CDS Presentation – Layout
Overview of PortfolioOverview of Portfolio Ongoing, pipeline per region
Evaluations 2005 - Lessons LearnedEvaluations 2005 - Lessons Learned 4 cases 2 set of issues
Conclusions - CDS MethodologyConclusions - CDS Methodology CDS Guidelines Monitoring and Evaluation indicators report LED study
CDS Portfolio – Ongoing
Numbers of ongoing CDS’s; 48
Active CDS portfolio 2005; $ 14 m(Average CDS = 290’ $)
Distribution per region;
Africa: 10
MENA: 8
Asia: 18
LAC: 7
Europe: 5
CDS Portfolio Pipeline Hard Soft
Total 34 19 15
Africa 8 3
Asia 4 4
Europe 2 1
MENA 1 2
LAC 2 5
Global 2 0
Evaluation of Completed CDS Projects 2005
9 Desk Evaluations Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Kumasi, Ghana * Antananarivo, Madagascar Johannesburg, South Africa Phnom Penh, Cambodia 4 City-regions, China 9 Cities, Indonesia Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina Regional, Central America** still pending, the rest completed and presented
Field Evaluation Aden, Yemen
Evaluation of Completed Projects 2005
AdenActivity City Development Strategy for Local Economic
Development
Outcome Good assessment reports on competitiveness, capacity building, decentralization and local government
LED strategy Comprehensive action plans and projects
Strength Strong link to investments / Port project Urban planning process changed Contributed to decentralization Strong ownership, at least in the beginning
Weakness Institutional setup of CDS unit Link between CDS and Action Plan Monitoring and information dissemination
Aden Integrative Approach
PhysicalInfrastructure
Urban Management&
Municipal Finance
Local Economic
DevelopmentStrategy
CDS To identify priorities
Public AgencyReforms
Evaluation of Completed Projects 2005
ChinaActivity City-Region Development Strategies in 4 regions
(Chengdu, Lanxhou, Xinxiang, Erdos) in Western China
Outcome 4 city-region development strategies CDS manual for Chinese cities (nat. level)
Strength Innovative urban planning (spatial) concepts Investment links (to WB and Domestic sources)
Weakness Not congruent with Chinese 5-year planning Civil society involvement Strategy not anchored in a vision Very spatially and sector oriented (function follows
form hypothesis) Environment end of pipe instead of systemic
Evaluation of Completed Projects 2005
IndonesiaActivity Institutionalizing Poverty - Focused CDSs in 9 cities
Outcome 9 CDSs, some (not all) with investment and poverty reduction action plans
Input to the National Urban Development Policy Training of loc. govt. officials (not trainers as planned)
Strength Participation and institutionalization at local level (although private sector participation weak)
NGO influence crucial
Weakness Not connected to investments Not integrated into existing planning and budgeting
systems No link to disseminate experiences nationally
Evaluation of Completed Projects 2005
EthiopiaActivity Addis Ababa CDS Outcome Vision and Master Plan – delivered
Methodology and framework document for local planning development – not delivered
10 yr Financing Strategy – deliverd 2 yr HRD program – not finalized
Strengts Pro poor urban planning methodologies improved
Weakness CDS piggy-back on ongoing Master Plan, Institutionalization poor (Impl. Agency disbanded) Coherence of efforts poor (conflicts Govt-City) No strategic impact and Poor link to investment M&E indicators lacking
Evaluation of Completed Projects 2005
Key Lessons – CDS ConceptsRole of CDSs CDS should be a key instrument for radical
changes of current policies. It should scope a city, catch its dynamics, and raise quality of debate among stakeholders
Base CDS on good quality assessments
If CDS process is not based upon good assessment, it could have contravening effects
Integration of CWS and CDS
CDS is needed to formulate city-wide slum upgrading and preventing new slums are key issue for CDSs
CDS Should Lead to Reform
Decentralization, fiscal reform, corporatization of utilities needed to improve efficiency
Evaluation of Completed Projects 2005
Key Lessons – CDS Subjects
Involve Investment partners
Key to success is to have financing partners onboard from the outset
Domestic Finance Identification of long-term finance sources key to sustainability
Environment Environmental sustainability needs to be integrated into CDSs at a systemic level
LED Local government facilitation key to economic growth
CDS Guidelines 1
BackgroundBackgroundTime is ripe for CDS
guidelines because….
Abundant experience from evaluations
Guidance needed for our clients
External conditions changing rapidly
New learning about city strategizing
Main thrustMain thrust Mainstreaming
urban poverty Preventing new
slums Environment
increasingly matters Address causes, not
symptoms
CDS Guidelines 2
Livelihood Environment Spatial form Financial
Resources Governance
Urbanization in front of growth
Cities faith based on choices and leadership
Get everybody to pull in the same direction
What? - ThemesWhat? - ThemesWhy do a CDS?Why do a CDS?
Stylized Urban Development TrajectorySoft governanceDelivery of basic
needs
More efficient governance
Global Intermediation capabilities
Stronger metropolitan orientation
Heavy investment in urban infrastructure
Global image makingPerformance based
government
Water pollutionSanitation
Air pollutionUrban environment
worst early-middle of this stage ($2-3,000 US per capita)
Environment improvesHeavy investment (3-
6% GDP) needed in environmental infrastructure & improvement
High quality environment essential to competitiveness
MonocentricSmall CBD, then
uniform relatively high density
± 50% informal settlement
Peri-urban drivenTrunk infrastructure
shapes form
Stronger business services CBD
Suburban nodes
Edge citiesHighly attractiveCulture/tourism CBD
Informal economy dominates
FDI & Domestic investment fuel high growth in MFging
Consumer demand increases rapidly
High-end services (business producer)
High techHigh designCulture & HospitalityWorld class talent attracted
Hig
h s
tress
Lag
in
Resp
on
se
Potential to eliminate slums
Trading Manufacturing oriented Services Amenity(Late Services)
Urban Development Trajectory
Leap frog option, e.g., Bangalore, Accra (call centers)
Govern
an
ce
En
vir
on
men
tS
pati
al
Econ
om
y
CDS Guidelines 3
Shocking the system! Based on a long term vision Strategic, not comprehensive Strategic thrusts → translate into
actions Economic - employment systems run
development Realistic, tough choices Owned by key stakeholders
Characteristics of a good CDSCharacteristics of a good CDS
LED in CA activities
Independent evaluation of the Cities Alliance; “Most of CDSs and CWS programs have not included an
emphasis on local economy and employment generation”;
“The element of local economic development should be strengthened”.
CDSs with strong LED focus: Africa: Kigali (Rwanda), Karu (Nigeria) MENA: Aden (Yemen), Alexandria (Egypt) Latin America: Santo Andre (Brazil) Europe: Latvia (8 cities), Vologda (Russia) Asia: Philippines (League of Cities)
Bank-Netherlands Partnership Programme (BNPP): Cities Alliance LED Initiative
LED – study on successful tools Purpose: to improve LED components within CDS
and CWS; Learn from mapping cities experiences of tools to
assess economic development and competitiveness, case studies;
Outcome- Make good practices available to cities;- Guidelines on tools and methodologies.
“ CDS Impact Study”
BackgroundBackground How to integrate M&E
into CDSs ECON Norway /
University of Sydney Japanese funding Analysis + road testing
Main reportMain report Description of CDS
process Review of Asian
examples Impact assessments
Practical guidance Practical guidance frameworkframework
Toolkits Table of questionnaires
Monitoring the CDS process
Process DesignProcess Design
Deciding on the phases and Deciding on the phases and framework for CDS preparation, framework for CDS preparation, including discussions with key including discussions with key
stakeholders.stakeholders.
Initial or Updated* Initial or Updated* AssessmentsAssessments
Identifying key issues, Identifying key issues, trends and opportunities trends and opportunities
plus gaps in information to plus gaps in information to be filled.be filled.
Consultation and Consultation and ParticipationParticipation
Gathering all stakeholders’ Gathering all stakeholders’ views on what needs to be views on what needs to be
done.done.
Action Plans and Action Plans and ImplementationImplementation
Translating the vision, Translating the vision, goals and priorities into goals and priorities into
achievable programs achievable programs and projects.and projects.
InstitutionalisationInstitutionalisation
Putting the CDS into the Putting the CDS into the day-to-day day-to-day
management of the city management of the city and into its cycles for and into its cycles for
planning and planning and budgeting.budgeting.
Vision, Goals and Vision, Goals and ObjectivesObjectives
Developing a clear, shared Developing a clear, shared vision plus agreed goals vision plus agreed goals and priorities for action.and priorities for action.
Monitoring & Monitoring & EvaluationEvaluation
Analysing and Analysing and discussing the discussing the
process and results process and results achieved. Making achieved. Making
adjustments.adjustments.
CDS monitoring – example of tools
Principles for good M&EHas the CDS M&E taken this
principle into account?
Audience – Are we clear who are the users of the M&E system and that the information we will collect meets their needs?
YES NO
Practicality - Is the system practical and realistic in terms of the availability and reliability of information?
YES NO
Flexibility – Can it be modified as we gain more information and /or as the challenges facing the city change?
YES NO
Building Capacity – Does it build on the existing information available to the city? YES NO
Relevant & Focussed – Is it relevant to and focused on the key objectives of the CDS? YES NO
Simple & To The Right Scale – Is it to the right scale beginning with a core set of indicators that can be refined and expanded over time?
YES NO
Appropriate & Meaningful – Does it include both quantitative and qualitative measures that make sense and are relevant?
YES NO
Balanced – Does it cover both what the CDS is hoping to achieve (its outcomes) and how it is to be done (the process)?
YES NO
Benchmarking – Does it make comparisons with other Cities where these are helpful and informative?
YES NO