World Urban Forum 5: Background Document

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

w w w . u n h a b i t a t . o r g / w u f

THE RIGHT TO THE CITY: BRIDGING THE URBAN DIVIDE

The Fifth Session of the World Urban Forum

HSP/WUF/5/2

THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE WORLD URBAN FORUM2

Cover photo: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. © Shutterstock


Mar

ch 2

010

HSP/WUF/5/2

Background Document prepared by Eduardo López Moreno.

Coordinated by Oyebanji Oyeyinka and Mariam Yunusa (UN-HABITAT) and Cid Blanco Junior (Ministry of Cities, Brazil).

The document has been drafted with substantial inputs from the State of the World’s Cities Report 2010/11 “Bridging the Urban Divide”.

Technical inputs from UN-HABITAT Dialogue Coordinators: Dialogue 1: Szilard Fricska and Paul Taylor; Dialogue 2: Eduardo L. Moreno and Anne Amin; Dialogue 3: Claudio Acioly and Rasmus Precht; Dialogue 4: Cecilia Martínez Leal and Axumite Gebre-Egziabher; Dialogue 5: Mohamed Halfani; Dialogue 6: Raf Tuts, Cecilia Njenga and Karin Buhren.

Additional technical inputs from background documents commissioned by the Ministry of Cities: Nelson Saule Junior, Dialogue 1; Raquel Rolnik and Eduardo Marques, Dialogue 2; Nabil Bonduki and Adauto Cardoso, Dialogue 3; Carlos Vainer and Orlando Alves dos Santos Junior, Dialogue 5 and Ermínia Maricato and Henry Acselrad, Dialogue 6.

Citations from the on-line E-Debate made by various participants were documented by Alison Brown assisted by Nezar Atta Alla Kafafy, Nadir Kinossian, Virginia Marques, Evelyn Nava Fischer, and Shen Jie for Dialogue 1; Peter Boothroyd and Jeroen Klink for Dialogue 2; Suzanne Speak and Graham Tipple for Dialogue 3; Manoel de Almeida e Silva for Dialogue 4; Barbara Lipietz and Edgar Pieterse for Dialogue 5; David Simon, assisted by Ms Hayley Leck for Dialogue 6.

3THE RIgHT TO THE CITy: BRIDgINg THE URBAN DIvIDE

As the 20th Century was characterized by global changes in market relations and revolutionary changes in technology, the 21st Century will be known as the century of the city; a moment in history when one human being tipped the scales and changed the course of mankind with the majority of the world’s people now living in urban areas.

During this century megacities will continue to grow and massive conurbations of more than 20 million people, known as meta-cities, will emerge. The urban geography of the world will drastically change with new regional urban systems such as mega-regions, urban corridors, and city-regions linking metropolitan areas, small agglomerations and surrounding low-density hinterlands, becoming the new engines of both global and regional economies. Simultaneously, the majority of the world’s urban population will continue to live in small cities with less than 500,000 inhabitants and intermediate cities with between 1 and 5 million inhabitants.

Cities, be they very large, medium size or even in some cases small towns, will continue to be the drivers of the national economy, creating wealth, enhancing social development and providing employment. Urbanization and growth will continue to go hand in hand as more people will live in urban areas, higher positive societal outcomes such as technological innovation, various forms of creativity, economic progress, higher standards of living, enhanced democratic accountability, and women’s empowerment are expected.1

However, without competent and accountable urban governance, much of the cities’ potential

contribution to economic and social development will be lost.2 Clearly, when urbanization is not concomitant with significant improvements in living conditions, other divisive factors are at play, such as extreme inequalities, conflict, inadequate or ineffective policies, which can block development and substantially set back progress.3 Urbanization in these poorly governed places will take place in a context of poverty and marginalization that will increase the numbers of excluded and deprived for whom the city offers no future.4

Cities will continue to be divided by invisible borders. These split the “back” from the “front”; or the “up” and the “down”, as the urban divide is known colloquially in many parts of the world, particularly in the South.5 Some areas feature significant infrastructure, well-kept parks, gardens and up-market residential areas. In contrast, other areas are characterized by severe deprivation, inadequate housing, deficient services, poor recreation and cultural facilities, urban decay, and scarce capital investment. These tangible differences in access come as symptoms of the intangible, yet enduring divisions in society that apportion unequal opportunities and liberties across all city residents.6

This century will also see the number of slum dwellers in the world cross the one billion mark –one in every three residents will live in inadequate housing and with no access to or with access to few basic services. It is very likely that the number of the urban poor will also grow and cities and regions will become more unequal. This may be the future scenario if no corrective action is taken in the coming years.

The Century of the City

Dal

i gu

chen

g C

ity

of

Ch

ina.

Pho

to ©

UN

-HA

BITA

T


The previous sessions of the World Urban Forum (WUF) made it clear that managing rapid urbanization will be one of the most pressing problems confronting humanity in the 21st century.

The Third session of the WUF in Vancouver in 2006 (UN-HABITAT’s 30th birthday) focused on Sustainable Urbanization and Inclusive Cities. One of the Forum’s messages was that the urban population of developing countries is set to double from two to four billion in the next 30 years. This will require the equivalent planning, financing, and servicing facilities as for a new city of one million people to be built every week for the next 30 years.

The Theme of the Fourth session of WUF held in Nanjing in 2008 was Harmonious Urbanization. This session made it clear that a society can not be harmonious if large sections of its population are deprived from basic needs while other sections live in opulence. An important message from this Forum was that harmony in cities can not be achieved if the price of the urban living is paid by the environment. The concept of harmony entails the synchronization and integration of all the Earth’s assets: physical, environmental, cultural, historical, social or human.

The Fifth session of the WUF in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil’s second largest city, will build upon the technical and substantive lessons of the previous four sessions. This session focuses on the Right to the City: Bridging the Urban Divide. This Forum is conceived as a privileged space where various segments of society concerned with building a better future for

our cities can discuss, learn, practice, agree and disagree on different ways to overcome the urban divide. They can identify initiatives and commitments that can be effectively implemented to create cities that are more democratic, just, sustainable and humane, based on principles of solidarity, freedom, equality, dignity and social justice.7

The substantive objectives of the Fifth session of the WUF are to take stock of where the world stands with respect to the Right to the City, to analyze who is getting the benefits of the urbanization process and who is left out. The Forum also aims to share perspectives and view points on the contemporary relevance on this right, to identify what is needed to bridge the urban divide, and to facilitate a prompt and sustainable transition from a city that is partially inclusive to one that is fully inclusive.

The Forum is also intended to reaffirm the manner in which UN-HABITAT and its partners contribute to guiding and enriching the policy work on sustainable urbanization through an open dialogue, which for this Fifth session has been started at an earlier stage through a world-wide E-Debate on different aspects of the Right to the City. The on-line discussions generated important contributions in the form of ideas and messages that have been used for the preparation of this background document. They will also be incorporated in the preparation of the final report of the Forum, which will be delivered to local authorities, national governments, international organizations, research centers, universities, NGOs and other stakeholders in May 2010.

The World Urban Forum 5

Bra

zil.

Phot

o ©

Shu

tter

stoc

k


The World Urban Forum 5 “The Right to the City: Bridging the Urban Divide” endorses that this right expands the traditional focus on improving the quality of life previously centered in the areas of shelter and the neighborhood to embrace the quality of life of the entire city and its surrounding areas.8 This right is therefore a mechanism to protect the populations living in cities or regions undergoing rapid urbanization, or in the contrary experiencing urban decay and abandonment. It carries an explicit message of ‘paradigm change’ demanding that all inhabitants –not just the wealthy and the powerful– have the right to access and benefit from the opportunities that cities offer.9 In this sense, the Right to the City promotes respect, protection and realization of civic, political, economic, cultural and environmental rights that are secured in the regional and international instruments on human rights.10

However, the Right to the City should not be viewed as a new legalistic right, but rather an articulation of the deep yearnings of city dwellers to institutionalize multiple human rights within city spaces. This right serves as a bulwark against “exclusionary development”, the selective benefit-sharing and the marginalization and discrimination that are rampant in cities today. It can provide an adequate platform for action as well as a framework for human rights enforcement.11

The World Urban Forum 5 also recognizes that many cities of the developed as well as the developing world devise and enforce inclusive policies that abide by national and international commitments without any explicit reference to the Right to the City. These cities are making serious efforts to bridge the urban divide and to become more inclusive in economic, social, political and cultural grounds without endorsing this right.

How do cities close the urban divide? How do they become more inclusive? What principles, platforms and strategies are cities deploying to bridge the current divide? Are they doing this using a “Right to the City” approach? Is this right is a

powerful vehicle for social change? Some cities and countries, on the contrary, because of their historical, political and cultural conditions, fear that this right is a threat to the established social and political order or that it will possibly increase the state intervention further stifling creativity, entrepreneurship and the proper functioning of markets.12 Is this right simply too vague and as a consequence has limited practical value?

The background paper for the World Urban Forum 5 is structured around six important domains that provide critical responses to the above and other questions around the concept of the “Right to the City”. These six domains unfold the essence of the “Right to the City”, where effective action can be carried out. The main chapters of this background paper follow these six domains as they have also been chosen as the topics of the dialogue sessions, which are the highest profile events of the Forum.

Interaction and overlap between these six domains is inevitable and necessary in terms of sharing the responsibility of different actors and common approaches for effective policy implementation. To enhance the effectiveness of action, the World Urban Forum 5 pays attention to these points of overlap in order to ensure a multilevel and multi-sectoral response that will permit to build cities that are more harmonious.

Unpacking the Right to the City Concept

The six domains are:

1. Taking Forward the Right to the City2. Bridging the Urban Divide: Inclusive

Cities3. Equal Access to Shelter and Basic Urban

Services4. Cultural Diversity in Cities5. Governance and Participation6. Sustainable Urbanization: Cities in a

Changing Climate.


Over the past 50 years, the concept of the “Right to the City” has evolved differently in various regions, countries and cities of the world. In some places it has been interpreted as a theoretical, political and conceptual framework that refers to aspects such as enforcement, empowerment, participation, self-realization and -determination, as well as various forms of protection of recognized human rights at the city level. In other places the concept is absent from the political discourse, either not used at all or, even worse, the residents’ assertion of their Right to the City has been banned outright.14

In most places, the “Right to the City” concept is somehow in the middle of these two extreme positions. Even if not explicitly recognized, some cities and countries at least implicitly understand that this right subsumes various human rights which municipal authorities must make effective, and as such it has become a platform for many efforts and campaigns.

The Right to the City has been promoted by social groups and civil society organizations, particularly in the Latin American and Caribbean Region, as a new paradigm for the transformation of cities in their cultural and political dimensions. It comes as a response to the need for better opportunities for everyone in cities, especially the most marginalized and underprivileged.

For cities in the South, (the) aspirations to be ‘global’ cities or ‘world class’ cities are often behind exclusionary practices like removal of informal settlements and street traders. The focus on the Right to the City as well as the good examples of how this might be…. give substance to Jenny Robinson’s delightful call for cities to accept their ‘ordinariness’.

– Caroline Skinner, extract from the E-Debate on the Right to the City, 2009.

Taking Forward the Right to the City

The concept ‘right to city’ is interpreted in the context of the right to enter, right to live and right to access to the city’s resources.13

As a political platform, the Right to the City contains a set of values, principles and commitments that have made some progress influencing institutional, legal and cultural aspects in cities through ad hoc legislation, experiences and practices, for example:

• Various commitments made by national, regional and international networks in defense of democratic, just and sustainable cities through the World Charter of the Right to the City created as a result of the political process of the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre;15

• Commitments ratified by over 350 cities in 21 countries adopting the European Charter for the Safeguarding of Human Rights in the City;16

• Commitments endorsed by national governments in the Declaration of the XVII Summit of Heads of States in the Latin America and the Caribbean (MINURVI) that instructs Ministers of Housing and Urban Development to promote the realization of the Right to the City by implementing public policies that ensure access to land, adequate housing, infrastructure and social facilities, including the funding sources necessary to sustain this process;17

• The explicit recognition of the Right to the City in national legal systems as in the case of Brazil and Ecuador in Latin America;

• The endorsement of some particular aspects of the notion, as the city of Rosario in Argentina that has declared itself as a “Human Rights City” or the Victoria Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities in Australia.

In the Latin America and Caribbean Region “urban reform has had its ups and downs in the last two decades, as it was held hostage to both this novel rhetoric and an enduring legacy of predatory territorial management by the more privileged. In most places, the participatory rhetoric has failed to pave the way for the dynamic relationship


with mainstream political parties that could have boosted the quest for more cohesive, inclusive and sustainable cities. On the other hand, the rhetoric of participation and citizenship has continued to challenge urban policies in Latin America. As such, it has been a source of cultural innovation, and has expanded the spatial and political scope of Latin American democracy”.18

In some other countries and cities relevant urban policies and practices integrate aspects of democratic governance that are either explicitly or implicitly consistent with the “Right to the City”. For instance in Dakar, Senegal, municipal leaders and local authorities endorsed a “Civic and Citizens’ Pact” (2003). In India, a municipal authority has enacted a largely similar “Citizens Charter” (2001) that redefines its own function in relation to residents’ rights and responsibilities. A number of cities in Ghana, South Africa and

India are also taking forward the Right to the City concept in a variety of spheres (social, economic, political and cultural). However, progress is often rather slow and sometimes runs into continuous setbacks.

In some other cities and countries, particularly in South-Eastern and Eastern Asia and North Africa, policies promoting economic growth have gone hand in hand with positive social developments such as higher provision of basic services and serious improvements in various social indicators, including the reduction of extreme poverty. More and more inhabitants in these cities are enjoying a decent quality of life; however, political rights and freedoms are lagging behind.19 Still, other cities and countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Asia, are only now starting to deploy legal and political frameworks based on equality and rights.

TAKING FORWARD THE RIGHT TO THE CITY (DIALOGUE 1)

ISSUESThe Right to the City is a hotly contested concept. For activists, it represents redressing the injustices and exclu-sion that characterizes modern urban life For others, the concept is anathema – a threat to the established social and political order or an incitement to radical confrontation.

This Dialogue takes place against the backdrop of a global financial crisis, national debates regarding the role of mi-grants and immigrants, the physical and social exclusion of vulnerable groups, the phenomenon of urban food riots, and many other challenges to achieving inclusive cities. At the same time, there are many initiatives that are making significant strides to translate the Right to the City from concept to reality.

OBJECTIVEDialogue 1 will explore what the Right to the City means in today’s world, whether it can or should be translated into practical action and what the main challenges are to realizing this right. Leading thinkers, officials and activists will present their perspectives on how best to take forward the Right to the City.

INTIAL QUESTIONSThe Dialogue will encourage debate on the following themes: • WhatdoestheRighttotheCitymean?• WhohastheRighttotheCity?• WhatcanbedonetorealizetheRighttotheCity?

THEMATIC OPEN DEBATE (TOD)1. Whose City? Excluded Groups & the Right to the City. This TOD looks at the winners and losers in the struggle

for the Right to the City. In particular, it looks at who is excluded from the benefits of urban life, how that exclusion takes place and why it is allowed to perpetuate.

2. Innovative Approaches to Realizing the Right to the City. This TOD will invite leading practitioners and experts to present innovative approaches to realizing the Right to the City.


The reading of the urban space in many cities of the developing world unambiguously reveals the fragmentation of society, with clear differences in the way the space is produced, appropriated, transformed and utilized.

This fragmentation generates diverse urban landscapes with striking contrasts in neighboring spaces in such a way that some streets, buildings, public spaces, gardens, markets and offices appear to be from two completely different cities and not from the very same urban setting. At times, these two places merge and blend into one another and at others they might be separated by walls, doors, symbolic features or geographic factors such as topography, rivers or lakes. Yet, whether these differentiated spaces are contiguous or separated they nevertheless contribute to magnifying social distance and enlarging divisions in the city.

A clear manifestation of the urban divide is the presence of slums. This part of the divide is the face of urban poverty and the magnitude of slum dwellers can reflect how exclusive a city is. In some places, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, large number of slum households are clustered in the same area, representing as much as 80 per cent of the population living within the neighborhood. In other places, slum dwellers are more scattered in the urban fabric and they can be found in the decaying urban centers, at the periphery of the city, where they can share the space with non-slum residents, and in the interstices of formal, fully serviced settlements.21 Weather clustered together or dispersed in the city, the social and spatial divide created by slums is not only the result of income inequalities, but also a byproduct of inefficient land and housing markets, bad or non-existent policies and poor governance mechanisms that force non-poor and middle-income families to reside in slum areas for lack of better alternatives.

Slums are not only synonymous to deprivation on

housing and basic services. They are also associated with a reduced number of schools, clinics and other public and private amenities. Poverty and deprivation in these places increases risks and exacerbates the vulnerability of the poor.

The urban divide is not only about fragmented space and socio-economic differences, it is also about inequalities in opportunity, between social groups, age groups and men and women in access to knowledge, use of technology and employment, among others. This fragmentation of space and society has clear implications on who is excluded from the right to the city and why, and also who benefits from the urban advantage and has full enjoyment of the right to the city. For example, in some cities, public facilities predominantly utilized by the poor, are reported to be crowded, badly managed by poorly paid and un-motivated staff, irresponsible in the use of resources and disinterested in results. In contrast the private schools, universities and health centers have better equipment, more qualified staff and more advanced educational facilities that can only be afforded by the middle and upper classes. This differentiated provision and use of public goods and facilities as well as other various benefits of urban life demonstrate that in a divided city the full enjoyment of the “Right to the City” does not happen in the segment of society placed in the poor and deprived side of the urban divide. A substantial part of this population has restricted access to work, employment and income and suffers other limitations in the development of their

Bridging the urban divide is a Herculean task though not insurmountable.

It only requires both political will and community will.

– Tpl. H. O. Badejo, Nigeria, extract from the e-Debate on the Urban Divide.

Bridging the Urban Divide: Inclusive Cities

As societies and economies develop, they become more divided. Division by itself is not the problem. The problem is growing inequality. Division is a problem when it is exclusionary, when cities are divided up into spaces that heighten social and economic inequalities.20


capabilities and their opportunities to live a better life. Undoubtedly a very uneven distribution of space and the associated levels of poverty militate against the right to the city.

The urban divide generates stigma, but to some extent it is also fed by it. Furthermore, economic and social exclusion translates very often into cultural and political exclusion. When a city is divided it has serious difficulties in catering for poor inhabitants, who often have rich cultures and other positive assets that could otherwise have been integrated to enhance the richness of the city. As a result, these groups adopt self-excluding practices in order to maintain their identity, entrenching forms of exclusion and marginalization and exacerbating the divide.

However, a divided city does not need to remain so. Inhabitants can progressively realize their city rights by gaining access to better services, jobs and opportunities. They can do so when cities create conditions that encourage marginalized inhabitants to progressively extend and recognize their political, social, economic and cultural rights. Freedom of expression, equal opportunities for business development, recognition of cultural rights, and adequate housing, are all needed.

Cities are the places to forge partnerships, generate constructive debates, negotiate

differences, and move towards consensus. Committed and proactive local governments can build new relations and alliances with each other, with central and state level authorities, and with civil society. They can also facilitate formation of new institutions, and fix and strengthen the existing ones in order to foster inclusion.

To make such advances, cities need to understand the dynamics of the urban divide such as those related to economic informality, social capital, institutional arrangements, land tenure, etc. It is only through this understanding that it will be possible to identify precise, locally appropriate, innovative high-leverage interventions that can be taken by governments at all levels, by civil society actors of various kinds, and by major institutions, to set in motion self-reinforcing processes that overcome the urban divide.22

Planning is not only about the land but also the people who inhabit the land and make it a “Place”, it is about place-making and Community building, it is about creating an urban form “United by its Diversity”.

– Corbu, United States of America. Extract from the e-Debate on the Urban Divide, October 14, 2010.

Jakarta. Photo © UN-HABITAT


BRIDGING THE URBAN DIVIDE: INCLUSIVE CITIES (DIALOGUE 2)

ISSUESCities are constantly changing. They are built, rebuilt, transformed, occupied by different groups, and used for different functions. In the search for better spatial organization for higher returns, more efficient economies of scale and other ag-glomeration benefits, cities generate various degrees of residential differentiation. In some of these cities, the urban divide between “haves” and “have-nots” opens up a gap – if not, on occasion, a chasm, an open wound – which can produce social instability or at least generate high social and economic costs not only for the urban poor, but for society at large.

OBJECTIVEBased on the presentation of key findings of the State of the World’s Cities Report 2010/2011 “Bridging the Urban Di-vide” , this Dialogue will identify the different dimensions of urban inequality and the drivers of the urban divide, trying to understand the dynamics of city growth and the generation of different forms of inequalities. Dialogue 2 will identify the policies, approaches and actions that are needed to set in motion self-reinforcing mechanisms that can lead to overcome the urban divide and realize the right to the city for all.

INTIAL QUESTIONSThe Dialogue will encourage debate on the following themes:

• Istheurbandivideincreasingorthegapbetweenhaveandhave-notstendstoreduceovertime?• Howistheurbandividecharacterizedtodayintheworld’scities?Isitdifferentacrosscitiesandregions?Are

therenewformsofurbandividetakingshapeintheworld?• Whicharethefactorsthatproduceexclusionandwhicharetheconsequencesoftheurbandivide?Underwhich

circumstancestheurbandividebecomescontentious?• Howcanweincreaseawareness,technical,financial,humanandfinancialcapacitiestobridgetheurbandivide?

THEMATIC OPEN DEBATE (TOD)3. Income Inequalities in Cities. This TOD will identify the practices and policies that enable cities to bridge the income

and consumption inequality gaps. Panelists and the audience will review the factors that exacerbate the unequal distri-bution of wealth and opportunities in cities, focusing on the best ways of tackling such ongoing polarization

4. Beyond Income and Consumption Inequalities. This TOD will gauge the range of the deprivations experienced by the urban poor against an expanded set of dimensions. It will focus on the different forms of deprivation (types, places and groups), identify the public policies, welfare mechanisms and specific actions that allow for fairer distribution in the various dimensions of inequality of opportunities.

Houston. Photo © Eduardo López Moreno/UN-HABITAT


One of the most evident and concrete manifestation of the urban divide is the state and nature of housing. In broad terms, society is clearly divided into those that have adequate housing with good basic services, which translates into good quality of life. On the other hand, there are thousands and thousands of people living in places that do not offer adequate conditions because the living space is insufficient, the dwelling structures are dilapidated or made with materials that do no offer adequate protection from climate and natural conditions, and they lack basic services. These people are deprived of good quality of life.

Bridging the housing urban divide requires more than just having “a roof over the head”. It requires the provision of land, infrastructure, affordable finance, sustainable and durable building materials, security of tenure and other aspects that are all contained in the Human Right to Adequate Housing, as endorsed by the Habitat Agenda.23 This right is part of a broader concept embodied in the Right to the City advocacy. However, many people may argue that the Right to the City is a very elusive concept, difficult to understand and operationalize. Nonetheless, no one can argue that the provision of equal opportunities to access adequate shelter will enable the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as formulated in the Habitat Agenda and in international instruments, and may become an effective vehicle to foster the right to the city approaches. Yet, despite this evidence it is quite striking that housing needs and overall qualitative and quantitative housing deficits in the world are poorly known. UN-HABITAT estimations of the number of people living with shelter deprivations help to understand the magnitude of the problem.

Equal Access to Shelter and Basic Urban Services

The availability of resources such as land at the right place, infrastructure, housing finance, building materials, etc., are important for ensuring access to adequate housing. However, availability alone will not ensure equality of opportunity to access housing by all. Ensuring availability and articulating measures for their equitable use go hand in hand. Measures can include inclusive land policies, availability of a range of financial products, strategies to make basic services available to all and availability of building materials at adequate prices and quantities.

– Banashree, India, extract from the e-Debate on Equal Access to Shelter, 2009.

According to these estimates, around 830 million people currently live in slums and about 100 million people world-wide are homeless. However, despite the usefulness of this data, it provides only a partial representation of the situation. It does not really explain current shelter needs, housing deficits and projected demand for housing and basic urban services; it does not provide either a dynamic account of what is needed to close the urban housing divide in the future, starting today. A broad estimate from UN-HABITAT carried out in 2005 shows that the “required housing and urban services by 2030 would be around 2.8 billion, which means that in order to accommodate the current population growth rate and household formation we would have to build 4000 housing units/hour”24. Recent estimates in Malawi, for example, indicates that the country needs to built 2 dwellings at every hour to the year 2020 in order to accommodate expected urban population growth25.

It is clear that the provision of affordable, well located and adequately built housing is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st Century. It is also clear that governments alone cannot deliver this. Integrated approaches for shelter delivery

To think about the supply of housing for low-income families means the re-thinking of the division and allocation of the social urban space because it is a process that only tends to reinforce the social exclusion of this population.

– Soraia, Brazil, extract from the e-Debate on Equal Access to Shelter, 2009.


The results are clear: housing deficits are growing, informal land and housing developments are multiplying, the number of slum dwellers is increasing, low income families are increasingly push to inadequate housing conditions.

In order to address this situation and bring back housing rights to the international development agenda, there is a need for policies that make access to land and housing financially affordable as well as physically adequate and accessible. Housing solutions need to integrate technical, financial and spatial components that contribute to close the urban divide not only in the narrow perspective of a roof to live under, but also in the sense of creating places in useful locations to enhance livelihoods and curb social-spatial segregation. These new places ought to promote a sense of

involving the state, communities, federations, saving groups, cooperatives, housing associations and private agents are much needed. There is also a need for innovative and non-orthodox strategies to overcome constraints on housing supply and to increase affordability and access, including the scaling up of provision of land, infrastructure and building materials to enable equal access to shelter.

The problem is that most governments are not playing any particular role either as enablers or direct producers in the housing sector. Most of the governments in developing countries (whether they endorse the right to adequate housing or not) have been retreating from this sector, leaving housing provision solely to the market. Additionally, in many countries the housing sector is dysfunctional revealing severe and pervasive housing scarcity.

Ethiopia. Photo © Eduardo López Moreno/UN-HABITAT


A strong market cannot substitute for a weak state for the poor to access housing rights.

– Banashree, Índia, extract from the e-Debate on Equal Access to Shelter, 2009.

EQUAL ACCESS TO SHELTER AND BASIC URBAN SERVICES (DIALOGUE 3)

ISSUESThe provision of adequate housing is the greatest challenge of the 21st Century. In an age earmarked by rapid urbanisation and growing social inequalities in cities it is paramount to address the shelter dimensions of the urban divide. Yet, numerous constraints hinder the housing sector to work particularly for the urban poor and low-income sectors. As a result, informal settlements and slums have often become the only housing alternative for them.

OBJECTIVEThis Dialogue will identify policies and practices that enable wide access to land and housing. It will discuss to which extent they work as slum prevention strategies and offer equal opportunities to access adequate housing for all. The Dialogue stimulates a discussion that includes but goes beyond the slum upgrading agenda. Panelists and audience will be invited to talk about alternatives to scale up actions, framing these interventions, particularly with regard to land, housing and finance, as part of the ‘right to the city’ approach.


• Whicharethekeyaspectsthatensureequalaccesstoshelterandbasicservices?• Whatarethefactorsthatareconstrainingtheproductionofaffordablehousingoptionsfordifferent

socialgroupsandparticularlythepoor?Aretherespecificcontextualissuestotakeintoaccount?• Whatarethepolicies,programmesandtechnicalinstrumentstobringhousingpricesdowninorderto

increaseaffordabilityfortheurbanpoor?• Whydogovernmentssooftenignorerentalhousingandotheralternativesolutionsintheirshelter

policies?• Whichstrategiesaretobedevelopedinordertoincreaseparticipationofdifferentsectorsandactorsin

thehousingprocess?

THEMATIC OPEN DEBATE (TOD)5. Access to serviced land. This TOD will unfold the critical constraints in the supply of serviced land and elaborate

on the policy responses and measures to bring the supply of land and basic urban services to scale in view of buoyant formal and informal land markets.

6. Affordable and adequate housing. This TOD will facilitate an in-depth discussion about the policies, approaches and strategies to make housing affordable and accessible for all different social groups. The debate is focused on the delivery of a variety of adequate housing options that enable low-income households to realize their needs and aspirations.

identity and belonging, recreating the concept of neighborhood and reviving the idea of a right to the city. This approach is essential to lessen the patterns of social and spatial exclusion prevalent in most cities today.

Bringing these actions and approaches to citywide and nationwide scale would create more opportunities for equal access to shelter and basic urban services for everyone. It would also contribute to the production of more affordable options that are competitive in terms of price, location and quality. Up-scaling interventions are

likely to have a positive impact on the economy given that housing construction has appreciable “multiplier” effects in employment, incomes, savings and investments, thereby pervading the entire economy as a whole.


Cities are places of contrast, plurality and interactions. It is in cities that cultural expressions and social identities are constructed and reconstructed. In urban settings inhabitants have contact with the ‘other’ and through this contact they can learn and understand more about diversity. They can also develop tolerance to differences.26 Unfortunately, this is not usually the case as many cities are closed in terms of residents’ ability to participate, interact and exchange.

Cities can therefore be places of cultural inclusion, but also places of exclusion and marginalization. More often than not, the latter is dominant. Historically, there has been a tendency to homologate cultural values and impose one single narrative of a city’s cultural history. Dominant groups tend to standardize behaviors and collective memories and reduce the variety of manifestations of life, language and cultural practices to only one: theirs. Poverty and inequality has also traditionally conspired against cultural inclusion in many African, Asian and Latin American cities, but also in many other cities in the developed world. As the 2010 Edition of the State of the World’s Cities Report states “when one is economically poor, one is also poor and excluded in cultural, social and political sense”.27

A culturally divided city is one that fails to accommodate its migrants and poorer residents, regardless of the social and cultural riches they might contribute. Such a city tends to eliminate multiplicity and different forms of inter-cultural expressions, negating the right to be different. When cities are divided like this, neighborhoods are physically separated by race or social class, and they are characterized by lack of social interactions and conviviality as people retreat into their gated communities or dense slums. Cities that are divided tend to have few public spaces where people of all social classes and backgrounds can interact freely; the right to the city is thus denied to some social and cultural groups by

virtue of who they are and where they live.28 On the contrary, a culturally inclusive city celebrates diversity while promoting the social integration of groups that are characterized by a coalescing of different cultural backgrounds and expressions, including age, gender, ethnicity, language, religion, historic origins, values and beliefs. In cities that are culturally inclusive residents find that social and political life can take place, knowledge at all levels can be created and shared, and various forms of creativity and art can be developed. Cities like this promote the Right to the City for all, including those that are systematically excluded.

More and more cities in the South are opting for a comprehensive perspective on development – one where culture features as one of the levers of success. They are developing policies and strategies to mainstream some cultural dimensions into urban life, such as social capital, tradition, symbols, meaning, sense of belonging and pride of place, on top of optimal use of local cultural resources by local communities. These cities are positioning culture as a cornerstone in the construction of citizenship, which is a fundamental step towards the attainment of the Right to the City. This recognition is fundamental if traditional behaviors, attitudes and practices are to be transformed for the purposes of an enhanced democratic culture.

Culture is not only an opportunity and a vehicle for positive societal change; it can also be a factor

Cultural Diversity in Cities

“Cultural diversity is the spice of cities”

– Solomon Tsehai Adall, Ethiopia, extract from the e-Debate on Cultural Diversity in Cities, 2009.

“Cultural diversity creates a rich and varied world, which increases the range of choices and nurtures human capacities and values, and therefore is a mainspring for sustainable development for communities, peoples and nations.”

– UNESCO, quoted during the e-Debate on Cultural Diversity in Cities, 2009.


of exclusion and an element to reinforce structural inequalities in society. Some groups can use culture to perpetuate poverty and marginalization; others as an “alibi for violence”.29 That is why cities need to promote inter-cultural dialogue in order to build a common, shared memory base, recognized and accepted by all inhabitants.30 Otherwise there will be attempts to impose fixed values and single, one-way meanings on places and narratives, which are made to reflect only the history of the city’s ethnic majority and oligarchies.31 For this reason, as acknowledged by UNESCO, engaging in an “inter-cultural dialogue may require participants to admit faults, openly debate about competing memories and make compromises in the interest of reconciliation and social harmony”.32

In this sense, culture itself must be a focus of development policies, since “it can be seen as presenting both the means and ends for development”.33 More and more cities need to use culture as a transformational tool to integrate ethnic minorities, preserve regional values, protect the heritage in the built environment and safeguard the linguistic and religious diversity of the city. Beyond the sole cultural sphere, these policies together can go a long way towards bridging the urban divide in its other –social, political and economic– dimensions, thus supporting the realization of the Right to the City.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN CITIES (DIALOGUE 4)

ISSUESUrban inequalities are reflected into different levels and dimensions of social exclusion, marginality and discrimina-tion. Very often these are associated with locations and dwelling environments situated in specific areas of the city where social groups who share some values, culture, religious and origins, and even language find a place to live. This demarcates the urban divide. The right to the city approach is the one that recognizes this diversity in economic, social and cultural life. This is centred on the principle that cities are the dynamic engine of cultural change, social life and linguistic and religious differences, gender, sexual diversity and heterogeneity.

OBJECTIVEThe main objective of Dialogue 4 is to discuss cultural diversity in cities and its impact on sustainable, equitable and inclusive urban development. The Dialogue will explore the interface between culture and the urban space regard-ing their identity, diversity, collective memories and significance, in order to develop better knowledge about the cultural diversity in bridging the urban divide.


• Howtoensurethatcitiesareindeedplacesofacceptanceandtolerancetodiversity?• Howcanwepasstheideathatcommunitieshavealotincommonandyetarediverse?• Asculturesmeetandclash,couldparticipatorymechanismsbeameanstopromotecommunicationamong

culturesandbetweenthemandstateinstitutions?• Towhichextentculturalexpressionssuchasart,music,festivalsfosterinclusionincitiesandcontributeto

bridgesocialandculturaldividesinthecity?• HowcanculturebeavehicletorealizetheRighttotheCity?

THEMATIC OPEN DEBATE (TOD)7. The various Identities in the city. This TOD will attempt to identify the types of urban policies that pave the

way for effective cultural inclusiveness and diversity among the population, taking into account the local and theglobaldimensions.Themainquestionherewillbe,‘Howcancitiespromotethevariousculturaldynamicsat work among their populations for the benefit of sustainable development of local communities, peoples and nations?’Thiswillincludethenotionof‘culturaldifference’asanotherdriverofdevelopment.

8. From indifference to tolerance.ThisTODwilladdressthefollowingquestion:‘Howtosustainandfacilitatetheexpression of human cultural diversity and at the same time create spaces and produce connectedness, inclusion anddialogueifwearetomoveawayfromindifferenceandbringaboutbetteracceptanceofothers?’


Participation in local democratic decision-making is one of the fundamental elements of the ‘right to the city’. The city is the domain and the object of political processes, locus of power and the place where power relations are reproduced. The recognition of these relationships implies the recognition that processes and projects of urban transformation to tackle inequality are necessarily also political projects, to be built and carried forward by collective political actors, who make the city to be theirs and endeavour to transform it. In this process they exercise their citizenship and deploy the right to make the city a reality for all.34

It is also acknowledged that the numerous benefits generally assumed to flow from participatory governance – such as bridging a perceived democratic deficit or delivering on pro-poor development outcomes – rest too often on rather shaky terrain. Almost 30 years after the resurgence in revitalizing local governance it is evident that participatory local democracy has delivered less than what we had hoped. Urban development indicators in many parts of the world remain troubling and often seem to be getting worse. This is also evident in countries and cities where participatory democratic norms and systems are in effect. The extent and the manner in which participatory governance can help bridge the urban divide requires further scrutiny. Is the problem the normative ideal of participatory democratic governance or is it the practice? If it is the normative ideal, how should we be adapting our conceptual models of urban governance and participation? If the problems are mainly in the domain of execution, what are the remedies that we need to identify and how do we ensure they get implemented?

These debates take on very different forms in different neighbourhoods, cities and countries,

let alone regions of the world. In Latin America we have witnessed far-reaching experiments in participatory governance especially with regard to participatory budgeting and new instruments in land-use determination. In fact, many of the participatory technologies have been adopted in other regions of the world, e.g. participatory budgeting mechanisms in Africa and Asia. On the other hand, in Asia, there are important initiatives in slums upgrading processes that involve the urban poor and produce collaborative outcomes. Again, we have seen a proliferation of social technologies linked to slum-based movements across the world, especially as organisations like Slum/Shack Dwellers International use horizontal networks to transfer knowledge across world regions and cities. Are these trends making a difference? If so, in which ways and how does it advance our understanding of effective participatory governance instruments? In Africa numerous experiments have emerged to fuse traditional and modern systems of governance in order to produce decisions and outcomes that are aligned with the cultural lifeworlds and livelihoods of the urban poor. Although one could argue that these innovations are good examples of locally resonant governance models, it is also unclear whether these hybrid modalities are adequate to fundamentally equalize access to urban opportunities.

There is huge variability across cities and regions in terms of the depth and breadth of participatory governance experiments. There is much to be learned from innovative and successful examples in different parts of the world, as the flourishing field of ‘best practices’ attests. Yet, it is also evident that the transformative promise of these experiments depends to a large extent on opportunities for broader and systemic change within localities.

Governance and Participation

Participation in administering your own poverty (all too often the case) is worse than enlightened authoritarianism... This is not to condone authoritarianism: there are enough examples of ‘improvements’ where the citizens lacked a sense of ownership of the results and hence that these quickly deteriorated from neglect.”

– Fadriana, UK, e-debate on Governance and Participation, 2009


It is reckoned that the participative city is a city where people feel heard; where people feel that their voice matters.35 This feeling of belonging, of citizenship, engenders in turn a sense of responsibility to engage in public life. Truly participative cities are those that are able to incorporate the most vulnerable members of society into routine governance. Crucially, though, substantial urban participatory governance requires trustworthy and transparent enabling institutional frameworks and mechanisms – themselves largely dependent on a favourable political culture. While strong, functioning representative democracies can provide the conducive backdrop, strong pro-poor public opinion can equally have a progressive influence, even in more difficult contexts. The key seems to lie in the presence of robust organizations of the excluded, often structured around

livelihoods and employment issues. Supporting such organizations of the poor is a critical factor in attempts to reach more equitable urban futures – although how best to do so remains an area for further investigation.

Participation remains key in bridging the urban divide and helping to take the Right to the City forward, while also requiring simultaneous improvement in technical efficiency for meeting citizen’s needs. However, it also has to be reinvigorated along two vectors if the Right to the City was to be more than window-dressing: a conception of participation as empowerment; a conception of economic participation, and conducive institutional and legal frameworks build on an appropriate political culture, political vision and political will. Key in sharpening political will/vision are robust and autonomous organizations of civil society (and of excluded communities in particular). Also, participatory processes need to be reinvigorated through greater focus on political vision and by promoting an inclusive discussion on the visions of the city. This brings to bear the role of planning and city development strategies which need to be based not on projects, but shared ethics and values that will guide the development process. They need also to enable the effective translation political visions and aspirations

Participation is an important point, but we must remember that cities are political spaces. And for the participation of marginalised groups, they need to have a political voice in the city.

– Kalpana Viswanath, India, Extract from E-Debate on Governance and Participation, 2009.

Nepal. Photo © UN-HABITAT


GOVERNANCE AND PARTICIPATION (DIALOGUE 5)

ISSUESThe governance of cities provides or should provide equal opportunities for civil society to participate in different forms and levels of decision making. Participation and respect in local democratic decision making is one of the fundamental elements of the right to the city approach. Participatory approaches to urban governance not only un-folds the identification of needs and demands for wide range of basic urban services, housing, land, etc. but also the mobilization and equal distribution of resources in the city. Governance and participation are key for inclusive cities as a way to close the urban divide.

OBJECTIVEThe main objective of Dialogue 5 is to identify and unfold the fundamental elements of the participative city and governance and its implication in forging inclusive and equitable urban development. The Dialogue 5 will discuss participation in local democratic decision making against its impact on the generation of equal opportunities, more transparency and efficiency in urban management and planning.


• Hasparticipationresultedinmoreinclusive,tolerantandequitablecitiesanddwellingenvironments?• Istherighttoparticipationresultingintomoreequalopportunitiesforcitizens,firms,socialgroupsalike?• Areindividualssufficientlyempoweredandcapacitatedtovoicetheirneedsanddemandsandassumethe

responsibilitiesthatareemanatedfromtherealizationandfulfillmentoftheirneeds?

THEMATIC OPEN DEBATE (TOD)9. Promoting Effective Citizen Participation. This TOD will dwell on the normative and operational bearings of

civic participation, determining the factors of success. The discussion will bring out the respective roles of key societal actors and the institutional arrangement that promotes effective citizen participation, including dif-ferent experiences in various countries and cities that have had significant impact in improving welfare and in bridging the urban divide.

10. Revisiting Urban Planning. This TOD will advance the discussion on the process of urban planning. It will assess the current status, both in terms of its normative and operational underpinnings. Taking into account that at the interface between participatory inputs and the realization of concrete outcomes, planning plays a key role in urban development in general and specifically in promoting inclusiveness.

People tend to participate in public life when they are aware of the extent to which their private life is shaped by the decision reached in the public arena.

– Johanele (Nigeria), Extract from e-Debate on Governance and Participation, November 2009.

(garnered through participatory processes) into workable programmes that tally with governmental procedures and budgetary processes.

If the democratic city is inseparable from a city that is fair and equitable; informed citizenship and participation is an inseparable component of the right to the city. But in this domain, as elsewhere, there is no single recipe, or good practice or model that can be transferred from one reality to another. The construction of democratic cities (despite being a global challenge and a national task) is a process to be experienced and carried forward in every street, every square in every neighborhood and in every city.36

Finally, the ultimate test of participatory governance as a route to realizing the right to the

city, it must be refined to respond to the needs of the marginalized and the vulnerable. So, if we are to think in radically fresh ways about how to invigorate and embed participatory governance, we can do a lot more in investing in democratic forums and mechanisms that raise the voice and influence of those who are excluded.


It is no coincidence that climate change has emerged at the forefront of international debate precisely at the same time as the world becomes predominantly urban. This is because urbanization brings about irreversible changes not only in our production and consumption patterns, but also in the configuration and functionality of human settlements, including their scale and density. All these changes have profound effects extending beyond the urban boundaries, affecting global and regional climates over time.

Cities, when not properly planned, governed or managed, can easily threaten the quality of air, the availability of water, the capacity of waste processing systems and many other qualities of the urban environment that contributes to human well-being.37 Cities also consume disproportionate amounts of energy that in turn produces green-house emissions. It is estimated that cities in general account for 75 per cent of energy consumption and more than 60 per cent of green house gases emissions.

Human activity is primarily responsible for the disruption of modern climate, particularly the heating up of the Earth and other changes in the climate system. The warning signs of global climate change are manifested in various parts of the world today, such as: rising sea levels, decreased snow cover, more frequent and strong hurricanes and storms, intensity of droughts and heat waves, inland flooding and various other extreme weather occurrences. Climate change is not only affecting the environment, but it is also exacerbating social and economic problems. It is very likely that in the near future climate change will increase the possibilities of population stresses, civil conflict, and political instability in some regions of the world.38

The experience of recent events shows that the effects of climate change are felt in the most vulnerable regions of the world, which are also the most populated, especially by informal settlers that

live in inadequate structures. By superimposing on existing vulnerabilities, climate change clearly compounds the existing poverty and inequality.39

The poorest regions and the poorest people (those that have the lightest carbon footprint) are, and will continue to be, the most affected because they have least resources and the least capacity to adapt.

“Vulnerability has typically contributed more to overall risk in these cities than hazard-exposure.”40 . This is worth considering more generally in that so much of human cost of extreme weather events in urban centres in low- and middle-income nations comes not from the ‘hazard’ or the ‘disaster-event’ but from the inadequacies in provisions to protect urban populations (or particular sections of the population) from it. For instance, in many urban centres, the lack of provision for drainage (and for maintaining existing drains) means that relatively minor rainstorms cause serious flooding.

Urban areas in low- and middle-income nations contain a third of the world’s population and a large proportion of the people and economic activities most at risk of the effects of climate change.41 Their already weak social and ecological systems resulting from economic turmoil, uncontrolled population growth, poor-land management and weak governance systems will be further weakened due to additional stress imposed by climate change.42 The lives and livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people living in these precarious areas will be negatively affected not only in their homes and infrastructures, but also in their income, asset base and in increased prices

Sustainable Urbanization: Cities in a Changing Climate

Urbanization is no evil, yet a well done urbanization brings up sustainability potentials.

– Bigeorgi, Denmark, Extract from the E-Debate on Inclusive

Sustainable Urbanization, 2009

For urbanization to be sustainable it must be inclusive.

– Harunapam, Nigeria, extract from the E-Debate on Sustainable Urbanization, 2009


of basic commodities. All which would certainly increase inequalities thereby further widening the urban divide.

As climate change becomes a priority issue in global environmental governance, it seems more and more evident that the battle against climate change will be won or lost in cities. Mayors around the world and some national governments, NGOs and multilateral organizations recognize that cities have a fundamental role to play in this fight, and they are not sparing any effort to bring the urban dimension to the climate change debate.

However, not all countries and international organizations are receptive to the fact that cities should have a central role in tackling climate change, as they do not seem to be fully aware of the importance of working across levels of government, integrating relevant stakeholders and above all, giving a prominent role to local authorities. Yet, cities provide an opportunity to mitigate or even reverse the impact of global climate change as they create the economies of scale that reduce per capita cost and demand for resources.43 As centers of innovation, cities can also advance clean energy systems, sustainable transportation, waste management, urban planning, green economy and ecosystem based adaptation and mitigation to reduce greenhouse gases. With access to up to date climate science, impacts and vulnerability assessments, local authorities can also work with local stakeholders to design and implement effective adaptation strategies. Moreover, in addition to policies that promote more compact and dense cities with environmentally friendly solutions, there is a need to explore market-based mechanisms, such as cap-and-trade schemes or carbon taxes and urban congestion charges that can also help in lowering the overall cost of emission abatement.44

Mitigation measures are urgently required. However, they need to be brought to the city, neighborhood and household levels. Furthermore, all initiatives associated to lower carbon emissions need to be designed to promote social inclusion with measurable, reportable and verifiable objectives.45 Efforts are to be deployed both for poor countries and the urban poor to enable them to climb up the energy ladder not only to improve quality of life, but also to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Adaptation measures are also urgently needed. Many believe that these measures should be based on the idea of climate justice, where the burden should be borne by those that are responsible for it. Adaptation measures to climate change should incorporate strategies to ensure the autonomy and empowerment of communities, so that they may become subjects of their destinies.46

The capacity to cope (and adapt) is influenced by individual/household resources (eg. asset-bases and knowledge) and community-resources (eg. the quality and inclusiveness of community organizations that provide or manage safety nets and other short and longer term responses). But in urban areas, it is also so much influenced by the extent and quality of infrastructure and public services and the entitlement to resources and services by vulnerable populations.47

Adaptation is all about the quality of local knowledge and of local capacity and willingness to act by these groups. Of course, this depends on the powers and supports provided by higher levels of government and international agencies – some of the most effective pro-poor actions to reduce vulnerabilities also come from partnerships between these groups, especially local government and community organizations. Most aspects of ‘development’ increase adaptive capacity because they also increase local knowledge and local capacity to act. Successful development should also increase the incomes and asset bases of poorer groups and improve their health which in turn increases their capacity to act to reduce their vulnerability. Development should also increase poorer groups’ capacity to influence local governments and so spur them to appropriate action.

Both adaptation and mitigation strategies on climate change at urban level require putting the interest of the world’s poor at the centre, otherwise the fight against climate change in a divided word will not be possible. Neither will it be possible to achieve sustainable urbanization in a world that does not cater for the fundamental rights for all, and especially the right to live and enjoy the city.


SUSTAINABLE URBANIZATION: CITIES IN A CHANGING CLIMATE (DIALOGUE 6)

ISSUESBeing hosts to vulnerable populations and sources of greenhouse gases, cities have a special role to play in the climate change debate. At the same time, local leaders are at the forefront of efforts to increase resiliency to extreme climate events and to cut carbon emissions. They are reaching out to new partners, breaking down bureaucratic walls, setting ambitious targets and embracing new tools to confront climate change.

Dialogue 6 develops the notion that in order to tackle the real and adverse impacts of climate change, cities and governments must develop policy responses and effective measures that deal directly and simultaneously with both the physical, economic, social and cultural vulnerabilities.

It will position the debate over cities and climate change within the broader framework of sustainable urban develop-ment.

OBJECTIVEThe main objective of Dialogue 6 is to present policies and practices that cities, governments and communities around the world are embracing to address the challenges of climate change.

Participants in Dialogue 6 will explore cutting-edge, integrated approaches that cities are taking to adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time addressing the “Right to the City” concerns of social inequality, spatial segregation and inadequate housing that were raised in previous dia-logues, all in pursuit of sustainable urban development.

INITIAL QUESTIONSThe Dialogue will encourage debate on the following themes:

• Howarecitiesaroundtheworldconfrontingclimatechangewhileatthesametimeaddressingthebroaderis-suesofenvironmental,economicandequitablesustainability?

• Howcancitieseffectivelyengagecommunities–includingmarginalizedgroups–inplanningadaptationmea-sures?

• Wherearethe‘lowhangingfruit’–sectorswherereductionsingreenhousegasemissionscanbemadeatthelowesteconomicandpoliticalcosts?

• Cancitieshelptoreducethevulnerabilityoftheurbanpoortoclimatechangeimpacts,withoutusingclimatechangeasapretextforforcedevictions?

• Whatisneededtostrengthenthetechnical,financial,institutionalandhumancapabilitiesthatcitiesrequiretoaddressclimatechangewithinageneralconceptofcitiesforall?

• Cancitiesreducetheircarbonfootprint,whileatthesametimefosteringinclusiveeconomicdevelopment?

THEMATIC OPEN DEBATE (TOD)11. Reducing vulnerabilities to climate change. This TOD focuses on the social incidence of rising sea levels, heat

waves, increased cyclonic activity and changing rain patterns, requiring addressing vulnerability and poverty in cities. Interventions should be done within a framework that acknowledges the presence of the urban divide, and embraces social inclusiveness as an important part of sustainable urban development.

12. Promoting Inclusive and Environmentally Sustainable Cities. This TOD will explore the thesis that reductions in carbon emissions do not have to result in economic loss. Controlling urban sprawl and measuring to promote smart growth can help cities regain the traditional economies of scale resulting from urban agglomeration. Inclusive urban transport and environmentally sound basic services can help cities attract and retain desirable employers.


1 UN-HABITAT (2010), State of the World’s Cities Report 2010/11 – Bridging the Urban Divide, Earthscan, London, forthcoming publication. 2 UN-HABITAT (1996), An Urbanizing World, Global Report on Human Settlements 1996, Oxford, London.3 UN-HABITAT (2010), Earthscan, op cit. 4 Maricato Erminia, Acselrad Henry (2009), World Urban Forum 5: Inclusive Sustainable Urbanization, position paper for WUF background document. 5 Lopez M. Eduardo (2009), Desanimo o esperanza en un mundo de realidades contrastadas. II Congreso Internacional de Desarrollo Humano – Ciudad Sostenible: Los Retos De La Pobreza Urbana, Madrid, in press.

6 UN-HABITAT (2010), Earthscan, op cit.

7 Saule Junior, Nelson (2009), Direito a Cidade: O Paradigma para a Existencia de Cidades Democráticas, Justas, Sustentaveis e Humanas, Brasilia. Documento preparado para o Ministerio das Cidades.

8 Maricato Erminia, Acselrad Henry (2009), op cit.

9 World Urban Forum, Dialogue 1, Taking Froward the Right to the City.

10 Saule Junior, Nelson (2009), Direito a Cidade, op cit.


12 World Urban Forum, Dialogue 1, Taking Froward the Right to the City.

13 NN Sastry, India, extract from the E-Debate on the Right to the City, 2009.

14 UN-HABITAT (2010), Earthscan op cit


16 Brown & Kristiansen (2009), Urban Policies and the Right to the City: Rights, Responsibilities and Citizenship, UNESCO, UN-HABITAT.


18 Rolnik Raquel (2010), “Participation” and “citizenship”: Latin America’s ambiguous rhetoric, contribution to the State of the World’s Cities Report 2010/11


20 Angotti Tom (2009), The Right to the City versus Bridging the Urban Divide: Two Separate Approaches? Opinion leader essay for E-Debate on “Bridging the Urban Divide”.


22 Boothroyd Peter (2009), On-line Presentation for the E-Debate “Bridging the Urban Divide”.

23 UN-HABITAT (2009), Equal Access to Shelter, Report on the E-Debate Dialogue 3

24 Tibaijuka Anna (2009), Building Prosperity: Housing and Economic Development, Earthscan, London.

25 UN-HABITAT (2009), Malawi Urban Housing Profile.

Endnotes26 Margaret, Brazil (2009), text adapted from a contribution to the E-Debate on Cultural Diversity in Cities, 2009

27 UN-HABITAT (2010), Earthscan, op cit

28 UN-HABITAT (2008), State of the World’s Cities Report 2008/9: Harmonious Cities, Earthscan, London.

29 Jovchelovitch Sandra, United Kingdom, extract from the E-Debate on Cultural Diversity in Cities, 2009.

30 UNESCO (2009), World Report: Investing in Cultural Diversity and Intercultural Dialogue, Paris, France, p. 49.

31 UN-HABITAT (2010), Earthscan, op cit

32 UNESCO (2009), World Report, op cit.

33 Friedman, S. (n.d.). Comments on the inclusive cities project concept paper and proposals for a revised research topic. Retrieved from: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/1.4%20 Steven%20Friedman.doc

34 Santos Júnior Orlando, Vainer Carlos (2009), Governança e Participação, background document prepared for the Ministry of Cities, WUF5.

35 Ingjerd and Mansoor, Extract from E-Debate on Governance and Participation ,November 2009.

36 Santos Júnior Orlando, Vainer Carlos (2009), Governança e Participação, op cit.

37 UN-HABITAT (2008), op cit.

38 National Intelligence Council (2008), Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, Washington, 2008.

39 Asian and African Development Banks, World Bank et at (2008), Poverty and Climate Change Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor through Adaptation, refer to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/27/2502872.pdf

40 Revi, Aromar (2007), Climate Change Risk: A Mitigation And Adaptation Agenda For Indian Cities, Paper prepared for the Rockefeller Foundation’s meeting on Building for Climate Change Resilience, Taru, New Delhi, 23p

41 Satterthwaite David, Huq Saleemul, Pelling Mark, Reid Hannah and Romero Lankao Patricia, (2007), Adapting to Climate Change in Urban Areas The possibilities and constraints in low- and middle-income nations, IIED London.

42 Satterthwaite David et al, (2007), op cit.

43 UN-HABITAT (2008), op cit.

44 OECD (2009), Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance, document produced for COP 15, Paris.

45 Brazilian Forum on Climate Change (2009), Working Group on Climate Change, Poverty and Inequality, Proposals, Rio de Janeiro, http://www.coepbrasil.org.br/portal/Publico/apresentarArquivo.aspx.

46 Brazilian Forum on Climate Change (2009).

47 Wilbanks, Romero-Lankao et al (2007).


Hai

ti. P

hoto

© U

N-H

ABI

TAT

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMMEWorld Urban Forum SecretariatP.O. BOX 30030,GPO 00100, NAIROBI, KENYA;Telephone: +254 20 762 3334/762 3903;Fax: +254 20 762 4175; [email protected]; www.unhabitat.org/wuf

UN-HABITAT WORLD URBAN FORUM SECRETARIAT

General Enquiries: [email protected] to the World Urban Forum: [email protected] to the Governing Council:[email protected] Country Liaison: [email protected]: [email protected]: [email protected] Events: [email protected] Events: [email protected] Sector: [email protected] Events: [email protected] & Media: [email protected]: [email protected] Exhibition: [email protected]

FEDERAL gOvERNMENT

Ministry of Cities Mr. Cid Blanco Jr. Chief Officer, National Housing SecretariatSAUS, Quadra 01, Bloco H Ed. Telemundi II, 11º andarBrasília – DF, BrazilPostal Code: [email protected]/wuf5

Ministry of External RelationsMr. Felipe Krause Dornelles Third Secretary, Social Affairs DivisionEsplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco H, sala 417Brasília – DF, BrazilPostal Code: [email protected]

gOvERNMENT OF THE STATE OF RIO DE JANEIRO

Ms. Renata Trovão International Cooperation Chief AdvisorRua Pinheiro Machado, s/n°, sala 141, LaranjeirasRio de Janeiro – RJ, BrazilPostal Code: [email protected]

MUNICIPALITy OF RIO DE JANEIRO

Mr. Cristiano Jardim Mayor’s AdviserRua São Clemente, 360, BotafogoRio de Janeiro – RJ, BrazilPostal Code: [email protected]

HSP/WUF/5/2

Documents

World Urban Forum 5: Background Document