEF shows that C2C practice throughthis type of networking can be quite successful. It also showshow international programme initiatives can lead to widerC2C activities which move beyond the original programme-led undertaking. The challenge, however, is to maintainmomentum and to assure continuity between network events.Source: the Urban Environment Unit, UN-HABITAT

26

5.3.6 C2C activities springing from the BestPractices Programme

C2C Context: The Best Practices and LocalLeadership Programme (coordinated byUN-HABITAT) is an initiative to collect, doc-ument and disseminate information about“good practice” in urban development. It isintegrated with the Dubai Awards forInternational Best Practices, the submis-sions to which are added to the BestPractices database. A dedicated web-siteis the primary mechanism through whichthis information is compiled and accessed.Outcomes/Lessons: As the database hasgrown, and become gradually more sys-tematised, its usefulness for cities hasincreased, and this has led to a steadygrowth in C2C linkages being created.These linkages, however, are not planned

or organised, but are self-created by citiesin response to particular needs anddesires, e.g. a city seeking informationabout best practices in relation to a partic-ular topic can be matched with relevantcity examples.Issues Arising: As the original data com-prises self-written submissions to theDubai Awards, there is a considerable vari-ety in form and content even thought thereporting framework is pre-defined, andthis can hinder the “match-making” func-tion. However, the structure and organisa-tion of the web-site is progressively beingup-graded to facilitate this process of seek-ing and finding the appropriate C2C links.Source: Best Practices Unit, UN-HABITAT

Box 5.3.7 Involvement of a local government association inan international urban development project (the Local-EPMProject, the Philippines)

C2C Context: The Local-EPM Project in thePhilippines is an initiative of the globalSustainable Cities Programme (of UN-HABI-TAT and UNEP). National replication wasbuilt into the original project design, withthe three initial project cities intended tobecome regional focal points from whichthe experience would be extended to othercities. The League of Cities of thePhilippines was brought in as a partner inthe project, specifically with the responsi-bility for facilitating the sharing of experi-ence and supporting the replication of theprocess to other cities.Outcomes/Lessons: The League hasutilised its existing system of “sharingworkshops” as a way of sharing information

and extending awareness and understand-ing, and the Project thereby gained frombeing connected to this well-establishedC2C mechanism. Although the nationalgovernment is the leading partner, it is clearthat practical cooperation and collaborationare most effectively organised in a decen-tralised way, which is the strength of theLeague and its direct C2C role.Issues Arising: The League can onlydevote limited resources of its own to thesubstantial task of supporting replication.Training in the project concepts and meth-ods, as well as financial and technicalassistance to the League, will be required.Source: the SCP team, UN-HABITAT, andproject consultants

5.3.8 Moving professional association activities towardssupport for direct C2C (USA)

the UK and others. For example, Dutch development assistance includes pro-grammes which are administered by the VNG (the Dutch local authority associ-ation - see box 5.3.3 above). Equally, British development assistance hasresponded to proposals put forward by cities and their associations by provid-ing limited support to C2C via a Local Authority Technical Links scheme withinits much broader Know-How Fund to assist democratic development in Centraland Eastern Europe and, on a broadly similar basis more recently, via theCommonwealth Local Government Good Practice Scheme administered by theCommonwealth Local Government Forum (which is an international networkheadquartered in the UK).

The potential of international (multilateral) development agencies for sup-port to C2C has slowly begun to be realised, as they have changed their atti-tudes and practices in relation to cities, especially in response to the urbancomponents of Agenda 21 (since Rio 1992) and to the Habitat Agenda (sinceIstanbul 1996). The basic shift has been their growing willingness to workdirectly with cities, with local governments and their local partners, rather thanworking exclusively through national government agencies. In the past decadea wide range of programmes have been put in place by different UN agencies,the World Bank, the regional development banks, the EU, and others - all aimedat directly addressing urban issues and working with cities. Most of these,however, remain initiatives in which the linkage is simply between the interna-tional programme and the city, usually a one-way link not involving any othercities. For example, the Urban Management Programme (UN-HABITAT/UNDP/World Bank), the Healthy Cities Programme (WHO), the CitiesAlliance (UN-HABITAT/World Bank), the Safer Cities Programme (UN-HABITAT),and the Urban Governance Initiative (UNDP) have developed strong and diverselinks through working with cities, but are only just beginning to evolve pro-gramme elements or activities which are specifically focused on city-to-citycooperation. The potential benefits of direct exchanges of experience andexpertise among the cities involved in these programmes must be considerable.

In a few cases, however, direct support to C2C activity has evolved out of the orig-inal programme-to-city activities. For example, in the case of the SustainableCities Programme (UN-HABITAT/UNEP), support to global and regional meetingsand exchanges of experience became an important element, latterly becomingintegrated with the Urban Environment Forum, a global network to promote andsupport direct city-to-city exchange which developed out of related work in UN-HABITAT. Similarly, some support for direct C2C has evolved out of the BestPractices and Local Leadership Programme of UN-HABITAT, as an extension of itsbasic focus on networking for information exchange. Even more rarely, someinternational development programmes have begun to involve national associa-tions of local governments as direct partners, specifically to promote C2C link-ages, as happened with an SCP-initiated project in the Philippines.

An interestingly different approach to support for C2C has come through pro-fessional associations concerned with cities - associations of municipal man-agers, planners, city engineers, etc. Such associations are usually national,sometimes regional, in scope and are primarily concerned with promoting anddeveloping the shared professional interests of their members. However, someof them have been moving toward a more explicit outreach activity, in which theprofessional association, either alone or in partnership with national associa-tions or national development agencies, provides direct technical support tocity-to-city initiatives. In addition, some combined trade and professional asso-ciations are also discovering the potential of utilising the expertise of theirmembers to support C2C activities. The time would now seem to be ripe to drawthese groupings of ‘urban professionals’, which are still classified in the UN sys-tem among the NGOs, more actively into the policy dialogue on C2C and thedesign of future C2C support programmes.

Finally, although it has not traditionally been a strong focus of their activity, inter-national non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have started to become involvedin C2C, usually as an extension of their normal work with cities. There are exam-ples of this involving the NGO working with or on behalf of a development agency.

hold very large annual meetings, which areboth trade fairs and technical exchangeevents and function as large and diverseC2C meetings. Recently, the AWMA estab-lished an International Urban EnvironmentalInfrastructure Forum, specifically to bring incities from the South, as well as interna-tional support programmes, for direct C2Ctechnical exchange.Outcomes/Lessons: Two internationalmeetings have been held (the second inassociation with UNEP and under theumbrella of the UEF) and both succeeded inextensive C2C information exchange on thetopic of urban air quality management. Theparticipation of cities from the USA, partic-ularly those with no previous history ofinternational involvement, was a key fea-ture, as was that of various internationaldevelopment programmes.Issues Arising: As the North-South C2Clinkages from the international forum werea new undertaking for the AWMA, therewas not yet a clear mechanism for follow-up, and this has somewhat reduced thelonger-term impact; steps are underway toprovide a more durable mechanism forensuring continuity.Source: UEF Salt Lake City 2000 - MeetingReport (UN-HABITAT and UNEP)

C2C Context: The Air and WasteManagement Association (AWMA) is a pro-fessional and trade body in the USA whichbrings together cities, private companies,and professionals who are concerned withair quality and waste management. They

27


General:

• Cities see tangible benefits for themselves and their citizens inengaging in international exchange. The development of C2C fromthe original culturally-based town twinning concepts to the presentmuch broader range of motivations related to urban governance in allits aspects could not have occurred without the keen interest andactive commit-ment of elected members and officials.

• Formal city council resolutions of support for a C2C project help buildcommitment and prevent possible disruption caused by changes inpolitical leadership.

• The establishment of clear objectives and work plans between par-ticipating cities is critical to the overall success of the programmes.The work plan provides a guidepost to the partnership, whichrequires the cities to stay on course through the term of the partner-ship. Longer-term goals should be set in terms of sustainable devel-opment, re-ciprocity, equity and social justice, with realistic stagesbeing defined for progress to-wards them. Clear definition of mutu-al expectations is paramount.

• C2C initiatives, defined by the cities themselves on the basis of theirown assessment of their needs, tend to be less formal and bureau-cratic and more flexible than programmes led by external agencies.However, the time required to develop a true understanding of thebehaviour patterns, working styles and ethics of the partner localauthority should not be underestimated.

6.1 Key Factors and Trends in C2C Practice

The analysis of C2C practices set out in Chapter 4 illustrates the arrayof linkages existing within and between the continents, the wide diver-sity of activities and approaches, the extensive range of partnersinvolved or potentially involved, and the breadth of the thematic contentbeing addressed. It is hoped that this comparison of practices on thebasis of a systematic analytical framework will provide cities and localauthority associations with an accessible guide to the C2C scene. Sucha guide, when further developed with full illustrative material, shouldboth help new entrants to find their way more easily and enable thosealready involved to identify and explore relevant new areas.

It is a fact of life that both the existing C2C links and the various sup-port schemes have grown up incrementally over the years, eachaccording to their own rationales. Inevitably, the present spread of C2Crelationships is complex, with some overlaps but also many gaps. Thiscomplexity has meant that the range of opportunities available to citieshas often been difficult for them to assess without access to tailoredadvice and guidance.

Against this background, the analysis, together with the commentariesprovided by a number of associations and programmes, suggests thatthe following factors and trends in navigating C2C practice can be notedin relation to the five categories used for the analysis:-

Issues arising from Experience6.

28

South-South C2C has proved tobe an effective way to transferskills and technology, as thepartners are geographically,socially and culturally similar

Geographical Scope:

• C2C has spread widely within the North, where cities generally haveclear legal powers to commit resources and the political motivationto build up cooperation.

• Development policies of national governments and internationalagencies are increasingly recognising the impact of urbanisationtrends and giving more emphasis to addressing urban issues. Theyare more ready to see cities as partners in delivering effective coop-eration in both East and South, and cities are eager to respond.

• North-South C2C practices are beneficial to both partners, denotingmuch more than a one-way transfer of resources and expertise tothe South. The Northern partners gain new ways of looking at issuesand resources, which can widen their horizons, and they oftenbecome advocates for the cause of development in their own com-munities and countries. Confidence-building may be needed on bothsides, and the positive benefits for the Northern partner should berecognised.

• Relatively few cities in the North have personnel trained in overseasdevelopment issues. Where staff members are to be newly involvedin partnerships in the South, they need help in developing awarenessconcerning cultural differences and sensitivities, material disparities,political nuances, coping strategies, techniques for listening to part-ners, and differing value systems and priorities.

• South-South C2C has proved to be an effective way to transfer skillsand technology, as the partners are geographically, socially and cul-turally similar. However, it is difficult to initiate and sustain at citylevel alone, owing to limitations of resources and/or legal powers,and is currently most often advanced through involvement in supportprogrammes.

• South-South C2C within countries can also be facilitated by interna-tional support programmes, and is needed in view of the limitedcapacity of local authority associations and professional networks toprovide for such interchange.

• South-North C2C is a largely untapped concept but has significantpotential in facilitating sustainable development.

Cooperation Structures:

• Networks of cities having shared characteristics or pursuing issues ofcommon concern provide valuable opportunities for C2C to developincrementally. The benefits of many networking projects could useful-ly be spread more widely through scaling up and replication exercises.

• There appears to be greater emphasis upon technical and profes-sional exchanges than upon exchanges between political leaders, yeteffective local leadership would normally be a key component of suc-cessful decentralisation processes. Projects engaging both political

leaders and professional staff on the basis of a clear set of sharedobjectives and work plans seem to offer the best chances of success.

• Peer-to-peer exchanges offer particularly effective means of trans-ferring experience and expertise. A number of available databases ofexperts and good practices help to provide access to appropriateexperience and know-how, although the complexities of transferringestablished practices to a new context should not be underestimat-ed. C2C experience can also make a substantive contribution to stafftraining and development.

• The existence of long-term links between cities which have carried outa partnership project provides an in-built maintenance capacity for theproject after any externally funded element has been completed.

Active Participants:

• Stakeholders in the private sector, NGOs/CBOs and academia areplaying a still limited but increasingly active part in C2C practices.Their commitment can be important for the ongoing sustainability ofprojects. An interdisciplinary team can help promote better under-standing of respective roles and responsibilities.

• Joint action between local authorities and NGOs/CBOs can play a keyrole in ensuring the appropriateness of development projects to theneeds of local communities and thus assure their sustainability.

• The important role of national associations of local authorities infacilitating C2C links and providing for exchanges of experience andbest practices within countries should be recognised. C2C-type ini-tiatives to strengthen the capacity of these associations to negotiatewith central governments and to provide support services to theirmember cities can make a significant contribution to meeting devel-opment objectives.

• Cities may need to take care not to multiply their international com-mitments beyond a manageable level. Partnerships require consis-tent and reliable inputs from all parties.

Focus in the Urban Management Process:

• Cities must have constitutional stability and some core financial andhuman resources capacity in order to be able to make best use ofC2C opportunities.

• Cities are best able to engage in C2C initiatives where they have theability to apply resources of their own or those generated within thelocal community to this purpose.

• Systematic evaluation of existing C2C activities is lacking at themoment and is important to improve current practice, with sensitivebut structured monitoring of active partnerships. This could help toavoid repeating past mistakes and failures with all the bad experi-ences these can generate.

29


30

6.2 Key Features and Trends in C2C Support

Through its systematic comparison of C2C support options, Chapter 5 hasshown the wide range of support which can be given to city-to-city partner-ships. Indeed, even with the limited examples so far available, Chapter 5 showsclearly the great diversity of different ways in which C2C can be supported. Italso shows that this diversity is increasing, with newer forms of support for C2Csteadily being developed and brought into play. Within this general context ofdiversity and increasing complexity, a number a common features and trendsmay be identified, grouped under the three main headings from Chapter 5.

Facilitating Structures:

• National associations of local governments are important contributors to theprocesses of C2C, both within countries and internationally. Many of theirmainstream activities serve to facilitate C2C within their own countries and,especially in the North, they are major players in promoting and facilitatingC2C links with other countries. In some cases, they administer national C2Csupport schemes or work closely with development programmes or agen-cies.

• There is a growing trend towards involving national associations in the Southas partners in development initiatives precisely because of their potential tofacilitate C2C. However, institutional weaknesses of many national associ-ations in the South need to be recognised as a serious constraint.

• International associations of local governments (global or regional) have beensupporting C2C partnerships for a long time, and their activities are expand-ing. On the one hand, they have joined together (through WACLAC) to pro-vide a common front for political negotiations and lobbying, especially in theglobal arena. On the other hand, they are beginning to work with UN andother agencies at the operational level, to combine their experience in C2C

linkages with the new approaches to development cooperation increasinglybeing promoted. This focus on operational support needs further develop-ment, which can most usefully be done through the establishment of stillcloser partnership between the representative associations and UN-HABITATas the UN’s designated focal point for collaboration with local authorities,under the aegis of the United Nations Advisory Committee of LocalAuthorities.

• National governments have generally not been very active in promoting C2C,with the exception of some European governments supporting 'good-will'twinning and promoting ties with former colonies. In recent times, however,some national governments in the North have launched C2C support pro-grammes as part of national aid policy. In the South, however, there has beenrelatively little interest in C2C on the part of national governments, and effortsshould be made at this level to increase governments’ awareness and under-standing of the potential of C2C.

• Bi-lateral (national) development organisations are gradually growing inter-ested in supporting C2C activities, particularly by showing an increasing will-ingness to involve their national associations of local governments directly aspartners in particular development initiatives.

• Multilateral (international) development organisations have over the pastdecade become more active in working directly with cities and their associ-ations, but on the whole have not incorporated the potential of C2C linkagesas an integral part of their work. Some programmes, however, particularlythose of UN-HABITAT, have begun to incorporate explicit C2C linkages andpartnerships into their development initiatives, and this new approach shouldbe reinforced and extended.

• Professional associations of urban practitioners are potentially significantsources of support for C2C, and their expertise and networks need to bedrawn into the process, even though they have not been particularly active inthis field to date. New ways need to be found of associating them in thedevelopment of UN policies on urban issues.

National associations of local governments are important contributorsto the processes of C2C, both within countries and internationally

31

The most important sources of funds for C2C activities arethe participating cities' own budgets

Funding and Resources

• Democratisation and decentralisation trends in many countries of the Eastand South, reinforced by the international community, require the strength-ening of local government and enhancement of its accountability to local cit-izens. This trend makes it necessary to expand capacity-building measuresat the local level, and C2C offers a range of effective mechanisms.

• Successful funding of C2C activities, especially where this involves morethan traditional twinning, increasingly requires the pooling of financialresources from a variety of different support sources. The ability to assem-ble a 'consortium' of funding sources in support of C2C is likely to be a crit-ical skill for the future.

• The most important sources of funds for C2C activities are the participatingcities' own budgets. Local authority budgets are usually under pressure,however, and it is not easy to ensure an allocation of funds for this purpose.Nonetheless, for long-term sustainability of C2C partnerships, own-funding iscritical. Even in low-income cities it is desirable to have visible counterpartcontributions, however modest.

• There is also a potentially important financial support role for private sectorbusiness and industry, and other local institutions, community fund-raising,etc. These local partners are an under-utilised resource, yet in some citiestheir involvement has been very successful. In addition, it sometimes possi-ble to find charitable trusts or foundations which provide financial support forsome aspects of C2C, such as international travel and exchanges.

• Probably the most important financial support option for promoting C2C inthe South is the utilisation of international development programme or proj-ect funds. Although so far seldom focused directly on C2C, such pro-grammes or projects have begun to accept that C2C linkages can be animportant element in successful and sustainable implementation of develop-ment initiatives. As a result, many new approaches are being worked out,and it is likely that in future there will be expanding scope for internationaldevelopment funding for C2C activities.

• Cities in some of the Least Developed Countries stand to gain substantialbenefits from C2C but the constraints upon their administrative and mana-

gerial capacity and resources for effective absorption of support and imple-mentation require special attention.

Support Modalities

• The most familiar modality of C2C support is probably the sort of social, cul-tural and good-will activities which have developed extensively through citytwinning and similar programmes. However, more diverse forms of supportto C2C have been rapidly developing in recent years, particularly in the con-text of local capacity-building initiatives, and these can be expected to con-tinue growing in importance.

• The exchange of specialised staff and of technical know-how has been anotable form of C2C support in the past and remains so today. Indeed, in thecontext of cities in the South, these exchanges (which can be two-way) areincreasing in importance. They can provide highly focused support in responseto very specific needs and are usually both successful and widely appreciated.

• Systematic documentation of good practice in urban management and devel-opment is a relatively recent development but one which is growing rapidlyin importance. It is a specialised form of information exchange which alsoincludes some of the characteristics of a network. More steps need to betaken to draw the policy consequences from best practice experience intoadaptations of national legislation and regulations.

• Networking as a form of support to C2C has excellent potential for bringingtogether cities in ways which one-on-one cooperation cannot. With a proper-ly organised network, cities can link with one another in various combina-tions, depending upon the topic of interest, and can join with as many othercities as have common interests to share. The linkages are thus not institu-tionalised, but they are valuable and useful nonetheless, precisely becausethey quickly respond to demand. It can be expected that networks will con-tinue to grow in importance.

• Considerable benefits for practitioners in the South and the East could bedrawn from the results of the extensive networking activities of cities in theNorth on issues of urban management.


32

There is thus a strong convergence in thinking and practice which is bringing the UN,especially UN-HABITAT... together with cities, notably through the joint promotion ofC2C approaches.

6.3 Priorities in C2C Practice and Support Policies

A preliminary analysis has been carried out on the replies provided by interna-tional local authority associations and networks and by multi- and bi-lateralsupport organisations (as summarised in Annexes 2 and 3) to questionnairesaddressing the main characteristics of their involvement in C2C. This serves asa first attempt to highlight the duplications and the gaps in current provision andto indicate to C2C practitioners, support programmes and donors alike the areaswhere synergies may best be exploited.

The following tables 6.3.1, 6.3.2, and 6.3.3 are based on the (still incomplete)selection of responses received to date, and will be updated in the light of thesubmissions yet to be received. A number of salient points seem to emerge fromthe analysis at this stage:• While all the major areas of city capacity-building are covered to a degree,

individual profiles of associations and support organisations show that theydiffer markedly in their scope and order of priorities, highlighting the com-plementarity of their respective roles.

• South-South cooperation is given significantly more emphasis by supportorganisations than by associations.

• In terms of the geographical focus of support programmes, a significant pro-portion are global in scope while those which are regionally oriented arespread broadly equally between Africa, Asia and Latin America, with lowerscores for the Middle East and North Africa and for Central and EasternEurope and the former Soviet Union.

• In terms of urban management functions, the areas of information exchange,training and provision of expertise feature more strongly than the more com-plex areas of policy development and implementation, institutional strength-ening and change management; it is worth noting in this context that themanagement of change and effective use of external support, which scoresparticularly low, is one of the primary focus areas of UN-HABITAT's input tothe World Summit on Sustainable Development via the World Urban Forum.

• Among the range of thematic concerns, municipal finance, environment and

economic development rank relatively high, while housing/shelter andhealth/education rank rather lower: social/cultural concerns rank consider-ably higher for associations than for support organisations.

• The promotion of group working and networks ranks slightly ahead of thepromotion of one-on-one links.

• As to the partners actively participating in the operation of C2C, the localauthorities and their associations are the most involved, NGOs/CBOs and theacademic/research sector feature quite significantly, while the involvement ofthe private sector is very low.

A fuller picture of the scope and priorities of each association and supportorganisation may be obtained by examination of their respective profiles inAnnexes 2 and 3.

General – Convergence

A final point is worth emphasising here. Looking over the different forms ofsupport to C2C and the ways in which they have been evolving and changing,it is clear that the UN’s emerging new development cooperation paradigm (bot-tom-up partnerships based on information exchange and mutual learning andcommitted to developing ideas from practice) is very well-suited for close col-laboration with cities and for active support to C2C. There is thus a strong con-vergence in thinking and practice which is bringing the UN, especially UN-HABI-TAT as its lead agency on urban affairs, together with cities, notably through thejoint promotion of C2C approaches.

Cities and their associations should become increasingly closely associated inthe decision-making by international agencies, thus helping ensure that supportis more demand-led than supply-driven. A possible mechanism for institution-alising this dialogue between cities and their associations, support programmesand donors around a strategic information system is put forward in the firstchapter of this Report.

Afric

an U

nion

Of L

ocal

Auth

oriti

es2

11

22

11

11

12

11

12

22

21

21

12

22

22

22

21

22

22

12

12

11

22

21

11

22

22

11

22

2

22

22

22

22

12

22

12

12

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

21

11

11

11

11

11

21

21

12

11

21

21

12

22

12

12

22

12

12

12

22

22

22

22

21

21

22

22

22

22

22

21

12

22

11

12

21

22

21

22

2

21

11

12

12

21

11

12

11

21

21

12

11

2

12

22

11

21

12

21

22

12

21

12

21

12

11

11

12

11

22

11

12

22

22

11

12

2

22

22

21

22

22

12

22

12

22

12

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

21

11

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

2

12

11

12

11

21

22

12

21

11

12

22

22

12

22

22

12

22

11

21

11

22

22

22

11

22

22

22

22

12

12

Com

mon

wea

lth L

ocal

Gove

rnm

ent F

orum

Coun

cil F

or E

urop

ean

Mun

icip

aliti

es A

nd R

egio

nsIn

tern

atio

nal C

ounc

il Fo

r Loc

alEn

viro

nmen

tal I

nitia

tives

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

on

Of L

ocal

Aut

horit

ies

Latin

-am

eric

an F

eder

atio

n of

Citie

s,M

un.a

nd A

ssc.

(FLA

CMA)

City

net

Euro

citie

sEu

rope

an S

usta

inab

le

Citie

s An

d To

wns

Cam

paig

n

Med

safe

Net

wor

k

Sist

er C

ities

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Tow

ns A

nd D

evel

opm

ent

Inte

rnat

iona

l City

-Cou

nty

Man

agem

ent A

ssoc

iatio

n

92%

Over

all S

core

(p

erce

nt o

f max

.pos

s.)

73%

38%

69%

46%

42%

65%

54%

35%

54%

58%

46%

38%

46%

65%

38%

46%

31%

46%

77%

62%

96%

42%

31%

42%

69%

65%

73%

69%

88%

73%

65%

27%

35%

23%

23%

23%

15%

31%

54%

38%

38%

38%

15%

4%

46%

46%

0%

0%

8%

0%

0%

1.information and technical expertise

2.policy development & decision-making

3.policy implementation

4.institutional strengthening & HR development

5.managing change and using external support

1.municipal finance

2.environment

3.urban infrastructure & services

4.housing/shelter

5.gender / poverty

6.employment / economic development

7.security / disaster management

8.health / education

9.social / cultural

1.North-South (from richer to poorer)

2.South-South (among LDCs)

3.North-North (among richer countries)

4.West-East (from richer to trans.countries)

5.Global (no specific orientation)

1.One-on-One (twinning,sister cities)

2.Groups (regional,thematic,groupings,etc)

1.the local authority

2.NGOs and/or CBOs

3.private sector

4.academic / research

5.national associations of local government

1.direct C2C and other decent.cooperation

2.network support

3.demonstration-replication and guidelines

4.Docum.and dissem.of best practices

5.provision of specialised expertise and tools

6.training and human resource development

7.strategic capital investments

1.Global (not limited to specific regions)

2.Africa

3.Asia

4.Latin America & Caribbean

5.Middle East & North Africa

6.Central & Eastern Europe / former USSR

1.programme’s own budget

2.local partner budget

3.development project/programme funds

4.grants and loans from other sources

5.self-funding activities

6.foundations,trust funds

1.local authority/association

2.City network

3.Bilateral aid organisation

4.multilateral aid organisation

5.professional association

6.international NGO

7.private sector organisation

1.1

urba

n m

anag

emen

tfu

nctio

ns

1.2

them

atic

con

cern

s

1.3

orie

ntat

ion

oflin

kage

s

1.4

mod

ality

1.5

oper

atio

nal

partn

ers

2.1

supp

ort m

odal

ity2.

2ge

ogra

phic

focu

s2.

3fu

ndin

g an

d re

sour

ces

2.4

type

of s

uppo

rting

inst

itutio

n

1.Ci

ty p

riorit

ies

and

prac

tices

add

ress

ed

Tabl

e 6.

3.1:

Foc

us a

nd M

odal

ity L

ocal

Cap

acity

Dev

elop

men

t Sup

port

Pro

vide

d by

13 p

rogr

amm

es fr

om a

ssoc

iatio

ns o

f loc

al a

utho

ritie

s an

d ci

ty n

etw

orks

2.Ty

pe o

f sup

port

pro

vide

d

focu

s/m

odal

ity o

f prim

ary

emph

asis

2fo

cus/

mod

ality

of s

econ

dary

em

phas

is1

City

Net

wor

k Ca

ucas

us (G

TZ)

11

12

21

11

22

12

12

21

22

12

12

21

21

22

22

12

12

22

11

22

11

22

22

21

2

12

21

12

11

22

12

11

12

12

11

22

21

12

11

12

2

11

12

11

21

11

22

12

21

21

12

11

11

21

21

21

22

12

12

11

11

11

22

12

11

22

11

22

11

2

22

21

12

22

22

22

22

12

12

12

22

12

22

12

12

21

11

2

12

22

12

22

12

11

12

21

22

11

21

12

22

22

12

11

2

12

21

22

12

11

12

11

21

22

12

12

21

22

22

22

22

22

12

22

22

22

22

21

11

11

11

11

11

11

12

12

12

11

11

11

11

11

12

11

22

12

12

12

12

21

21

11

11

22

22

22

21

11

11

21

11

21

22

22

11

12

11

11

21

11

11

21

11

11

2

21

21

22

22

22

22

22

21

22

21

11

22

21

22

21

12

22

2

21

12

12

12

22

11

12

12

12

22

22

21

12

22

22

21

22

21

12

11

21

22

Loca

l Aut

horit

y Te

chni

cal L

inks

Sche

me

(DFI

D/LG

IB)

Asso

ciat

ion-

To-A

ssoc

iatio

nCa

paci

ty-B

uild

ing

(GTZ

)St

reng

then

ing

Loca

l Gov

erna

nce

-M

unic

ipal

Tw

inni

ng (G

TZ)

Urba

n Qu

ality

Pro

gram

me

(GTZ

Indo

nesi

a)Be

st P

ract

ices

And

Loc

al L

eade

rshi

pPr

ogra

mm

e (U

N-HA

BITA

T)Gl

obal

Cam

paig

n On

Urb

anGo

vern

ance

(UN-

HABI

TAT)

Mun

icip

al D

evel

opm

ent P

rogr

amm

e(It

alia

n pa

rtner

ship

s)Lo

cal L

eade

rshi

p An

d M

anag

emen

tTr

aini

ng (U

N-HA

BITA

T)M

anag

ing

The

Envi

ronm

ent L

ocal

ly In

Subs

ahar

an A

frica

(WB/

EU)

Med

iterr

anea

n Ac

tion

Plan

(MCS

D/EU

)Pu

blic

Priv

ate

Partn

ersh

ips

For T

heUr

ban

Env

ironm

ent (

UNDP

)

TCDC

Tra

nsfe

r Pro

cess

Of

Good

/Bes

t Pra

ctic

es (C

ityne

t)

Supp

ort T

o So

lidar

ity

Amon

g Ci

ties

(UNV

/IULA

)

Urba

n En

viro

nmen

t For

um

(UN-

HABI

TAT/

UNEP

)

70%

Over

all S

core

(p

erce

nt o

f max

.pos

s.)

53%

37%

87%

43%

57%

63%

67%

40%

43%

53%

30%

20%

23%

50%

60%

13%

47%

23%

63%

73%

97%

57%

30%

37%

60%

67%

67%

37%

47%

67%

67%

3%

53%

37%

27%

17%

17%

33%

53%

53%

60%

30%

7%

17%

0%

0%

33%

67%

0%

0%

0%

1.information and technical expertise

2.policy development & decision-making

3.policy implementation

4.institutional strengthening & HR development

5.managing change and using external support

1.municipal finance

2.environment

3.urban infrastructure & services

4.housing/shelter

5.gender / poverty

6.employment / economic development

7.security / disaster management

8.health / education

9.social / cultural

1.North-South (from richer to poorer)

2.South-South (among LDCs)

3.North-North (among richer countries)

4.West-East (from richer to trans.countries)

5.Global (no specific orientation)

1.One-on-One (twinning,sister cities)

2.Groups (regional,thematic,groupings,etc)

1.the local authority

2.NGOs and/or CBOs

3.private sector

4.academic / research

5.national associations of local government

1.direct C2C and other decent.cooperation

2.network support

3.demonstration-replication and guidelines

4.Docum.and dissem.of best practices

5.provision of specialised expertise and tools

6.training and human resource development

7.strategic capital investments

1.Global (not limited to specific regions)

2.Africa

3.Asia

4.Latin America & Caribbean

5.Middle East & North Africa

6.Central & Eastern Europe / former USSR

1.programme’s own budget

2.local partner budget

3.development project/programme funds

4.grants and loans from other sources

5.self-funding activities

6.foundations,trust funds

1.local authority/association

2.City network

3.Bilateral aid organisation

4.multilateral aid organisation

5.professional association

6.international NGO

7.private sector organisation

1.1

urba

n m

anag

emen

tfu

nctio

ns

1.2

them

atic

con

cern

s

1.3

orie

ntat

ion

oflin

kage

s

1.4

mod

ality

1.5

oper

atio

nal

partn

ers

2.1

supp

ort m

odal

ity2.

2ge

ogra

phic

focu

s2.

3fu

ndin

g an

d re

sour

ces

2.4

type

of s

uppo

rting

inst

itutio

n

1.Ci

ty p

riorit

ies

and

prac

tices

add

ress

ed

Tabl

e 6.

3.2:

Foc

us a

nd M

odal

ity L

ocal

Cap

acity

Dev

elop

men

t Sup

port

Pro

vide

d by

15 p

rogr

amm

es fr

om m

ulti-

and

bila

tera

l dev

elop

men

t org

anis

atio

ns2.

Type

of s

uppo

rt p

rovi

ded

focu

s/m

odal

ity o

f prim

ary

emph

asis

2fo

cus/

mod

ality

of s

econ

dary

em

phas

is1

1.1

urba

n m

anag

emen

tfu

nctio

ns

1.2

them

atic

con

cern

s

1.3

orie

ntat

ion

oflin

kage

s

1.4

mod

ality

1.5

oper

atio

nal

partn

ers

2.1

supp

ort m

odal

ity2.

2ge

ogra

phic

focu

s2.

3fu

ndin

g an

d re

sour

ces

2.4

type

of s

uppo

rting

inst

itutio

n

1. C

ity P

riorit

ies

And

Prac

tices

Add

ress

edTabl

e 6.

3.3:

Foc

us a

nd M

odal

ity o

f Loc

al C

apac

ity D

evel

opm

ent S

uppo

rtas

pro

vide

d by

28

inte

rnat

iona

l pr

ogra

mm

es

2. T

ype

Of S

uppo

rt P

rovi

ded

0%10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Inform

ation

and

tech

nical

expe

rtise

Polic

y de

velop

ment &

dec

ision

-mak

ing

Polic

y im

plemen

tation

Institu

tiona

l stre

ngthe

ning,

HR d

evelo

pmen

t

Manag

ing c

hang

e an

d us

ing e

xterna

l sup

port

Munici

pal f

inanc

e

Envir

onmen

t

Urba

ninf

rastru

cture

& serv

ices

Hous

ing/sh

elter

Gend

er / p

overt

y

Emplo

ymen

t / e

cono

micde

velop

ment

Secu

rity /

disas

ter m

anag

emen

t

Healt

h / e

duca

tion

Socia

l / c

ultura

l

North-

South

(fr

om ri

cher

to po

orer)

South

-Sou

th (a

mong

LDCs

)

North-

North

(amon

g ric

her c

ountr

ies)

West-E

ast

(from

rich

er to

trans

. cou

ntries

)

Globa

l (no

spe

cific

orien

tation

)

One-o

n-One

(tw

inning

, sist

er cit

ies)

Grou

ps

(regio

nal,

themati

c, gro

uping

s, etc

)

The

local

autho

rity

NGOs

and/o

r CBO

s

Priva

te se

ctor

Acad

emic

/ res

earch

Nation

al as

socia

tions

of l

ocal

gove

rnmen

t

Direct

C2C

and

other

dece

nt. c

oope

ration

Network

sup

port

Demon

strati

on-re

plica

tion

and

guide

lines

Docum

. and

diss

em. o

f bes

t prac

tices

Prov

ision

of sp

ecial

ised

expe

rtise

and

tools

Traini

ng a

nd h

uman

reso

urce

deve

lopmen

t

Strate

gic c

apita

linves

tmen

ts

Globa

l (no

tlimite

d to

spec

ific re

gions

)Afr

icaAs

ia

Latin

Ameri

ca &

Cari

bbea

n

Middle

East

& Nort

hAfr

ica

Centr

al& E

aster

n Eu

rope

/ form

er US

SR

Prog

ramme’

s ow

n bu

dget

Loca

l part

ner b

udge

t

Develo

pmen

t proj

ect/p

rogram

me fun

ds

Gran

ts an

d loa

ns fr

om o

ther s

ource

s

Self-

fundin

g ac

tivitie

s

Foun

datio

ns, t

rust f

unds

Loca

l auth

ority/

asso

ciatio

n

City

netw

ork

Bilate

ral a

id org

anisa

tion

Multila

teral

aid o

rganis

ation

Profe

ssion

al as

socia

tion

Intern

ation

al NGO

Priva

te se

ctor o

rganis

ation

Supp

ort

from

Mul

ti an

d Bi

late

ral

Orga

nisa

tions

Supp

ort

from

Loc

al A

utho

rity

Asso

ciat

ions

& N

etw

orks

36

Information SourcesFurther information about any of the matters discussed in this reportmay be obtained from the organisations responsible for its production(details given on reverse of the title page). The following is a selectivelist of publications from which material was drawn for the purposes ofthe report. It may be supplemented by the periodical publications andthe websites of the international institutions and agencies, the interna-tional, regional and national associations of local authorities, and of thecities themselves.

CITYNET• Guidelines for Transferring Effective Practices – a Practical Manual

for South-South Cooperation, 1998

Commonwealth Local Government Forum• Partnerships in Governance – People-Centred Development in the

New Millennium, 2000

European Centre For Development Policy Management• Decentralised Cooperation and Joint Action: Building Partnerships

Between Local Government and Civil Society in Africa, 2000

European Commission• A Europe of Towns and Cities – a Practical Guide to Town Twinning,

1997• TACIS City Twinning Programme Compendium of Projects, 1998

International City-County Management Association• Resource Cities Program Annual Report 2001

International Union Of Local Authorities (IULA)• Trilateral Municipal Cooperation – Who? What? Where?, 1996• Local Challenges to Global Change – A Global Perspective on

Municipal International Cooperation, 1995• Into the New Millennium – A Framework for Action in Municipal

International Co-operation, 1996• Municipal International Cooperation - The Role of Government in

Decentralised Development Cooperation, 1999

Local Government International Bureau• Know-How Fund Local Authority Technical Links Scheme, 1999

Metropolis• 6th Worldwide Congress Report: A Network of Cities for World

Citizens, 1999

Towns And Development• Berlin Charter and Action Agenda, 1992

Towns And Development, International Council For LocalEnvironmental Initiatives, IULA• Partnerships for Sustainable Development (Africa, Asia, Europe)

UN-HABITAT• The Habitat Agenda, Istanbul 1996• Environmental Planning and Management Source book:• Volume 1: Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda• Volume 2: City Experiences and International Support• Volume 3: Urban Environment Forum Directory• Chengdu International Conference on Urban Construction and the

Environment for the 21st Century: Conference Report, 2001• Political Resolution for Istanbul +5: Cities and other Human

Settlements in the new Millennium, 2001• City-to-City Cooperation: Issues Arising from Experience, 2001• Sustainable Urbanisation – Achieving Agenda 21, 2002• Coalition for Sustainable Urbanisation – Partnership Commitments

for Achieving Agenda 21, 2002

UNDP• The Challenges of Linking – City-to-City Cooperation as a

Development Modality for the 21st Century, Interim Report, 2000• Human Poverty Report 2000• Guide to Successful City-to-City Cooperation, Exposure Draft, 2001

United Towns Organisation• Europe-Central America Decentralised Co-operation Programme,

2000

World Associations Of Cities And Local Authorities Co-ordination• WACLA I Declaration, 1996• WACLA II Declaration, 2001

ANNE

X 1

ANNEX 1

37

ANNEX 2ANNEX 2

InternationalAssociations andNetworks of Citiesand Local AuthoritiesAs the main Report has shown, the principle of developing internation-al cooperation among cities is strongly promoted by the internationalassociations of local authorities, and its implementation is in manycases facilitated by one or other of such associations or more spe-cialised networks of cities. While the first international associationswere set up in the early part of the last century, their international advo-cacy and service provision roles have developed rapidly in recent yearswith the widespread moves towards decentralisation and democratisa-tion and the growing international awareness of sustainability issuesand urbanisation trends. The emergence of more specialised sectoralnetworks of local authorities has been a notable recent development,partly as a result of the growing involvement of the international insti-tutions in areas of policy and practice for which local authorities haveresponsibility.

National associations of local authorities and their central serviceagencies also play a significant part in facilitating C2C practice, oftenproviding advice, support and partner search brokerage for theirmembers. Such services are currently much more developed in theNorth than the South, and this Report recognises that capacity-build-ing among associations has an important contribution to make to theprocess of democratic decentralisation as a whole and to the devel-opment of C2C in particular. It is beyond the scope of this Report toexamine the role and activities of the hundreds of national associa-tions, but most of them are in any case linked with one or other of theinternational associations examined here. Two associations consist-ing predominantly of members in the United States are, however, pro-filed here for their substantial C2C focus and their outreach to mem-bers in other countries.

To demonstrate the range and diversity of associations and networksset up to serve local authorities, this Annex provides a representativeselection of international associations, drawn from the organisationsthemselves, their websites, and a variety of other sources. Each organ-isation is described separately, in a standard format which provides thebasic information together with a summary analysis based on thisReport’s analytical framework. The brief “profiles” in this Annex canonly give a limited amount of information, of course, and readers seek-ing further details are encouraged to contact the persons listed.

International Associations and Networks are described in this Annex(in alphabetical order of names in their main working language – information on organisation identified in italics is still expected):1. Africities2. African Union of Local Authorities3. Arab Towns Organisation4. Association Internationale des Maires Francophones –

International Association of Francophone Mayors5. Citynet

6. Commonwealth Local Government Forum7. Council of European Municipalities and Regions8. Eurocities9. European Sustainable Towns and Cities Campaign10. Federación Latinoamericana de Ciudades, Municipios y

Asociaciones11. Fédération Mondiale des Cités Unies – United Towns Organisation12. Ibero-American Organisation for Intermunicipal Cooperation13. International City-County Management Association14. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives15. International Solidarity Fund of Cities Against Poverty16. International Union of Local Authorities (IULA)17. IULA Asia-Pacific Section18. IULA Central America Section19. IULA Eastern Mediterranean and Middle-East Section20. Latin-American Federation of Cities, Municipalities and

Associations (FLACMA)21. Medcities22. Medsafe23. METROPOLIS24. Organisation of Islamic Capitals and Cities25. Sister Cities International26. Summit Conference of the World’s Major Cities27. Towns and Development28. Union des Villes Africaines – Union of African Towns29. Union of Capital Cities of Latin America30. Union Interamericana de Municipalistas31. Union of Lusophone Capitals and Cities - UCCLA32. World Alliance of Cities Against Poverty

2. African Union of Local Authorities (AULA)

Contacts: Charles C. Katiza, Secretary General, AULA, Second Floor,Local Government House, 86 Selous Avenue, P O Box 6852, HARARE,Zimbabwe, E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +263 4 795561; 263 4796288; Fax: +263 4 795560/1

Objectives: AULA’s mission is to become the generally representativeassociation for local authorities and their associations throughout Africa.It is the African regional section of IULA. Its principal aims are: 1)To pro-mote and defend the interests of local government at local, regional andinternational levels and strengthen their capacity to deliver services effec-tively and efficiently to their constituents. 2) To promote the establishmentof a well engrained system of decentralised governance conducive to theproper and effective services delivery operations of local governmentwithin the African region. 3) To be the representative and respectableinstitution of local governments and associated institutions in Africa thatare committed to delivering improved services to the satisfaction of theircommunities.AULA plays a representative, catalyst role. It aims to achieveits mission through lobbying and advocacy, capacity-building and train-ing, good governance programmes, research and policy development,information dissemination as well as promotion and brokering of munici-pal partnerships, networks and linkages.

Institutional set-up: AULA member Associations are in: Botswana,Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Uganda,Kenya, Tanzania, Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa, Nigeria,Swaziland, Namibia, Zambia, Malawi, The Gambia, [total 20] Othermembers are in Morocco, Cameroon, Senegal, Togo, Sierra Leone,Liberia, Burundi, Lesotho, Mauritania. AULA is governed by a Council,Executive Committee and Executive Bureau elected by the membership,served by a permanent Secretariat.


38

5. Regional Network of Local Authorities for theManagement of Human Settlements (CITYNET)

Contacts: Ms. Bernadia Irawati Tjandradewi, Programme ManagerCITYNET, 5F, International Organizations Center, Pacifico-Yokohama,1-1-1 Minato Mirai, Nishi-ku, YOKOHAMA 220-0012, Japan Tel: +81-45-223-2161; Fax: +81-45-223-2162, [email protected]; [email protected], Website: www.citynet-ap.org

Objectives: CITYNET is a multi-actor network of urban local governmentsand their national associations, development authorities, NGOs/CBOs,research institutions, and private companies mostly in Asia and the Pacificregion. It serves as a focal point and facilitator in the region for promot-ing information, expertise and technical exchange among various urbanstakeholders to create people-friendly cities: environmentally sustainable,economically productive, politically participatory, culturally vibrant, social-ly just and globally connected. CITYNET works to strengthen the capaci-ty and capability of local governments; develop their partnerships withother various stakeholders; provide timely and relevant information to itsmembers and partners and optimise the use of information technology;address complex global issues locally; strengthen the voices of local gov-ernments and their close partners; promote networking.

Activities: CITYNET is a member-driven network in which the activitiesare planned on the basis of members’ needs and demands. Issues-basedthemes are: urban environment and health, urban poverty, urban infra-structure and services, municipal finance, and urban governance.Process-based themes are: capacity-building, good governance, partici-pation and partnerships, and local government as facilitator. Activities arecarried out in the form of seminars/workshops, training, study visits, advi-sory services, and information dissemination. Rapid Response Activities(RRAs) are CITYNET’s timely approach to meeting members’ requests forstudy visits or expert exchanges. Based on past experience, RRAs havebeen found to be one of most effective modalities to promote city-to-citycooperation. The following key activities were implemented over the lastthree years: 1. Urban Governance – (a) Best Practices Transfers – TCDCTransfer Process of Best Practices is an example of an urban governancemodality that promotes effectiveness and efficiency. By supporting thedirect technical exchange and transfer of expertise between cities, theTCDC transfer programmes have proven to be politically more acceptable,institutionally more viable, and economically more efficient (result: publi-cation and series of successful transfers). (b) First Regional Consultationon Good Urban Governance and Responses to HIV/AIDS in Asia and Pacific(result: partnerships between LGs and NGOs, city action plans developedby both actors). (c) Building Partnerships for Good Urban Governance inthe region (result: Esfahan Declaration). (d) Empowerment of Women inLocal Governments (result: Phitsanulok Declaration). (e) BuildingPartnerships between Local Governments and NGOs/CBOs. The signifi-cant presence of LGOs and NGOs in CITYNET members provides potentialfor such cooperation (result: successful cooperation among members, ie.Sevanatha and Colombo Municipal Council, Mumbai and SPARC). 2.Environment and Poverty – (a) Linking Poverty and Environment (result:Hanoi Declaration). (b) Established interactive forum for local govern-ments and private companies dealt with environmental technology andservices (result: SMART-Cities Web portal at http://www.smart-cities.net)

Institutional set-up: CITYNET has 73 member cities in nineteen coun-tries in the Asia-Pacific region and three members in France. CITYNET isgoverned by General Council and Executive Committee and administeredby a Secretariat in Yokohama. The General Council is the highest author-ity of CITYNET and comprises of all members: it meets every four yearsto review the activities, approve the Medium-Term Plans and Charteramendments and elect the President, Vice-Presidents, ExecutiveCommittee, Secretary-General and Auditor. The Executive Committee

formulates annual and biennial work programmes and sets policy guide-lines for the Secretariat. It meets at least once a year. The Secretariat isthe executing and coordinating body of CITYNET, headed by theSecretary General who reports to the General Council and ExecutiveCommittee. Following the First Regional Congress of Local Authorities forthe Development of Human Settlements in Asia and the Pacific (Y’LAP) inYokohama in 1982, the idea was proposed of building a linkage of citiesat regional level. The Congress was sponsored by UNESCAP, UN-HABITATand the City of Yokohama. CITYNET was officially established at theSecond Regional Congress in Nagoya in 1987. Having started with 12city members, CITYNET has grown to an international organisation with130 members from more than 20 countries. Institutional Costs – (35%from membership dues, 60% from member’s subsidy, 5% in-kind con-tribution). Programme Costs – (15% from membership dues, 60% fromdevelopment funds and 25% in-kind contribution).

6. Commonwealth Local Government Forum (CLGF)

Contacts: Lucy Slack, Senior Policy Adviser, 59_ Southwark Street,London SE1 0AL, UK. Tel: +44 207 934 9693, Fax: +44 207 9349699, E-mail: [email protected] Web-site:www.clgf.org.uk

Objectives: CLGF is a membership organisation bringing together localgovernment and Ministries of Local Government from within theCommonwealth on a common platform. It has 170 members in 40countries. It has three key objectives: advocacy for local government inthe Commonwealth, exchange of experience work, and capacity-build-ing. CLGF also has associate members from research and academicorganisations with an interest in local government.

Activities: Main activities include the operation of the CommonwealthLocal Government Good Practice Scheme, and regional projects focusingon exchange of good practice in the Pacific and Southern Africa. CLGF isalso doing research into local government and local government goodpractice in the Commonwealth. CLGF organised the first pan-Commonwealth local government leaders and ministers conference in2000, this will now be a biennial event. CLGF is governed by a Boardmade up of local and central government representatives from the differ-ent regions of the Commonwealth. The Secretariat is based in London andis responsible for implementing the Board’s decisions, it works in closepartnership with its members to implement activities and has project staffbased in Harare and Suva. We are active across the Commonwealth.Through the Good Practice Scheme we have been working directly withapproximately 40 cities. Background: CLGF was formed in 1995 inresponse to the moves towards decentralisation across theCommonwealth. It has received Commonwealth Heads of Governmentrecognition as the responsible Commonwealth body representing localgovernment. Activities are funded through grants and project fundingfrom a variety of sources. The Good Practice Scheme, relevant to the C2Ccontext, is currently funded by DFID, UK and AusAID, Australia.

7. Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)

Contacts: Jeremy Smith, Secretary General, 15, rue de Richelieu,F - 75001 PARIS, Tel: + 33 1 44 50 59 59, Fax: + 33 1 44 50 59 60.E-mail:[email protected] Website: www.ccre.org

Objectives: The Council of European Municipalities and Regions orig-inated out of two essential prerequisites: Local democracy is the

ANNE

X 2

39

basis of all States' democratic public life: deeply attached to the prin-ciple of democracy, CEMR may only accept as members local andregional authorities resulting from free universal suffrage. Because, asone of the founders of CEMR, Edouard Herriot, Mayor of Lyons, assert-ed, “everything divides States and everything unites municipalities”,local authorities have an essential role to play in the realisation of theEuropean Union. Indeed, they provide popular support incited by localleaders, as the elected representatives closest to the citizens. Today,CEMR represents around 100,000 local authorities in membership of42 large national Associations of local and regional authorities in 30countries within the 15 Member States of the EU and other Council ofEurope Member States.

Activities: At National Level - Each National Section sets its policiesas it sees fit and organises its dialogue with its central government asit considers appropriate. It may also take inspiration from examples ofother European countries, and sees to it that its government adopt andrespect the entirety of the Council of Europe's European Charter forLocal Self-Government, which was drawn up in 1985 as a EuropeanConvention due to the impetus of CEMR members. At European level- CEMR works for the promotion of local and regional authority inter-ests within the European institutions; CEMR facilitates dialogue andthe exchange of experiences among local and regional authorities;CEMR encourages inter-regional and intermunicipal co-operation insupporting local and regional authorities in their search forCommunity funding linked to programmes set up by the EuropeanUnion; CEMR supports all the National Sections and all their membersupon request in the establishment of twinnings between two or moreEuropean local authorities. As part of the preparation for EU enlarge-ment, CEMR works for intermunicipal co-operation in Central andEastern Europe. Thus, for example, under the EU ECOS/OUVERTUREprogramme, 340 co-operation projects were carried out over a periodof eight years in the four priority fields of environment and energy,local and regional democracy, local economic development, andregional and urban policy and services. CEMR takes action for the co-operation of Mediterranean local and regional authorities; CEMR par-ticipates in the world dialogue among local and regional authorities ;CEMR is the European Regional Section of IULA.

Institutional set-up: CEMR is a federation of National Sections whichgather together: 1) either one or several national representative asso-ciations of the various local authority categories; 2) or NationalSections having individual local authorities of a country as its directmembers; 3) or both one or several associations and their directmembers. These National Sections delegate a certain number of theirrepresentatives, depending on the size of their country's populationand in accordance with the CEMR constitution, in a general assembly(called the Assembly of Delegates). This Assembly then elects a setnumber of representatives of each country to the Policy Committee.The latter then elects the President, Vice-Presidents and SecretaryGeneral, and appoints an Executive Bureau. Currently the Council ofEuropean Municipalities and Regions is actively chaired by ValéryGiscard d’Estaing. The Council of European Municipalities was found-ed in Geneva, in 1951, and consequently became the Council ofEuropean Municipalities and Regions in 1984. Following the merger ofCEMR with the European activities of IULA in 1990, CEMR is by far themost generally representative association of local and regionalauthorities in Europe. The activities of the CEMR are financed byannual membership fees from its members. This fee is set accordingto the GDP of each country and the number of inhabitants of the mem-ber association’s country. Furthermore, the CEMR receives a grantfrom the European Commission as an organisation of European inter-est. CEMR has also received management fees for the operation ofprogrammes funded by the EU.

8. EUROCITIES

Contacts: Carine Leleux, Personal Assistant, 18 Square de Meeûs,B-1050 BRUSSELS, Belgium Tel: + 32 2 552 08 63; Fax: + 32 2 55208 89; E-mail: [email protected]

Objectives: The aims of the Association are:- to enhance links amongEuropean cities and promote transnational cooperation through involve-ment in EU projects; to participate in the European policy debate ensur-ing that greater weight is given to cities at both the Community andnational government levels; to disseminate, publish or otherwise pro-vide information, as well as organise and promote conferences, con-ventions, assemblies, seminars and meetings.

Activities: Since its launch more than 10 years ago, the main objective ofEurocities has been to contribute to the improvement of the quality of lifeof citizens of Europe’s major cities. While this core objective has notchanged over time, the Association must continually redefine itself as wellas its vision. As part of this, Eurocities will dedicate 2002 to “Reinforcingthe European Urban Lobby” assessing the challenges faced by cities with-in their regional context as well as in the European context. Through this,Eurocities aims to bring Europe closer to the city and the urban realitycloser to Europe. Eurocities is involved in facilitating or managingupwards of 30 EU-funded projects covering a wide range of urban-relat-ed topics ranging from social integration to telematics. Policy develop-ment, exchanges of experience and expertise and European campaignswill continue to be the main instruments for Eurocities to achieve itsobjectives in 2002. In particular with a continued focus on the develop-ment of European campaigns, Eurocities will reach out to the Europeancitizens and contribute to bringing Europe closer to them. Activities in2002 will include campaigns on sustainable mobility and entrepreneur-ship; policy work on new European governance and EU institutionalreform, the future of the EU structural funds, the fight against poverty andsocial exclusion, development of local action plans for employment, edu-cation policy development,; and the facilitation of networking through theTelecities network, the ACCESS network of cities for a new mobility cul-ture, and the expansion of links with the EU accession countries and thecities of the Mediterranean basin.

Institutional set-up: Established in 1986, EUROCITIES is the networkof some 103 major cities in the European Union, Norway, Switzerland,Iceland, Central and Eastern Europe and the New Independent States(NIS). Membership of Eurocities is open to democratically elected citygovernments, as well as to their economic and scientific partners, incities that have a minimum population of 250,000; have an internation-al dimension; and are important regional centres. Eurocities was estab-lished in 1986 against the background of the increased acknowledge-ment, at EU level, of the need to take into account the interests ofEurope’s regions and cities in EU policies and policy-making processes.The founding members of the association, which has a Brussels-basedoffice since 1991, were Barcelona, Birmingham, Bologna, Frankfurt,Lyon and Rotterdam. The uniqueness of the network as compared toother associations/networks representing local authorities, is twofold.On the one hand, it fosters transnational cooperation projects betweenlarge cities not in one single, theme-specific area, but covers all issuesof interest to policy-makers and administrators in large cities (i.e.employment and social affairs, environment, transport and sustainablemobility, new technologies, culture). On the other hand, it develops jointpolicy initiatives, representing the views of large cities to partners with-in the EU institutions and with national governments, based on thewealth of experience drawn from the practical work carried out at thelocal level. The association is funded exclusively by the membershipfees of its members. It raises funding on a project basis from the EUinstitutions.

ANNEX 2Partnerships for Local Capacity Development

40

9. European Sustainable Cities and Towns Campaign(Campagne des Villes Durables)

Contacts: Anthony Payne, Campaign Coordinator, Rue de Trèves 4951,Box 3, B-1040 Brussels, Tel: +32 2 230 53 51; Fax: +32 2 230 8850; Campaign.anthony@skynet; [email protected];Website: www.sustainable-cities.org

Objectives: The Campaign aims to support all relevant actors inEuropean cities and towns in implementing LA21 or similar strate-gies; to facilitate information exchanges and networking with a viewto developing policy, planning, management, measuring and monitor-ing tools; to co-operate with networks, organisations and sectors thathave an important influence on urban development in Europe; to pro-mote and support the local action component in European, nationaland sub-national sustainable development policies and provide inputand help put into practice EU policies and programmes for sustainabledevelopment.

Activities: Information dissemination, raising awareness and support-ing the 1,450 Campaign participant cities and towns throughout Europeon issues of sustainable urban development. Organisation of thematicworking sessions on urban sustainable development, which is led bythe Campaign’s partner Networks. Organisation of an open platform forurban sustainability, with the objective of placing the local and regionalperspective at the heart of EU thinking on urban sustainability.Organisation of a European Sustainable City Award, with the aim of rais-ing awareness and encouraging exchange of experience of sustainableurban development.

Institutional set-up: The Campaign is an informally constituted networkcomprising 1,479 participant cities and towns from 38 countries. Theparticipants join the Campaign by committing themselves to the AalborgCharter. The structure of the Campaign is based around a SteeringCommittee, a Political Board and a Campaign Office. The SteeringCommittee is comprised of the following 10 Networks of local authorities:Association of Cities and Regions for recycling (ACRR), Climate Alliance,Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), Energie-Cités,Eurocities, International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI-Europe), Med-cities, Union of the Baltic Cities (UBC), World Federation ofUnited Cities (UTO), World Health Organisation – Healthy Cities Project.The Political Board is comprised of local political representatives. TheCampaign office co-ordinates the activities of the Campaign and is basedin Brussels. The Campaign was launched at the end of the first Europeanconference on Sustainable Cities and Towns, which took place in Aalborg,Denmark in May 1994. The conference gave rise to the Aalborg Charter,municipalities participate in the Campaign by signing up to the Charterand committing themselves to work towards the goals of the LisbonAction Plan and the Hannover Call, which were developed in 1996 and2000. The Campaign is an initiative of local authorities, co-ordinatedthrough the support of local authority networks and a Campaign Office.The Campaign forms part of the European Sustainable Cities Project ofthe European Union, which aims to contribute to thinking on urban sus-tainability in Europe, to encourage the exchange of experience and dis-seminate local best practice, and to influence sustainable developmentpolicy at European Union, Member State, regional and local levels. 95%of the funding comes from the EU (DG Environment). The Campaign isfinanced under the EU Community framework for co-operation to promotesustainable urban development. It is co-financed (5%) by the City ofHannover, City of Malmo, Diputacio and Ajuntament of Barcelona, andCoordinamento Agende 21 Locali Italiane.

10. Latin-American Federation of Cities, Municipalitiesand Associations Federación Latinoamericana deCiudades, Municipios y Asociaciones (FLACMA)

Contacts: Eric Sarvan, Urban Development Specialist, Latin AmericanTraining Centre for the Development of Local Governments CELCADEL,IULA - FLACMA, Agustín Guerrero 219 y José Ayora,P.O. Box 17-01-1109, QUITO, Ecuador. E-mail: [email protected];Tel.: + 593 2 2 469 366; Fax: + 593 2 2 435 205

Objectives: To further solidarity between cities, thereby advancing thedevelopment of their human resources, the institutional capacities oftheir municipalities and the quality and coverage of their urban services.

Activities: FLACMA operates as the Latin American Section of IULA andalso runs a number of its own programmes, including establishment ofthe Internet Site PIMEX – Platform for International Municipal Exchange.A prototype of the Platform is to be launched in April 2002, a final freelyaccessible version by June 2002.

Institutional set-up: IULA-FLACMA is the oldest regional section ofIULA. It started as a regional section in 1981, with the presence of fivecountries of the region. Since then it has incorporated the other mainassociations of South America and Mexico. In 1999 it acquired a moreLatin American flavour as well as a broader-based organisation as theLatin America Federation of Cities, Municipalities and Associations.

13. International City-County Management Association (ICMA)

Contacts: Jon Bormet, Director, Resource Cities Program,777 N. Capitol, NE, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20002;Tel: +1 202-962-3508; Fax: +1 202-962-3681; [email protected]; Web-site: www.icma.org, www.icma.org/resourcecities; See also:http://www.makingcitieswork.org/rcities.asp (USAID website),http://www.flgr.bg/techtwin_new/homeen.htm(Bulgarian partner’s website).

Objectives: ICMA is a membership organization with a mission to cre-ate excellence in local governance by developing and fostering profes-sional local government management worldwide. ICMA achieves itsmission by providing technical assistance, publications, research, peerexchanges, and training services for local government professionals tohelp them improve their skills and increase their knowledge.

Activities: Since 1989, ICMA has actively pursued its mission interna-tionally by combining the experience of local government practitionersand international consultants to design, implement, and evaluatemunicipal development and urban management projects worldwide.ICMA has completed more than 400 project activities and has devel-oped a strong reputation in the sector for its unique “hands-on”approach using experienced city managers, finance directors, local eco-nomic development directors, and public works directors. Numerous USagencies and international organizations have awarded ICMA contracts,grants, and cooperative agreements to produce practical solutions forincreasingly complex urban issues in more than 50 countries aroundthe world. ICMA is registered with USAID as a Private Voluntary.

Institutional set-up: ICMA’s international programmes are comple-mented by capabilities of ICMA domestic programmes, many of whichare very relevant to the issues confronting international communities,covering topics such as research and development, performance meas-urement, best practices, ethics in local government, etc. ICMA head-quarters is located in Washington DC, with field offices in Indonesia,Montenegro and Kazakhstan that support programmes in the region. In

ANNE

X 2

41

Institutional set-up: ICLEI is a democratic membership associationof local governments and national and regional local governmentassociations that have made a unique commitment to sustainabledevelopment. Full membership is offered to local governments andassociations of local governments. More than 400 cities, towns, coun-ties, and their associations worldwide in over 60 countries compriseICLEI’s growing membership. They and hundreds of other local gov-ernments are engaged in ICLEI’s regional projects and internationalcampaigns. ICLEI works in all world regions. Each local governmentMember holds a position on the Council, which establishes and over-sees the implementation of ICLEI’s Strategic Plan and elects an inter-national Executive Committee of local government representatives. InSeptember 1990, more than 200 local governments from 43 countriesaround the world met at ICLEI’s inaugural conference, the WorldCongress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future. The confer-ence took place at the United Nations in New York, and establishedICLEI as the international environmental agency for local govern-ments. ICLEI is an unincorporated international association of localgovernments. Its affairs are carried out through affiliated not-for-profit companies nationally incorporated. International Sources ofIncome (2000), National, sub-national governments & internationalorganisations 56%; Foundations & associations 20%; Memberships9%; Municipal contracts and grants 7%; Host community contribu-tions 5%; Other 3%.

16. International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), UniónInternacional de Autoridades y Gobiernos Locales, UnionInternationale des Villes et Pouvoirs Locaux

Contacts: Emilia Sáiz Carrancedo, Programmes Director, WorldSecretariat of IULA, PO Box 90646, 2509 LP THE HAGUE, Netherlands.Tel: +31 70 3066066; Fax: +31 70 3500496; e-mail [email protected];Website: www.iula.org; www.iula-acb.org

Objectives: IULA’s mission is to promote and unite local governmentsworldwide. This mission translates into four strategic objectives: devel-opment of a strong network, advocacy for local governments, being thesource of learning and exchange, and being the source of key informa-tion. IULA works in all the regions of the world.

Activities: IULA’s advocacy role has ensured the presence of local gov-ernment through the co-ordination mechanism WACLAC in all UNConferences. The last World Congress of IULA held in Rio de Janeiroattracted over 2000 delegates. 5 Regional Conferences have takenplace on the topic Association Capacity Building. IULA has published aseries on the role and tasks of Local Government Associations as wellas a Toolkit on LGAs and a book of cases on gender equality and localgovernment. With UNICEF IULA has gathered information on child-friendly cities. The Regions of IULA have developed hundreds of initia-tive worldwide.

Institutional set-up: IULA is decentralized. Its highest policy makingbody at global level is the Council representing the whole member-ship, which in turn elects the President, the First Vice-President andthe World Executive Committee. This Committee comprises 47 mem-bers throughout the world and oversees the implementation of thepolicy priorities established by the Council. The Regional Sections arerepresented in all global bodies and have a similar structure. Thebeginning of this century saw the emergence of associations ofmunicipalities in many European countries. The first tentative interna-tional contacts between them took place at a fairly early stage. In1913 a major initiative towards a formal and regular contact was

addition to staff in field offices, ICMA headquarters staff include 25 full-time professionals working on international municipal development pro-grammes. Another 100 staff support ICMA’s member services and pro-grammes, as well as international activities as appropriate. ICMA wasfounded in 1914 to respond to the needs of a burgeoning class of pro-fessional “city managers” in the US. The association now representsover 8,000 professional local government administrators—typicallychief administrative officers – serving over 3,000 communities in theUSA and 25 other countries.

14. International Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiatives (ICLEI)

Contacts: Bowdin King, International Coordinator, Local Agenda 21 &Water Campaigns, ICLEI World Secretariat, City Hall, 16th Floor, WestTower, 100 Queen St. West, TORONTO, ON, M5H 2N2, Canada.Tel: +1-416/392-1462; Fax: +1-416/392-1478; Email: [email protected],Regional Offices are located in Freiburg, Germany (Europe),Melbourne, Australia and Tokyo, Japan (Asia-Pacific), Rio de Janeiro(Latin America and Caribbean), and Johannesburg, South Africa(Africa); Website: http://www.iclei.org

Objectives: ICLEI’s mission is to build and serve a worldwide move-ment of local governments to achieve tangible improvements in glob-al environmental and sustainable development conditions throughcumulative local actions. ICLEI serves as an information clearinghouse on sustainable development and provides policy guidance,training, technical assistance, and consultancy services to increaselocal governments’ capacity to address global challenges. Throughits campaigns, ICLEI helps local governments generate politicalawareness of key issues, build capacity through technical assistanceand training, and evaluate local and cumulative progress toward sus-tainable development. Through its diverse membership, campaign,and program activities it provides many city-to-city cooperationopportunities.

Activities: Much of ICLEI’s work is linked to the following campaigns: (a)Local Agenda 21 Campaign. ICLEI’s Local Agenda 21 (LA21) Campaign isworking with local governments and their associations to achieve sus-tainable development through participatory, multistakeholder sustainabledevelopment planning and the implementation of resulting LA21 actionplans. (b) Cities for Climate ProtectionTM Campaign. The Cities for ClimateProtection (CCP) Campaign, active since 1992, enlists cities that adoptpolicies and implement measures to achieve measurable reductions inlocal greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality, and enhance urbanliveability and sustainability. The campaign presently includes over 500municipalities that collectively account for nearly 7 percent of anthro-pogenic global greenhouse gas emissions. (c) Water Campaign. TheWater Campaign, launched in June 2000, seeks to build a worldwidemovement of local governments committed to achieving tangibleimprovements in the sustainable use of fresh water resources by pro-tecting and enhancing local watersheds, reducing water pollution, andimproving the availability and efficiency of water and environmental san-itation services. In addition to its campaigns, ICLEI also facilitates guid-ance and exchange of experiences among its membership through a vari-ety of thematic or regional networks and technical projects. ICLEI alsoseeks to build an international policy environment that is understandingand supportive of local-level environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment initiatives. In preparation for the World Summit onSustainable Development, ICLEI is facilitating the worldwide review oflocal government progress in implementing Agenda 21, as well as coor-dinating preparations and devising strategies for the future.


42

taken by the director of the Belgian association, Senator Emile Vinck.He organised in Ghent, Belgium a highly successful international con-gress of municipalities. More than 400 representatives of municipali-ties from more than 20 countries attended and determined upon theestablishment of IULA. IULA is an autonomous organisation and itscore operations are financed by the membership fees of its members.Additional resources from bilateral or multilateral agencies are soughtfor Programmes.

22. MEDSAFE Network, Réseau MEDSAFE,Thematic Network on Urban Safety and SustainableDevelopment of Mediterranean Urban Areas

Contacts: Armando Mauro, Director, INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE STOPDISASTERS (IISD), Via di Pozzuoli 100, 80124-NAPLES, Italy,Tel./fax: +39 081 5704665; E-mail: [email protected]; Website: www.medsafe.org

Objectives: The MEDSAFE NETWORK is aimed at supporting and pro-moting sustainable development in the Mediterranean by promotingurban safety from natural and man-made disasters. MEDSAFE wasrecognised as a Thematic Network by the members of theMediterranean Commission on Sustainable Development(Mediterranean Action Plan, Barcelona Convention).

Activities: The Network builds its activities based on a CommunicationPlatform (interactive Website) and on meetings and missions carried outby its partners. - EUROMED-SAFE ‘99 International Conference, Naples– Ravello, 27 – 30 November 1999; EMI Cluster Cities Meeting. Naples,23 November 2000; UATI-ICET SID-MED III Meeting, Ravello, 24-25November 2000; Int. Meeting on Urban Safety and SustainableDevelopment, Naples, 18-20 December 2001. MOU signed betweenthe Municipality of Naples and the Metropolitan Municipality of Istanbul(Turkey) in the field of Seismic Risk Reduction 23 November 2000;Participation of the City of Naples in the Mediterranean Commission onSustainable Development (MAP, Barcelona Convention).

Institutional set-up: MEDSAFE is a multi-actors Network composed bypartners willing to contribute to its finalities and activities in cities of theMediterranean. The Network is regulated and supported by a Secretariatestablished in the International Institute Stop Disasters of Naples (Italy).A pilot Committee is responsible for elaborating a Plan of Action. TheNetwork officially started on 2000, when the Municipality of Naples decid-ed to support such a networking action through funds and support by itsServices of Foreign Relations and Civil Protection in conjunction with pro-posals by the EMI International NGO. Main funds are provided by theMunicipality of Naples and by financial and logistic support by three maininternational partners are: the Secretariat for the MAP (UNEP), theEarthquake and Megacities Initiative (EMI) international NGO; theInternational Council for Engineering and Technology (UATI-ICET).Additional support is provided by the University of Naples, RegioneCampania and Province of Salerno. A strong collaboration is also ensuredby the European University Centre for Cultural Heritage, Ravello (Italy).

25. Sister Cities International (SCI)

Contacts: Tim Honey, Executive Director, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Suite 850, WASHINGTON DC 20004, USA,E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +1 202-347-8630; Fax: +1 202-393-6524; Website:www.sister-cities.org

Objectives: Sister Cities International (SCI) is a non-profit citizen diplo-macy network creating and strengthening partnerships between US andinternational communities in an effort to increase global cooperation atthe municipal level, to promote cultural understanding and to stimulateeconomic development. SCI leads the movement for local communitydevelopment and volunteer action by motivating and empowering pri-vate citizens, municipal officials and business leaders to conduct long-term programmes of mutual benefit.

Activities: 1) Developing municipal partnerships between US cities,counties, and states and similar jurisdictions in other nations; 2)Providing opportunities for city officials and citizens to experience andexplore other cultures through long-term community partnerships; 3)Creating an atmosphere in which economic and community develop-ment can be implemented and strengthened; 4) Stimulating environ-ments through which communities will creatively learn, work, and solveproblems together through reciprocal cultural, educational, municipal,business, professional and technical exchanges and projects; 5)Collaborating with organizations in the United States and other coun-tries which share similar goals. Over the next five years SCI aims todouble the number of members, and to increasingly focus upon under-served parts of the world including Islamic countries and the MiddleEast, Africa, and the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Institutional set-up: SCI is a non-profit network of 700 American com-munities partnered with 1500 international communities in 121 differentcountries. In the US the sister city programmes are typically organizedaround a community-based NGO in close partnership with the local gov-ernment. These NGOs along with their local governments are the mem-bers of SCI. A 24 member Board of Directors elected by the membershipgoverns SCI. Sister city, county and state affiliations between the UnitedStates and other nations began shortly after World War II and developedinto a national initiative when President Dwight D Eisenhower proposedthe “People-to-People” program at a White House conference in 1956.Originally a part of the National League of Cities, Sister Cities Internationalbecame a separate, non-profit corporation in 1967 due to its tremendousgrowth and popularity. SCI is a membership organisation. Every US com-munity that wants to be officially recognized under the SCI umbrella mustbecome a dues-paying member. International communities that have asister city relationship with a US member may become a member by pay-ing dues, however this is optional. SCI also receives a Core AdministrativeGrant from the US Department of State, as well as other programme-spe-cific funding from various government, private sector and foundationsources. SCI also generates revenues from the sale of insurance and fromits J-1 visa programme.

27. Towns and Development (T&D)

Contact: Jan Rademaker, Coordinator, Towns and Development,Postbox 85615, 2508 CH The Hague, Netherlands. Tel. no.: +31 70350 2789, Fax: +31 70 350 2753; E-mail: [email protected].

Objectives: T&D is a service network for local authorities, NGOs andcommunity-based groups to promote local partnerships and joint actionfor poverty reduction and good governance, both North and South, andthrough North-South partnerships between key stakeholders includinglocal authorities to promote sustainable development.

Activities: The main activities have been to facilitate and documentjoint action and municipal international co-operation between Europeand developing countries and more recently within Africa and Asia. ForAsia, there have been various investigatory workshops, and recently a

ANNE

X 2

43

study for working out an action strategy in India was completed. Aseries of studies and consultations in East and Southern Africa culmi-nated in an international conference on Local Agenda 21 partnershipsbetween local authorities North and South, in Mombasa in 1999. T&Dalso played a major facilitating role at an international conference in2001 on the Southern perspective on North-South partnerships. T&Dhas also produced handbooks and case studies about various kinds ofpartnerships between North and South including local authorities andother stakeholders in the linked communities. T&D is not workingdirectly with individual cities but facilitates meetings of city and localauthority association representatives to distill information from a rangeof experiences, and documents the results in a variety of publications –e.g. “Partnerships for Sustainable Development in Europe, Asia, Africaand Latin America” and “Decentralised Co-operation and Joint Action”.T&D also facilitates exchange of information on North-South partner-ships between national networks.

Institutional set-up: The T&D network is small but effective. Its deci-sion making is done through an international steering committee and itsregional co-ordinators are answerable to a steering committee in thecase of Africa and for Asia, through the UMP Asia office in Delhi and theIndian Institute for Youth Welfare in Nagpur. The European programme iscurrently run from the international secretariat in The Hague. T&D is anassociated organisation of IULA. T&D was established as the follow-upto the 1985 ‘From Charity to Justice’ conference, in Cologne, which wasabout the added value of cooperation between local authorities, com-munity groups and NGOs for project implementation and developmenteducation. At first the activities focussed on European campaigning re.North-South issues, and this included generating and disseminatinggood practice in North-South city-to-city and community-to-communi-ty partnerships. From this, small national and regional chapters of T&Dwere developed. Originally, T&D was financed from membership feesand donor funding such as from the EU and certain national govern-ments. Now its main source of funding is from the Bremen State Officefor Development Co-operation. Amounts have ranged from 100,000DMto 400,000DM per programme.


44

InternationalCity-To-City SupportProgrammesMany different international programmes and initiatives provide directsupport to City-to-City activities, as illustrated in Chapter 4. This greatdiversity of support programmes reflects the variety of City-to-City prac-tices and needs - and shows clearly the range of creative interventionswhich have been developed. This in turn demonstrates an increasing andimportant convergence: Support programmes responding to city prioritiesand cities more actively engaging international support.

To illustrate the range and diversity of support being offered, this Annexprovides information about a representative selection of internationalsupport programmes, drawn from a variety of sources. Each pro-gramme is described separately, in a standard format which providesthe basic information together with a summary analysis based on thisReport’s analytical framework. The brief “profiles” in this Annex can onlygive a limited amount of information, of course, and readers seeking fur-ther details are encouraged to contact the persons listed.

The following Programmes are described in this Annex:1. Best Practices & Local Leadership Programme (UN-HABITAT)2. City Network Caucasus (GTZ)3. Global Campaign on Urban Governance (UN-HABITAT)4. Italian Decentralised Cooperation within the framework of the

Metropolitan Development Programme (MDP)5. Local Authority Technical Links Scheme (DFID Know-How Fund)6. Local Government Association Capacity-Building Through

Association-to-Association Partnerships (GTZ)7. Local Leadership & Management Training Programme

(UN-HABITAT)8. Managing the Environment Locally in Sub-Saharan Africa -

MELISSA (World Bank)9. Mediterranean Action Plan (Mediterranean Commission for

Sustainable Development)10. Public Private Partnerships for the Urban Environment (UNDP)11. Strengthening Local Governance - Municipal Twinning (GTZ)12. Support to Solidarity Among Cities (UNV-IULA)13. TCDC Transfer Process of Good/Best Practices - Promoting

South-South Cooperation (CityNet)14. Urban Environment Forum (UEF)15. Urban Quality Programme: Civil Society and Inter-Municipal

Cooperation for Better Urban Services (GTZ-Indonesia)

1. Best Practices and Local Leadership Programme

Contacts: Mr Nicholas You, Co-ordinator, Best Practices & Policies Unit,UN-HABITAT, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya.E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: 254-20-623029; Fax: 254-20-623080; Website: www.sustainabledevelopment.org/blp;www.bestpractices.org

Objectives: To support implementation of the Habitat Agenda throughthe dissemination and exchange of lessons learned from good practices,policies and enabling legislation.

Activities: Dissemination of peer-reviewed good and best practices,urban policies and enabling legislation; development of learning toolsincluding policy briefs, case studies and casebooks; analysis of lessonslearned and their policy and capacity-building implications; testing anddissemination of peer learning tools and methods; global awareness-building through best practices Award systems. Scope of activities:Global programme and network of 30+ partners working in all regionsin Capacity-building, policy advocacy and leadership development.

Institutional set-up: A global network of public, private, civil societyorganisations and capacity-building institutions committed to the shar-ing and exchange of best practices knowledge, expertise and experi-ence. Established in 1997 in direct response to the Habitat Agenda call-ing for the use of documented best practices as key instruments formonitoring and assessing its implementation. Strengthened in 2002 torespond to the UN Declaration on Cities and other Human Settlementscalling for the systematic documentation and dissemination of urbanpolicies and enabling legislation. Of the Programme ApproximatelyUS$2 million per annum in partners’ in-kind contributions.Approximately US$250,000 per annum in own funds (staff).

2. City Network Caucasus (GTZ)

Contacts: Dr. Ernst Hustaedt, Regional Section Europe, Mediterranean,Central Asia, Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5, P.O. Box 5180,65726 Eschborn, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: 0049-6196-79-2133; Fax: 0049-6196-79-6331

Objectives: The project objectives are to promote local democracy,strengthening local self-government, improving public service delivery onthe local level and mobilising the developing potentials of municipalities.

Activities: 1) Initiating Local Agenda 21 processes within the city network;2) Supporting small projects for municipal development; 3) Identifying pri-orities for administrative reform on the local level; 4) Exchange of experi-ence between local politicians, NGOs and journalists.

Institutional set-up: The Caucasus Initiative is a two-year project (ori-entation phase). The project is being implemented of the GTZ on behalfof the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (BMZ). German municipalities are cooperation partners.The core team is one project manager and one consultant. Scope ofactivities: The project is working in the Caucasus region (Armenia,Azerbaijan, Georgia). Eight cities are so far involved: four in Germany(Ludwigshafen, Biberach, Saarbrücken, Mainz), two in Azerbaijan (Baku,Sumgait), two in Georgia (Tiflis, Telawi), and none yet in Armenia (to bedecided). The project started in March 2002. First meetings were heldin July 2001. The project originated from a request by one of the partnercommunities to establish a cadastre and land information system. Thisproject was implemented successfully and extended to cover the entirecountry. Based on the contacts established the now launched projectedwas initiated. The activities are financed by the project budget. Theproject budget is funded by BMZ. German municipalities support theproject financially and with personnel.

ANNE

X 3

ANNEX 3

45

3. Global Campaign on Urban Governance

Contacts: Raf Tuts, Ag. Coordinator, Urban Governance Section, UrbanDevelopment Branch, UN-HABITAT, P.O Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: 254-20 623726; Fax: 254-20 624264

Objectives: The development goal of the Global Campaign on UrbanGovernance is to contribute to the eradication of poverty throughimproved urban governance. It aims to increase the capacity of localgovernments and other stakeholders to practice good urban governancein order to realize more inclusive cities.

Activities: The campaign objectives are achieved through the followingmutually supportive strategies and flagship products: (1)NormativeDebate, through a Declaration on the Norms of Good Urban Governance,Policy Papers and support to the dialogue on decentralisation.(2)Advocacy, through public information campaigns, campaign launch-es, the Inclusive Cities initiative, and the Good Urban Governance Index.(3) Operational Activities and Capacity-Building, through the implemen-tation of national campaign action plans, demonstration projects, andtechnical support, including for revising national legislation. (4)Knowledge Management, Lessons-learned, Research, Good UrbanGovernance Toolkit Series. Scope of activities: To date, the Campaignhas been launched in Nigeria, India at the national level and at theregional level in Latin America and the Caribbean. Additional nationalcampaigns are planned for 2002 in Burkina Faso, Senegal, ThePhilippines, Indonesia, Brazil, Jamaica and Nicaragua. In each country,at least five cities are involved; in some cases many more.

Institutional set-up: The Global Campaign on Urban Governance pro-vides an overall framework for the activities of the Urban DevelopmentBranch (UDB) of UN-HABITAT. All UDB global programmes, regardless oftheir entry point (environment, urban safety, disaster management,urban management) promote participatory decision-making processesas a key element of good urban governance. The Campaign has alsoestablished a Global Steering Group, responsible for providing overallpolicy and operational guidance. In addition, regional steering groupshave been established in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and theCaribbean to ensure that global norms respond to specific regional pri-orities. Finally, national campaigns have been launched in selectedcountries, bringing together the resources of UN-HABITAT, Campaignpartners and other support agencies. The Global Campaign on UrbanGovernance was launched in 1999 to contribute to the implementationof the Habitat Agenda goal of “sustainable human settlements develop-ment.” It has grown out of an emerging recognition of the importanceof good urban governance in poverty reduction goals, including thosecontained in the UN Millennium Declaration. Activities are financedthrough a small core Campaign budget used as “seed capital” to mobi-lize additional resources. At the global and regional levels, the Campaignseeks to leverage its funds with contributions from UN-HABITAT region-al offices and Steering Group members. At the national level, theCampaign increases its leveraging significantly by mobilizing nationaland donor support for comprehensive urban governance programmes.

4. Italian Decentralised Co-operation within the frame-work of the Municipal Development Programme

Contacts: Jossy S. Materu, Senior Regional Adviser, Eastern andSouthern Africa office, 116 rue des Amoureux , 01 BP 3445 Cotonou,Benin. E-mail: [email protected]; E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: (229) 30 05 60/30 42 42; Fax: (229) 30 19 76

Objectives: 1) strengthen the technical and management abilities of theSub-Saharan African regions, provinces and municipalities in the light ofthe essential role they play in supporting the socio-economic develop-ment of their peoples, and optimising the use of investment; 2) involveItalian Local Authorities in the activities of official Development Aid bysupplementing them with the other activities carried out by the MDP andDGCS. Interventions would cover technical assistance, training activitiesand supply of equipment.

Activities: 5 projects involving 4 African and 5 Italian municipalities: (1)Montesilvano (Italy) –Mekkale (Ethiopia): Upgrading of an old historicneighbourhood in the central area of the municipality of Mekkele. (2)Biella (Italy)-Dessie (Ethiopia): Construction of a central market in themunicipality of Dessie. (3) Roma (Italy)-Maputo (Mozambique):Improvements of the urban water supply and waste collection (4)Padova (Italy)-Beira (Mozambique): 5 projects focusing on: 1) StaffTraining and equipment for the Pedagogical University of Beira; 2)Training of social workers in Beira; 3)Training of doctors at Beira Centralhospital. 4) Improvement of Urban Health Centres; 5) Construction of anelementary school in one neighbourhood. 5) Genoa (Italy) -Beira(Mozambique) partnership: Management and control of the Aids pan-demic in the city of Beira. Scope of activities: 5 projects involving 4African and 5 Italian municipalities. The countries and regions of focusin Africa are: Maputo and Beira (Mozambique) and Wolo - Dessie andTigray - Mekkale (Ethiopia).

Institutional set-up: The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGCS) pro-vides 50% of programme funding through the MDP trust funds in theWorld Bank and the same is channelled to MDP for projects inMozambique and Ethiopia. The request to the World Bank for projectfunds is made by the Association of Italian municipalities (ANCI) uponreceipt of such requests from MDP. The participating Italian municipali-ties provide the remaining 50% of the project funds. Such funds arechannelled to the partner municipalities in Africa through MDP. The con-tribution by DGCS is to enable the participation of the African municipal-ities in the C2C projects. Project accounts have been opened in each ofthe participating municipalities in Ethiopia and Mozambique for each ofthe projects. MDP assists the municipalities in Mozambique andEthiopia to identify demand for C2C projects, monitor their implementa-tion, and provide backstopping support. ANCI reports to the World Bankon the financial accounting of the DGCS contribution. MDP accountsdirectly to the participating Italian municipalities for their contribution.During Phase II of the MDP/East (1995-1997), the Italian Ministry ofForeign (DGCS), one of the main bilateral donors for the MDP, providedfunding to be used by Italian Local Authorities for specific decentralisedco-operation activities within the framework of the MDP. Subsequent tothe allocation of the funding, the DGCS produced some guidelines to beused in the utilization of the resources. Further more, DGCS identified thefocus countries for the first phase of this programme, namely, Maputoand Beira regions in Mozambique and Wolo and Tigrey regions inEthiopia. The guidelines provided for the roles and responsibilities ofMDP, the National Association of Italian Municipalities (ANCI), and theItalian and African municipalities. Programme funding provided by theItalian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGCS), as well as funding provided bythe participating Italian municipalities.


46

5. Local Authority Technical Links Scheme

Contacts: James Beadle, Head of International Partnerships andProjects; International Partnerships and Projects Team, LocalGovernment International Bureau, Local Government House, SmithSquare, London, SW1P 3HZ, England; [email protected];Telephone: 44-20-7664 3118; Fax: 44-20-7664 3128 Website: www.lgib.gov.uk

Objectives: The aim of the programme was to promote the develop-ment of local democracy and the free-market economy in the transitioneconomies of Central and Eastern Europe. The aims were latterly mod-ified in the light of the UK Government’s White Paper on InternationalDevelopment. As a result priority was given to projects with a povertyfocus, with the aim to support sustainable livelihoods, promoting humandevelopment, conserving the environment and encouraging economicgrowth which benefits the poor.

Activities: The Programme supported a wide range of local authority tolocal authority technical co-operation projects covering the full range oflocal government management and service delivery issues. Scope ofactivities: The Programme approved over 150 projects in the followingcountries Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia,Hungary, Slovenia, Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia,Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. In allover 100 local authorities in the UK and 100 local authorities in Centraland Eastern Europe.

Institutional set-up: The Programme was managed by the LocalGovernment International Bureau on behalf of the Department forInternational Development Know-How Fund. The Programme startedin 1992 following lobbying from UK local government who wanted tomake a positive contribution to the process of transition on the region.The Programme ended in 2000 as the Department for InternationalDevelopment felt that the Programme no longer fitted in with the UKgovernment’s international development strategy. The Department forInternational Development provided grants of up to £30,000 to supportindividual projects, however this finance was frequently supplementedby substantial in-kind contributions from the participating local authori-ties, particularly in the form of staff time.

6. Local Government Association Capacity Buildingthrough Association-to-Association Partnerships

Contacts: Mr. Gerd Juntermanns, Division 42, State and EconomicReform, Civil Society, GTZ, Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5,P.O. Box 5180, 65726 Eschborn, Germany; [email protected]; Phone: 49-6196-79-1660; Fax: 49-6196-79-6105.Mr. Walter Leitermann, Deutscher Städtetag (DST), Linde-nallee 13-17;50968 Köln, Germany; [email protected]; Phone: 0049–221–3771-310;Fax: 0049–221–3771-150;

Objectives: The project objectives are to promote local governmentassociation-to-association partnerships in order to strengthen the learn-ing dialogue between local government associations in industrialised,transition and developing countries. This form of cooperation permits thetransfer of local authority association’s know-how; practitioners canlearn from each other. Association-to-association partnership arrange-ments support long-term governmental and administrative reform inpartner countries of German development cooperation.

Activities: Planned: a) Developing a concept for association-to-associa-tion partnerships aiming at integrating these partnerships in projectsand programmes of German development cooperation. b) Establishingan information exchange service unit in the field of inter-municipal andinter-associational cooperation. c) Initiating pilot association-to-associa-tion partnerships in selected regions and drawing lessons learnt. Scopeof activities: The pilot regions have not as yet been assigned, but LatinAmerica will probably be one.

Institutional set-up: The supra-regional project is running for twoyears. It will start in August 2002. The project is being implemented onbehalf of the GTZ in cooperation with the Deutscher Staedtetag (DST).The core team will be two project managers (one from GTZ and one fromDST) and one project officer. The project idea was born in autumn 2001during an interlocution between the German Minister of DevelopmentCooperation, the President of the DST and a German Mayor. The differ-ent actors are interested in bringing forward the German local actors intointernational cooperation. The activities are financed by the projectbudget. The project budget is funded by GTZ. The DST supports the proj-ect with taking over the office expenses.

7. Local Leadership and Management Training Programme

Contacts: Tomasz Sudra, Chief, Training and Capacity Building Branch,UN-HABITAT, P. O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya.E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: (254-20) - 623034; Fax: (254-20) - 624175

Objectives: The strategic objective of the Local Leadership andManagement Training Programme is the strengthening of national capa-bilities; of developing and transition country capacity-building institu-tions to respond to training and other capacity-building needs throughintegrated, demand-based capacity-building projects. These are formu-lated jointly with national partners and interested donors, and consistmainly of sub-regional activities with high multiplier effect, and follow-up support at national/local levels. The work concentrates on specificregions, maintaining continuous contact with partner/client institutions,organising and implementing activities.

Activities: The Local Leadership and Management Training Programmeconsists of three principal groups of activities. The goals of these activ-ities are to improve urban governance – improving its effectiveness, effi-ciency, transparency, inclusiveness and participatory character andincreasing its impact on poverty reduction and a better living environ-ment. These goals are achieved through the specific activities of LocalLeadership Training, training using the “Building Bridges” series of man-uals, training using the local development NGOs/CBOs capacity buildingmanuals, settlement management training and direct support of nation-al and local training institutions. Scope of the programme: The pro-gramme functions in Africa, Arab States, Asia, Latin America andCentral/Eastern Europe. The multiplier effect and scope of activities canbe illustrated by the diversity of the translated languages of the localleadership manuals - one of the main tools - which include Amharick,Arabic, Czech, French, Hindu, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish,Slovak, Swahili, Spanish. Romanian and Russian.

Institutional set-up; The programme is anchored within the Trainingand Capacity Building Branch of UN-HABITAT. Generic tools/handbooksare developed at global level based on expressed needs of local author-ities and partners. Once validated/field tested, these are used for ToTs

ANNE

X 3

47

and capacity building of national training and capacity building institu-tions, under direct control and with assistance of the global programme.National institutions with other partners take the lead in implementingtraining activities and adaptation of manuals to local and national con-ditions. In the early 1990s UN-HABITAT with funding support of theNetherlands Government initiated a project in response to the request ofthe Commission on Human Settlements and within the on-going effortsof UN-HABITAT. The aim of the project, known as DSO Project 1, latercomplemented with DSO 2, was to address the needs of training, insti-tution-building and human resource development. It was also developedto support the implementation of the Habitat Agenda as formulated byAsian and African countries in their Habitat II National Plans of Action.The conceptual framework of the project was derived from the UN-HABI-TAT Training and Capacity Building Strategy. The objective of the DSO1Project was the development and strengthening of training activities formunicipal staff, elected officials and NGO activists in settlements man-agement and local leadership. DSO 1 focused on the development ofgeneric manuals/handbooks and on Training of Trainers but did notinclude provision for support to institutions other than the developmentof materials and the “learning by doing” capacity-building. DSO2 on theother hand was designed to specifically complement the individualcapacity-building activities of the on-going DSO1 Project by providingdirect support to Trainers and their institutions to implement new andimproved training activities in their respective countries. Core staffresources come from the regular budget and are mainly used to design,implement, monitor and evaluate capacity building and training activi-ties. Project proposals are submitted for funding to interested donors,who are, as a result, financing a great majority of programme activities.Some high priority activities are being financed directly out of UN-HABI-TAT extra-budgetary resources.

9. Mediterranean Action Plan

Contacts: Mr. Ivica Trumbic, Director, Priority Actions Programme,Regional Activity Centre, Kraj Sv. Ivana 11 21000 Split, Croatia; E-mail: [email protected]; telephone: 385-21 - 34 34 99; fax: 385-21 - 36 16 77

Objectives: To propose recommendations on urban management and sus-tainable development to the Mediterranean countries, Contracting Partiesto the Barcelona Convention, and other regional actors in urban manage-ment and development (NGOs, municipalities, local and regional authori-ties, professional associations, private sector, international organisations).

Activities: 1) preparation of the initial paper on the issues; 2) question-naire sent to more than 100 Mediterranean municipalities, and all thecountries in the region, on urban issues; 3) 5 sub-regional reports for 21countries of the Mediterranean region; 4) 6 in-depth case studies; 5)synthesis papers on major urban issues in the region: 6) regional work-shop; 7) recommendations to MCSD; 8) recommendations to theContracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention (adopted in November2001); 9) implementation of the recommendations (2002-2005); 10) fol-low up. Scope of Activities: 1) all countries in the Mediterranean region;2)100 cities were contacted for the questionnaire (40 responses); 3) 6in-depth city case studies; 4) there are always 3 local authorities (rotat-ing every 2 years) represented) in the MCSD

Institutional set-up: The Mediterranean Commission on SustainableDevelopment (MCSD) is tackling the priority issues and presenting therecommendations that Mediterranean countries and other actors areadopting the bi-annual meetings of the Contracting Parties to theBarcelona Convention. Urban Management and SustainableDevelopment is an issue managed by the PAP/RAC and Blue Plan cen-

tres of the Mediterranean Action Plan. The recommendations wereadopted in November 2001 and implemented by the PAP/RAC. The pro-gramme started in 1999. The bulk of activities was carried out in 2000-2001. The recommendations were approved in November 2001. Theimplementation will be carried out in 2002-2005. Activities are fundedthrough the budget of the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP). It is allocat-ed to the centres that are technically supporting the Working Group(PAP/RAC). For the period 2000-2001, the total amount of money spenton this Working Group was about US$ 150,000. Almost equal amountwas spent “in kind” by the developed countries of the region (contribu-tion to the workshop in Barcelona, travel costs for the meetings etc.). Inaddition, the European Commission has awarded some funds on a com-petitive basis.

8. Managing the Environment Locally in Sub-Saharan Africa (MELISSA)

Contacts: Dr Ousseynou Diop, Regional Coordinator MELISSA, WorldBank Office, P.O. Box 12629 Hatfield, 0028 Pretoria, South Africa; E-mail: [email protected]; telephone: 27-12 - 349.2994; fax: 27-12 - 349.2080

Objectives: Enhance decentralized environmental policies and strate-gies in Sub-Saharan Africa through capacity building, partnership devel-opment and knowledge sharing.

Activities: Training workshops on urban environment, Institutional sup-port for Decentralized Environmental Action Plan Preparation, Net-work-ing and Information Sharing (Forum, electronic newsletter, environmen-tal resources and publications, web site,) Action research on “Eco-sys-tem Approach to Urban Development”; Scope of Activities: 1)Institutional support in 5 cities in Ghana, Antananarivo (Madagascar),Northern Province (South Africa); 2) Networking and Knowledge Sharingin Sub-Saharan Africa (45 cities involved); 3) Action research on“ecosystem approach to urban development” in 2 secondary towns(under preparation).

Institutional set-up: A co-ordination Unit located in Pretoria and aProgram Management Team based in Washington DC at the World BankHeadquarters. Background: MELISSA was launched in late 1996 by theEuropean Commission and the World Bank. The initiative derives from adynamic and participatory consultation process involving distinguishedAfrican Governmental officials, Academics, Representatives of NGOs,CBOs, the private sector and External Support Agencies. This process isknown as the Post-UNCED initiative launched by the World Bank in 1995.Supported by the European Commission, Norway, Sweden and the WorldBank for the first phase 1997 – 2000. Supported by Norway and theWorld Bank for the second phase 2001-2003.

10. Public Private Partnerships for the Urban Environment (PPPUE)

Contacts: Mr Peter Grohmann, Global Task Manager, P.O. Box 6541,Pretoria, 0001, South Africa. Email: [email protected], Telephone andfax are to change shortly and the new numbers are not yet knownplease check website:www.undp.org/pppue for latest contact information.

Objectives: The core goal of UNDP’s PPPUE facility Public-PrivatePartnerships for the Urban Environment Facility is to increase the accessof the urban poor to basic urban services by promoting collaboration


48

between the private and public sectors. Through these innovative part-nerships, PPPUE helps to address some of the most urgent urban envi-ronmental needs and to create healthy living conditions for all citizens incities of the developing world.Activities: PPPUE has two components to support developing countriesin developing pro poor tripartite partnerships. Innovative PartnershipGrants (IPG) reward innovative projects in support of PPPs at the locallevel. Project proposals are selected through competition on the basis ofdefined criteria. There are currently 15 IPG projects under developmentglobally. The Global Learning Network (GLN) provides a forum for thoseinvolved in pro-poor PPP. It utilises powerful networking capacities tofacilitate experience and resource exchange and the development ofprofessional capacity for PPP. GLN activities include CollaborativeLearning, an electronic newsletter and development of training tools formunicipalities, all available at www.undp.org/pppue. Scope of Activities:PPPUE focuses on small and medium sized cities in all UNDPProgramme Countries in each of the five regions. Currently 15 countriesare implementing IPG projects which will support pro-poor PPP andbasic service delivery in more than 20 cities. The GLN has global cover-age and links those involved in IPGs, our partner programmes and oth-ers engaged in pro-poor PPP. Activities are coordinated via regionalnodes in Peru, Ukraine, Ghana, China, India, Philippines and USA.

Institutional set-up: The Consultative Group provides strategic lead-ership for the facility deciding overall policies, endorsing the work pro-gramme, and reviewing performance. The Technical AdvisoryCommittee selects IPG project proposals and provides technical guid-ance to the CG and the Management Unit. The small Management Unitis responsible for programme management, providing advice to andcoordinating with programme partners and UNDP Country Offices, co-ordination of the Innovative Partnership Grants and Global LearningNetwork and resource mobilisation. UNDP launched the PPPUE facil-ity in 1994 following the recommendations of the Rio Earth Summit onpublic-private collaboration. After successful pilot and scaling-upphases PPPUE launched a new platform in 2000 to support local gov-ernments and private actors in building their own capacities for inno-vative and sustainable partnerships. PPPUE maintains a flexible finan-cial structure that allows donors to contribute to the PPPUE Trust Fundin general or for specific activities. Funds are administered in accor-dance with UNDP Financial Rules and Regulations and are subject tonormal internal and external auditing procedures. IPG proposals arestrongly encouraged to supplement the grant with substantial cofinancing either as cash contribution or in kind. Some resources insupport of the project must be provided by project partners.

11. Strengthening Local Governance - Municipal Twinning

Contacts: Mr. Gerd Juntermanns, Division 42, State and EconomicReform, Civil Society - GTZ, Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5 P.O. Box5180; 65726 Eschborn, Germany. E-mail: [email protected];Phone: 49-6196-79-1660; Fax: 49-6196-79-6105

Objectives: The project objectives are to promote municipality twinningand partnership arrangements in order to strengthen the learning dia-logue between local authorities in industrialised, transition and develop-ing countries. This form of co-operation permits the transfer of localauthority know-how; practitioners can learn from each other.Municipality twinning arrangements support long-term governmentaland administrative reform.

Activities: 1) Inventory on scope and potential of German municipalitytwinning. 2) Workshop with German cities aiming at discussing success

factors of municipality twinning. 3) Pilot activity in Indonesia: Support ofa city network Germany-Indonesia with the main emphasis on local eco-nomic development. 4) Pilot activity in Vietnam: Support of Local Agenda21 processes. Pilot activity in Croatia: Support of regional economicdevelopment. Scope of Activities: Within the first year of the project wesupport pilot activities in Indonesia, Vietnam and Croatia in the field ofC2C Cooperation. The pilot regions for years 2 and 3 have not as yetbeen assigned.

Institutional set-up: The supra-regional project is running for threeyears. It started in October 2001. The project is being implemented ofthe GTZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for EconomicCooperation and Development (BMZ). The core team is one projectmanager and two project officers. The project started in October 2001.The background is the following: (1) Cities in Germany are interestedin professionalising their partnerships.(2) Cities in partner countries ofGerman development cooperation are looking for support from cities inGermany. (3) The German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation(BMZ) puts one main emphasis on local development co-operation.The activities are financed by the project budget. The project budget isfunded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (BMZ).

12. Support to Solidarity Among Cities

Contacts: Edmundo Werna, Research and Development Unit, UNV;Martin Luther King Str. 8, Postfach 260111; D-53153 Bonn, Germany;E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: + 49 228 8152123. Fax:+ 49 228 815 2001. Eric Sarvan, IULA - FLACMA, AgustínGuerrero 219 y José Ayora; P.O. Box 17-01-1109, Quito, Ecuador; E-mail: [email protected]; Tel.: + (593 2) 2 469 366; Fax: + (593 2) 2 435 205.

Objectives: To further solidarity between cities, thereby advancing thedevelopment of their human resources, the institutional capacities oftheir municipalities and the quality and coverage of their urban services.

Activities: UNV has the capacity to send human resources from onecountry to another (and within countries) to work in development proj-ects and to give them logistical support UNV is offering this attributeto cities which want to send their experts to other cities in C2C initia-tives. UNV is therefore developing partnerships with local authoritiesas developing a database to match supply and demand for C2C. TheUNVIULA project has since April 2001 focused on studying the existingproducts and services being offered to facilitate C2C, identifying toolsthat should be offered by an Internet site for C2C, and developing theInternet Platform PIMEX. A prototype of the Platform was launched inMarch 2002 in Latin America. Since November 2001, a second proj-ect component is concentrating on the identification of municipalitiessuitable for the assignment of Volunteers to support C2C activities. Thefirst three of eight cities have been identified and cooperation agree-ments are currently being signed. Scope of Activities: Though in itsinitial phase the project focuses on cooperation with and within LatinAmerica and Africa, a future expansion to other regions is planned.

Institutional set-up: The Support to Solidarity Among Cities programmeis being executed in cooperation with the International Union of LocalAuthorities (IULA). Teams of UN Volunteers – Specialists in UrbanDevelopment and Information Technology – are based in IULA’s regionaloffice in Quito, Ecuador (IULA-FLACMA) and in IULA’s regional office inHarare, Zimbabwe (IULA-AULA). The team in Quito is in charge of theconstruction of the Internet Site PIMEX – Platform for InternationalMunicipal Exchange. The programme overall is supervised by UNV head-

ANNE

X 3

49

quarters in Germany. The main objective of the initiative is to enhancesolidarity among local authorities. C2C is an integral part of UNV’s urbanagenda, designed in 1998, and the initiative is UNV’s major undertakingin the field. The project was launched in April 2001 with the assignmentof the first Urban Development Specialist to Quito. Human and financialresources are provided by the United Nations Volunteers Programmethrough a special fund for experimental projects (within the UNV budg-et). UNV also provides in-kind contributions.

13. TCDC Transfer Process of Good/Best Practices- Promoting South-South Co-operation

Contacts: Ms. Bernadia Irawati Tjandradewi, Programme Manager,Programme Unit, CityNet, 5F, International Organizations Center,Pacifico-Yokohama, 1-1-1 Minato Mirai, Nishiku, Yokohama 220-0012,JAPAN; E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];Telephone:(81-45) - 223-2161; Fax: (81-45)-223-2162; Website: http://www.citynet-ap.org/

Objectives: TCDC Transfer Process of Best Practices is an urban gov-ernance modality that promotes effectiveness and efficiency. By sup-porting the direct technical exchange and transfer of expertisebetween cities, the TCDC transfer programmes have proven to bepolitically more acceptable, institutionally more viable and economi-cally more efficient. The objectives are: 1) To enhance cooperationamong cities in developing countries. 2) To provide opportunities forcities/organisations to see, directly learn from and get them inspiredby good/best practices. 3) To adapt or replicate those successful prac-tices locally, transfers can be fostered given the fact that they are geo-graphically, social and culturally similar.

Activities: As the programme places mutual interests of cooperatingcities first, main activities proposed are the issues urgently face byparticipating cities. Over the past 3 years, the following areas havebeen covered: (1) Urban environment – solid waste management; (2)Urban poverty, (3) Municipal finance and administration – resourcemobilisation, (ie. Municipal bond, tax collection system, etc); (4)Management of Infrastructure and Services – urban transport. Scopeof Activities: Participation includes more than 50 cities in Asia-Pacificregion, from 18 countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Fiji, India,Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, P.NG, P.R.China, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam.

Institutional set-up: The beneficiary cities submit requests toCITYNET; the CITYNET Secretariat review the proposal, search for bestpartners, and explore possibility for such exchanges and practices’replication. The Practical Guidelines on South-South Cooperation hasmade the participating cities (beneficiary and lead cities) understandtheir roles and help them in the optimisation of such exchanges. Theconcept of TCDC was initially introduced by UNESCAP and UNDP whenCITYNET was established in 1987. The objective was to enhance coop-eration among developing countries through study visits or advisoryservices. However, CITYNET - TCDC has become a unique in imple-mentation because: 1) It is done at the city level without any interven-tion/involvement from national governments. 2) It applies cost-sharingconcepts in which all participating cities have to share the costs, whilemembership fees and or project development funds channelledthrough CITYNET are spent for the travels. 3) The cooperation isexpanded from one-to-one to one-to-group or group-to-group co-operation. Participation of various stakeholders in the exchanges hasfostered the replication of good/best practices. TCDC Best PracticesTransfer applied cost-sharing concept in which CITYNET pays for the

international airfare, while host or beneficiary cities shares the localexpenses and other project costs incurred.

14. Urban Environment Forum (UEF)

Contacts: Mr Ole Lyse, Ag Coordinator, Urban Environment Section /SCP; UN-HABITAT, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya; Email:[email protected]; Tel: 254-20-623.565; Fax: 254-20-623.715 or624.264; Website: http://www.unchs.org/uef

Objectives: The UEF is a loose global network of cities and urban devel-opment practitioners, defined by its members’ shared concerns forurban environmental management. The UEF is a true “network”, exist-ing only to facilitate the ability of its members, individually and collec-tively, to address those concerns. The emphasis of the UEF is thereforeon exchange of experience, pooling of knowledge, and sharing ofinsights about how best to apply different approaches in different urbancontexts. It also focuses on effectively bringing the cities who are deal-ing with urban environmental problems together with and the interna-tional programmes which aim to support them.

Activities: The UEF has sponsored a series of global, regional and the-matic meetings and workshops designed both for systematic exchangeof knowledge and experience and for raising awareness and under-standing of common tasks and hence the potential for C2C cooperation.Experiences have been synthesised and together with case studies pub-lished in the widely-circulated EPM Source Book (3 volumes). A websitehas also been established, to facilitate continuing exchange and com-munication. The UEF has organised and sponsored global and regionalmeetings regularly from 1996 to 2000, including in Asia, Africa, Europe,and North America. It has produced reports and documents on a widerange of topics.

Institutional set-up: The UEF developed from the interests of the origi-nal participating partners. It has no organisational “ownership”. As auser network, the UEF funds its activities on an ad hoc basis drawingsupport for particular activities from a variety of bilateral and multilater-al aid agencies as well as from the cities themselves. UN-HABITAT hasso far provided secretariat services, but there is no permanent organi-sation. The UEF grew out of a development initiative (the EPMGuidebook project 1995-1996); the networking and information-sharingactivities which evolved through that work were formalised into the UEFin a parallel meeting at Habitat II in Istanbul in 1996. Subsequently,global and regional meetings and other activities have occurred on aregular (but not fixed) basis, often in association with other events.Occasional inputs of staff time for organisational purposes have beenprovided by UN-HABITAT. Funding for activities is ad hoc and is raisedfrom a variety of sources, on a one-off basis.

15. Urban Quality (UQ) Programme Civil Societyand Inter-Municipal Co-operation for BetterUrban Services

Contacts: Gerd Sippel, Head, Urban Programme, Urban & MunicipalDevelopment Division, GTZ - Urban & Municipal Development,Deutsche Bank Building, 17th Floor, Jl. Imam Bonjol No. 80, Jakarta10310 – Indonesia; E-mail. [email protected]; Tel. 62–21–398 31590; Fax. 62–21–398 31591; Website: www.urbanquality.org

Objectives: UQ is a German-Indonesian development initiative pro-gramme, financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic


50

Cooperation and Development (BMZ), to strengthen local decision mak-ing for sustainable development in urban areas in Indonesia.Activities: In 2001 UQ concluded Task Description Agreements with 20towns & cities describing the first phase of intensive cooperation witheach of these towns & cities to lead to a useful result in a very short timeirrespective of subsequent cooperation with GTZ. The purpose of thisfirst phase is two-fold: (1) Achieve a useful result for the future devel-opment of the town or city; (2) Give the town or city and Urban Qualityan opportunity to get to know each other. With this information, it will bepossible to find a basis for reducing the number of towns with which UQwill cooperate during the subsequent phase of 6 to 8 months, which mayconsists of the detailed planning for the results achieved in the preced-ing phase. Thereafter, it is envisaged to further reduce the number ofparticipating cities for extensive implementation support. During theselatter phases more resources will be directed at the strengthening ofmultiplier institutions. Throughout the implementation of UQ it is neces-sary to document and disseminate proceedings in easily understood lan-guage, to engage local stakeholders in discussion, to stimulate local dia-logue and exchange and to engage with local and regional media. As aresult of the aforementioned task description, UQ is currently undertak-ing field visits to its towns & cities to inform, to teach and to show howindividual demonstration measures are used as entry points for a com-prehensive urban development programme, and in order to start UQ’sfirst phase of intensive cooperation with towns & cities. The selection ofcities began in April 2001. In view of the regional priorities forIndonesian-German development cooperation agreed to by the twoGovernments, the regional focus of the programme during the initialphases is set on the provinces Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB), NusaTenggara Timur (NTT), Central Java and Yogyakarta.

Institutional set-up: GTZ has grouped a number of Indonesian-Germantechnical cooperation projects into a joint management structure underthe broad heading of ‘Urban and Municipal Develop-ment’. The projectsaim to build capacity, empower decision makers, strengthen institutions,and to enrich the policy formulation process through a linkage with localgovernment at town and city level. Complementary to the project group’Decentralization and Local Governance Capacity Building’, activities ofthe Urban and Municipal Development Project Group provide technicalassistance to towns and cities, for the benefit of their sustaineddevelopment, with special emphasis on the need to improve the qualityof life of the urban poor. In 1998 GTZ reviewed its ongoing projects in theurban sector and came to the conclusion that an integration of the urbanprojects would broaden the impact of individual projects and enhancesustainability. In 1998 both governments agreed to achieve thisintegration through the UQ initiative. In 2000, GTZ was commissioned bythe German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (BMZ) to implement the German contribution to UQ.Financial Base: Current Phase: approximately USD 4.000.000,- (Germancontribution). approximately USD 1.500.000,- (Counterpart contribution).

ANNE

X 3

51

The Millennium Development Goals and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg provide an opportu-nity for the international community to focus more sharply on what we must do to achieve sustainable development. The factthat half the people of the world now live in towns and cities, and that this proportion will rise to two-thirds by the middle of thiscentury is a major challenge.

For development to be sustainable, the implications of our rapidly growing urban areas – where increasing numbers of residentsare living in poverty – need to be clearly addressed. Target 11 of the Millennium Development Goals focuses on the need toachieve a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. UN-HABITAT, the United NationsAgency for human settlements has, together with all Habitat Agenda Partners (national governments, local authorities, civil so-ciety, international organisations and urban practitioners), adopted the concept of ‘sustainable urbanisation’ as a commonframework for jointly addressing these issues. The UK Government Department for International Development has joined withUN-HABITAT to promote this concept at Johannesburg and beyond.

This publication is addressed to stakeholders at all levels, settingout specific promises and challenges of achieving sustainableurbanisation. It elaborates on many of the issues raised at thefirst World Urban Forum that was held at UN-HABITAT’s head-quarters in Nairobi in April-May 2002. At that forum, the fullrange of Habitat Agenda Partners came together to develop theconcept of ‘sustainable urbanisation’ and discuss its implemen-tation, as a joint message for the World Summit for SustainableDevelopment.

Sustainable urbanisation requires lasting economic growth, resulting in reduced poverty and greater social inclusion, and takingaccount of the relationships between rural and urban areas. It means providing the land and infrastructure necessary to keeppace with city growth and providing the poor with access to livelihoods and essential services while, at the same time improvinglife in rural and smaller urban settlements. It also means ensuring that local authorities and their partners have the capacity todeal with the complex challenge of managing growing cities and towns. To achieve sustainable urbanisation and realise the po-tential benefits of the interdependence of rural and urban areas, it is imperative to address the potential conflicts between rapidurban growth and environmental sustainability.

It is vital that all organisations involved in international development co-operation act together to address the challenges ofsustainable urbanisation, in support of national governments, local governments and their partners. This document is an im-portant contribution to further developing the framework agreed at the World Urban Forum and providing a solid basis for co-ordinated action.

Clare Short Anna Kajumulo TibaijukaSecretary of State for International Development Executive DirectorUnited Kingdom UN-HABITAT

SustainableUrbanisationAchieving Agenda 21

Foreword

August 2002

ANNEX 4Sustainable urbanisation requires... thatlocal authorities and their partners havethe capacity to deal with the complexchallenge of managing growing citiesand towns.


52

Coalition forSustainableUrbanisationPartnership Commitments for Implementing Agenda 21

Introduction

In the week from 29 April to 3 May 2002, in the context of the first Session of the World Urban Forum, some 400 Habitat Agendapartners from national governments, inter-governmental organisations, local authorities and their associations, non-governmental organisations, community based organisations, slum dwellers, and experts came together in Nairobi for a seriesof half-day dialogues on “sustainable urbanisation”. The dialogues were designed to prepare for the World Summit onSustainable Development (WSSD) and had three objectives: A first objective was to ensure that participants are fully aware ofthe agreed focus of UN-HABITAT in relation to the WSSD, and also to develop a clearer understanding of what is meant by“sustainable urbanisation” in this context, so that the efforts of diverse partners will be more coherent, consistent, and mutuallyreinforcing. A second was to strengthen collective understanding of the key challenges of sustainable urbanisation, using thethematic dialogues to further develop and synthesise different perspectives and ideas, thus leading to concrete conclusions forthe WSSD preparatory process. A third objective was to jointly review and further develop Partnership ImplementationCommitments, organised as type-2 outcomes of WSSD which can be fed directly into the preparatory process during PrepCom-4 in Bali.

In order to achieve these objectives the dialogue series was initiated with an Introductory Session, to create a common base ofunderstanding and to commit participants to the approach, after which there were six Thematic Dialogues, to explore the coreideas of sustainable urbanisation from different perspectives; finally, there was a Closing Session, to bring together and reviewthe ideas and results from the earlier dialogues, and re-confirm shared understandings and common commitments, in a reportto be presented to the over-all WUF final plenary. The six themes addressed in the individual dialogues were: (a) sustainabilityof cities; (b) the role of cities in sustainable development; (c) the rural dimension of sustainable urbanisation; (d) the managementof HIV/AIDS pandemic at the local level; (e) water, sanitation and hygiene, and (f) city-to-city co-operation. For each of thesethematic dialogues a background paper had been prepared by the secretariat, and contributions from carefully selected panelistsinitiated a lively debate, which led to the following principal conclusions.

ANNE

X 5

August 2002

ANNEX 5

53

What is Sustainable Urbanisation?“Sustainable Urbanisation”, as discussed and elaborated during the dia-logue series, has a number of special characteristics. It is, of course, aprocess – and a very dynamic one. Most important, it is multi-dimen-sional – it includes not only environmental but also social, economic,and political-institutional sustainability – and it brings together urbanand rural, encompassing the full range of human settlements from vil-lage to town to city to metropolis. In this way, sustainable urbanisationbrings under one heading the crucial linkages between cities and theirenvironment, at local, metropolitan, regional, national and global levels.It thus provides, for example, a framework for dealing with the environ-mental impact of cities on their hinterlands, or with the economic rela-tionships and ecological linkages between town and countryside. Bytaking this wider view, sustainable urbanisation moves beyond sterilearguments about urban versus rural, accepts the reality of urban growthand migration among human settlements, and concentrates on effectivemanagement of the process.

Poverty, gender inequality, and deprivation are central challenges tosustainable urbanisation – no process of urbanisation or developmentwill be sustainable unless it successfully addresses these issues. Thismeans that economic and social dimensions are crucial for sustainableurbanisation, in human settlements of all sizes. It also means that thescourge of HIV/AIDS, which so powerfully impacts on cities and poverty,is a vital concerns to be integrated into sustainable urbanisation.

Good governance (embracing local authorities, other spheres of govern-ment, and civil society) is another core concern, being an essential

mechanism of the urbanisation process.Local authorities endowed with ade-

quate powers, resources, andoperational capacity, com-

bined with empoweredand capable communi-

ties and other localpartners, are at theheart of sustainableurbanisation. Waterand sanitation inhuman settlements,

for instance, are vitalfor health and for eco-

nomic prosperity – espe-cially for the poor - and for

sustainability; but if the currentinadequate provisions are to be

corrected, communities and civil societyand local government will have to work together.

Sustainable urbanisation has both a short-term and a long-term per-spective: it is concerned not only with current problems, it also looksahead, to deal with future issues and situations, not only in relation tothe environment but also in combating poverty and social exclusion.

It is accepted that the principal barriers to sustainable urbanisation lie in thegeneral lack of planning, implementation, and management capacities on thepart of local governments and their local partners. Overcoming these barriers,which have many dimensions, is a fundamental challenge of sustainableurbanisation. This challenge, and appropriate responses, can usefully be con-sidered under the heading of Good Governance, which includes: (a) democra-tisation of decision-making and enabling meaningful participation of all localstakeholders including women and the urban poor; (b) municipal autonomyand empowerment, including an appropriate legal, regulatory and financialframework for local government; (c) public sector reform, especially in chang-ing from a supply-led to a demand-driven approach to public services; (d)effective decentralisation of authority and resources, both from national andregional government to local government, and within local government tosub-units and communities, and (e) vital role of local authorities and their localpartners in making sustainable urbanisation a reality.

These challenges call for a variety of responses, but particularly capacity-development initiatives – of many different kinds – directed at the full rangeof local actors: local authorities, NGOs, communities, private sector, etc. Morediverse and active forms of experience sharing, information exchange, andmutual learning are called for, including city-to-city and community-to-com-munity co-operation in its many forms, as well as more effective access toand use of Best Practices information. Making cities aware of - and respon-sive to - their wider environmental impacts, especially potentially adverseimpacts on surrounding rural regions, is another vital awareness-raising andcapacity-building task. Equally important is the development of institutions,procedures and capabilities for communities (especially the poor) to becomesignificant and active partners in local urbanisation.

A key challenge is to incorporate gender concerns and responsiveness intooperational procedures and actions at the local level. Women have played theleading role in many of the most successful community-level initiatives, espe-cially in poor areas, and are in any case best placed to articulate their ownneeds and priorities.

Mobilisation of local resources - whether municipal, community and house-hold, private sector, or other - was emphasised as a key challenge through-out the Dialogue. For instance, the ability of poor communities to generatesufficient own-resources to build and maintain local water and seweragefacilities has been well demonstrated in several innovative programmes, andthe potential of the private sector for managerial, financial and otherresources is very much under-utilised. Adapting and up-scaling this commu-nity/private/own-resources approach provides an important basis for makingprogress toward the goal of providing urban residents with adequate waterand sanitation. Initiatives such as community contracting have also provedeffective for mobilising local resources, building local skills and capacities,empowering local communities, and generating local jobs and income.

The challenge of integrating urban and rural, and of integrating physical-spa-tial, economic, social and environmental aspects, calls for a pro-activeapproach to planning and managing sustainable urbanisation. Strategic plan-ning mechanisms and skills need to be developed to meet this challenge, andto provide a participatory and integrated foundation for urban and regionalmanagement. Strategic planning at the regional (sub-national) scale is a valu-able tool for helping to ensure a balance in urban and rural development and

ANNEX 5

Challenges and Responses

The challenges of sustainable urbanisation callfor a variety of responses but particularly capacitydevelopment initiatives - of many different kinds- directed at the full range of local actors.


54

ANNE

X 5

coping with the absorption of rural-urban migration while maintaining a goodquality of life in both urban and rural areas.

In this respect policy-makers should accept that urbanisation is inevitable –and generally beneficial – and focus on properly managing the process ratherthan attempting (unsuccessfully) to fight it.

Local responses to the challenges of sustainable urbanisation are also ham-pered by the lack of coherence and mutual support among the many inter-national support programmes who have an important role to play. A moredemand-led approach is called for, with the external agents working on along-term basis with local authorities and their partners in a more integrat-ed manner.

4. Model City-to-City Co-operation Partnership:A partnership of associations of local authorities, selected municipali-ties and key NGOs, illustrating the range of possible forms of decen-tralised co-operation for the systematic transfer of knowledge, expert-ise and technology on a North-South and South-South basis.

5. Demonstrating Local Environmental Planning and Management(EPM):A partnership for strengthening the capacities of local authorities andtheir public, private and community partners for socially, economical-ly and environmentally more sustainable urban development, in col-laboration with UN-HABITAT, UNEP, ILO, UNDP and other internationalprogramme and support partners.

6. National Capacities for Up-scaling Local Agenda 21Demonstrations:A partnership for building nationally the capacities of local and cen-tral governments, associations of local authorities, and training insti-tutions to routinely integrate the lessons of experience from localdemonstrations into national sustainable urbanisation and povertyalleviation policies, up-scaling strategies, and associated legal frame-works.

7. Local Capacity-Building and Training for SustainableUrbanisation:A public – private partnership for training and capacity-building in thefield of sustainable development establishing a link between the glob-al and local spheres for and with local authorities.

8. Learning from Best Practices and Policies in support ofSustainable Urbanisation:A partnership for learning from Best Practices, good policies andenabling legislation: aimed at feeding the lessons from best practicesinto the capacity development of local authorities, supported by UN-HABITAT, research & training institutions, professional and city asso-ciations and individual cities.

9. Water for Asian CitiesA public-private-NGO partnership programme for providing access towater and sanitation for the urban poor in Asian cities, in collabora-tion with UNEP, the Asian Development Bank, funding agencies andnational governments.

10. Partnership for Sustainable African CitiesA partnership of African Cities and their respective government min-istries to promote sharing of experience and know-how for broadbased, participatory planning and management of African Cities. TheAfrican city plays a key role in sustainable urbanization. A network forsharing information and experience will enable cities and their part-ners to learn from each other in order to avoid pitfalls and to adoptbest practices.

11. Partnership for Managing HIV / AIDS at the Local Level A partnership for strengthening the capacity of communities and theirlocal authorities to develop and implement strategies for addressingHIV/AIDS at the local level, in the context of human settlements andshelter and with a focus on the most vulnerable, especially childrenin distress.

A key message throughout the entire dialogue series was partnership –the realisation that to successfully plan, implement and manage themeasures needed to achieve sustainable urbanisation, the concertedefforts of a wide range of partners are needed, whether for economicdevelopment and poverty reduction, or for coping with the HIV/AIDS pan-demic, or for better dealing with the city’s environmental impacts, or forproviding public services. The various dialogue sessions also focused onidentifying and developing “partnership implementation commitments”,as concrete illustrations of how cities and their partners can forge ahead.The following proposals, currently under preparation as part of a“Coalition for Sustainable Urbanisation”, were reviewed and endorsed forfurther development in the WSSD preparatory process.*

1. Millennium Cities Partnership: A partnership of local governments and their global, regional andnational associations and the United Nations to mobilise and assistlocal governments in planning and implementing local actions for therealisation of the Millennium Declaration and the MillenniumDevelopment Goals.

2. Local Capacities for Global Agendas:A partnership for developing local capacities and routine mechanismsfor adapting and implementing global principles and norms of sus-tainable urbanisation (including related multilateral environmentagreements- MEAs); together with strengthening the capacities of localactors for contributing local experiences and know-how to the formulationof global principles and norms - in collaboration with international supportprogrammes and the UNEP-GEF.

3. Partnership for Local Capacity Development (PLCD): A partnership to promote cohesion and collective efficiency in the inter-national support available to the development of local capacities forsustainable urbanisation. This will be accomplished by facilitating jointpolicy formation between leading international associations of localauthorities, international support programmes and funding agencies,and the further development of a systematic information service.

Partnership ImplementationCommitments

*The original list of partnership implementation commitments has been updated toreflect ongoing development of the initiatives since the World Urban Forum. The list hasalso been re-arranged to more readily correspond to the agenda items of the WSSDparallel event of UN-HABITAT and its partners on the “Coalition for SustainableUrbanisation” (Johannesburg, Crowne Plaza, 27 August 2002).

Local responses to the challenges ofsustainable urbanisation are also hampered bythe lack of coherence and mutual supportamong many international support programmeswho have an important role to play.

55

Partnership forLocal Capacity Development (PLCD)

Key Objectives1. To improve international support to local authorities and their

partners in the area of local capacity development forsustainable urbanisation

2. To further develop effective frameworks for exchanging ideas,practices and dialogue among the key partner sectors (localgovernment associations, support programmes, donors) in thefield of local government capacity development

3. To provide an information service on city-to-city cooperationand other local government programmes and practice so as topromote a better match between capacity developmentdemand and supply as well as permitting the analysis of trendsand policy issues, with ready access by practitioners to allrelevant information

4. To reduce duplication, fill gaps and exploit synergies in theprovision of support to local government capacity developmentby the international community

5. To facilitate a formal dialogue on policy and coordination in thefield of local government capacity development

Outputs/DeliverablesAn increasingly comprehensive and systematic analysis of city-to-city cooperation and other local government capacity buildingpolicies and practice based upon all available information includingexisting interactive databases developed by the international localgovernment networks.

Periodic analytical reports on issues arising in local governmentcapacity development, strategic bottlenecks etc, for considerationby the relevant policy bodies

Periodic policy dialogues between representatives from key relevantinternational local government associations, support programmesand donors

Timeframe for DeliverablesThe timeframe for the partnership is 2002 onwards. It Is envisagedthat the partnership will be an ongoing initiative with an initialimplementation phase from 2002-2005

Partners involvedWACLAC, represented by one or more designated memberassociations, representing local authorities

UN-HABITAT and other UN Agencies involved in local governmentcapacity building initiatives (UNEP, UNDP, UNV), representing thesupport programmes

One or two key national governments and/or multilateralorganisations, representing donors

The information service and the policy dialogues would be opened toall organisations involved in operating or supporting city-to-citycooperation and other local government capacity building initiatives(current partners in the initial information base developed by UN-HABITAT and WACLAC include UN-HABITAT, UNEP, UNITAR, UNV, ICLEI,GTZ, ICMA, IULA, UTO, CityNet, SisterCities International,Commonwealth Local Government Forum, Melissa, MediterraneanAction Plan, etc.)

Funding

One-off setting up costs for the information service - $100,000

Annual secretariat costs for maintaining the information service,preparing the periodic reports and organising the policy dialogues$300,000 pa

Monitoring Arrangements and indicators

The quality, usefulness and added value of the Partnership would bemonitored on a continuing basis by its member organisationsassessing the degree to which PLCD meets the objectives and needsof the three partner sectors local authorities, international supportprogrammes, and donors.

The partnership would also seek to develop methodology formonitoring the effectiveness of model city-to-city cooperationInitiatives (see partnership 4 of the Coalition for SustainableUrbanisation) and other selected local government capacity buildinginitiatives with the aim of better understanding an appropriate matchbetween types of capacity development needs and various supportmodalities. Issues and lessons learnt would be addressed in theperiodic reports.

To promote cohesion and collective efficiency in the international support available to the development of localcapacities for sustainable urbanisation. This will be accomplished by facilitating joint policy formation betweenleading international associations of local authorities, international support programmes and funding agencies,and the further development of a systematic information service.

Contact:Mr. Jochen Eigen, Ag. Chief, Technical Advisory Branch UN-HABITAT, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, KenyaTel: (254-20) 623226 E-mail: [email protected]


56

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)promotes socially, economically and environmentally sustainablehuman settlements development and the achievement of adequateshelter for all. UN-HABITAT is the lead agency within the United Nationssystem for the implementation of the Habitat Agenda – the global planof action adopted by the international community at the Habitat IIConference in Istanbul, Turkey in June 1996. Its activities represent theProgramme’s targeted contribution to the overall objective of the UnitedNations system to reduce poverty and promote sustainabledevelopment within the context and the challenges of a rapidlyurbanising world. As the secretariat to the Habitat II Conference, UN-HABITAT broke new ground by enabling local authorities, the privatesector and representatives of civil society to play an active role in theConference and in the formulation of the Habitat Agenda. As a result,partnerships and participation constitute two important strategicobjectives of the Habitat Agenda. UN-HABITAT’s focus on partners istwofold. It advocates partnerships and broad-based multi-stakeholderparticipation as effective means of governance and of improving livingconditions for all. It also involves partners in the design andimplementation of its work programme. Its partnership with localauthorities is supported by the United Nations Advisory Committee ofLocal Authorities (UNACLA), whose formation by the ExecutiveDirector of UN-HABITAT in 2000 was called for by the UN Commissionon Human Settlements. Contact: Jochen Eigen, Chief, TechnicalAdvisory Branch, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), PO Box 30030, NAIROBI, Kenya Tel: +254 20 623226, Fax:+254 20 623080, E-mail: [email protected]

The World Associations of Cities and Local AuthoritiesCoordination (WACLAC) was formed by the major international localgovernment associations in 1996 to provide a focus for developing theircollective collaboration with the United Nations. The associations (theInternational Union of Local Authorities (IULA), the World Federation ofUnited Cities (UTO), METROPOLIS – World Association of MajorMetropolises, and the Summit Conference of the World’s Major Cities),together with six regional associations and networks, convened theWorld Assembly of Cities and Local Authorities in Istanbul in 1996 on the

eve of Habitat II, the Second UN Conference on Human Settlements.This World Assembly called for further development of the partnershipwith the UN through the formation of an ongoing coordination of allinterested associations. WACLAC and its member associations havesince pursued joint work with UN-HABITAT on many aspects of localgovernment capacity-building and implementation of the HabitatAgenda. On 6 May 2001 WACLAC convened a second World Assemblyof Cities and Local Authorities in Rio de Janeiro to formulate localgovernment’s collective input to the UN General Assembly SpecialSession Istanbul +5 (New York, June 2001). Since 2001, when thework on the material presented in this publication was initiated, theWACLAC secretariat has rotated from METROPOLIS (Mayor Joan Clos,president; Margareta Obiols, Secretary General WACLAC) to IULA (CllrAlan Lloyd, president; Ms Sarah O’Brien, Secretary General WACLAC)and UTO (Hon. Mercedes Bresso, president; Mohamed Boussraoui,Secretary General WACLAC). Contact: Mohamed Boussraoui, SecretaryGeneral WACLAC, World Federation of United Cities (UTO), 41, rue de laRépublique, 93200 Saint-Denis, Tel.: 33 (1) 55 84 23 50 (direct 57), Fax:33 (1) 55 84 23 51, e-mail: [email protected], Web:www.fmcu-uto.org

This report has been prepared by UN-HABITAT in close collaborationwith WACLAC and with the guidance of UNACLA. Under the overall co-ordination of Jochen Eigen, Chief, Technical Advisory Branch of UN-HABITAT, the report was written by Paul N. Bongers, consultant andformer Director of the Local Government International Bureau (UK), andDouglas McCallum, consultant to UN-HABITAT’s Sustainable CitiesProgramme. It is built on the contributions to the data base provided bythe many participating organisations listed in Annexes 2 and 3. Thework was carried out in collaboration with Michel Bescond, MarceloNowersztern and David Bouanchaud of UTO, and with important inputsfrom Jeremy Smith and Sarah O’Brien of IULA, Jean-Pierre ElongMbassi of the Municipal Development Programme for Western andCentral Africa, as well as from Nicholas You, Roman Rollnick, AmrikKalsi, Wandia Seaforth, Ole Lyse, Jean-Christophe Adrian, Mary Oyioloand many other staff of UN-HABITAT. The publication was designed andlaid out by Michael Jones Software, Nairobi; [email protected]

ANNE

X 6

ContributorsANNEX 6

Background Documentation for theDialogue on the “Strengthening of Local Authorities”,19th Session of the UN-HABITAT Governing Council

Nairobi, May 2003

partnership for local capacity development

Documents

city priorities

experiencesof city

city cooperation2

idea of city

city cooperation4

context of city

city cooperation c2c

unhabitat regional