environmental planning and management (epm) source book ... · environmental planning and...

Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) Source Book −Volume 1: Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda

Table of ContentsEnvironmental Planning and Management (EPM) Source Book − Volume 1: Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda........................................................................................................................................1

Users' Guide...........................................................................................................................................1Foreword.................................................................................................................................................2Introduction.............................................................................................................................................2Chapter 1 − Why Improve the Urban Environment?...............................................................................4

1.1 Sustainable Cities are Fundamental to Social and Economic Development..............................41.2 Environmental Degradation Obstructs the Development Contribution of Cities.........................51.3 Environmental Deterioration is Not Inevitable............................................................................6

Chapter 2 − How Cities Improve the Urban Environment.......................................................................72.1 Cities Improve Environmental Information and Technical Expertise..........................................82.2 Cities Improve Environmental Strategies and Decision−Making..............................................142.3 Cities Improve Effective Implementation of Environmental Strategies.....................................202.4 Cities Institutionalise Environmental Planning and Management............................................262.5 Cities Make More Efficient Use of Resources for Effecting Change........................................31

Chapter 3 − How Programmes Support Cities.....................................................................................353.1 Programmes Support EPM Demonstrations............................................................................383.2 Programmes Support City Networking for the Sharing of Know−How.....................................403.3 Programmes Provide Specialised Expertise and Information for EPM....................................423.4 Programmes Support EPM−relevant Applied Research and Development.............................43

Chapter 4 − Sharing Lessons of Experience and Advancing Collective Know−How...........................444.1 Towards a New Development Cooperation Paradigm.............................................................454.2 Sharing Experience: An Evolving Global Partnership..............................................................464.3 Organising the Exchange.........................................................................................................484.4 The Accumulating Results.......................................................................................................494.5 Looking Forward: The Urban Environment Forum...................................................................49

References...........................................................................................................................................51City Case Studies...........................................................................................................................51International Support Programme..................................................................................................55Contributors to the EPM Source Book...........................................................................................56List of Abbreviations Used.............................................................................................................60

i

Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) Source Book −Volume 1: Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements

United Nations Environment Programme

The cities of the world are discovering for themselves, through the hard lessons of experience, more effectiveapproaches for dealing with the problems of urban development and environment. In the process, a number of

important insights are emerging, increasing our understanding of how better to achieve the aims ofSustainable Development.

United Nations Centre for Human SettlementsUnited Nations Environment Programme

Copyright UNCHS (Habitat)/UNEP 1997

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)P.O. Box 30030Nairobi, Kenya

United Nations Environment ProgrammeP.O. Box 30552Nairobi, Kenya

HS/446/97ISBN for complete set of three volumes: 92−1−131325−2ISBN for this volume: 92−1−131326−0Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda

The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the UnitedNations

Printed in Kenya on acid−free, recycled paperby Majestic Printing Works Ltd.Nairobi, Kenya

Users' Guide

The EPM Source Book is organised into three volumes:

Volume 1

Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda is the main document of the EPM Source Book. It synthesisesand analyses the practical experiences of cities and programmes in urban environmental planning andmanagement. Each chapter begins with an overview of its contents, and with a quote from the IstanbulManifesto, adopted on the eve of Habitat II, June 1996. Short case examples drawn from practical lessons ofexperience illustrate the steps in the EPM process. All 150 examples are referenced with names and fullcontact addresses for cities.Chapter 1: Why Improve the Urban Environment? Sustainable cities are fundamental to social and economicdevelopment, but their contribution is increasingly threatened by environmental degradation.

1

Chapter 2: How Cities Improve the Urban Environment. Here, cities present their experiences in developingsustainable and effective solutions, illustrated by a wide range of practical case examples. Where a city hasmore than one case study, these have been numbered for ease of reference.

Chapter 3: How Programmes Support Cities, Responding to the city agenda described in Chapter 2,International support programmes offer practical support to the cities.

Chapter 4: Sharing Lessons of Experience and Advancing Collective Know−How: Building the Source Bookand Beyond.

References: Contacts of case study authors, International support programmes, and full list of contributors tothe Source Book.

Volume 2

City Experiences and International Support contains 33 case study abstracts, descriptions of 22 internationalsupport programmes, and the 1996 Istanbul Manifesto.

Volume 3

The Urban Environment Forum Directory contains full contact addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbersand E−mail addresses for all members of the Urban Environmental Forum, organised city, programme andorganisation.

Foreword

The EPM Source Book is one of the important and exciting products of the City Summit, its developmentstimulated and accelerated by the special spirit of co−operation and partnership which was generated byHabitat II. It vividly illustrates the impressive range of initiatives and actions with which cities all over the world,together with their partners in international support programmes, have been improving the practice ofenvironmental planning and management. Its rich store of “ground−level” experience, and its clearlyarticulated framework will make it an invaluable resource for everyone interested in working towards thesustainable development of human settlements.

The EPM Source Book also demonstrates the benefits of UNCHS and UNEP having joined forces to givegreater strength and impetus to the Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP). As a joint facility, the SCP is nowspearheading the United Nations' efforts in the field of urban environmental management. The work of theSCP, as represented in this EPM Source Book, is an example of the type of activity which the United Nationssystem does best: bringing together the major stakeholders, facilitating consensus, forging alliances, andimproving the ways in which we live and work together.

We believe that the EPM Source Book will be seen as an important milestone. It is a first step in a continuingseries of activities in which the United Nations system can continue to play a facilitating and catalytic role inmobilising an ever−widening range of actors and participants, helping to focus our collective energy andknow−how toward concrete improvements in the quality of life − and sustainability − of human settlementseverywhere.

Elizabeth DowdeswellUnited Nations Under−Secretary−GeneralExecutive Director of the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP)

Wally N'DowSecretary General of Habitat IIExecutive Head of the United NationsCentre for Human Settlements (UNCHS)

Introduction

During the 1980s, ideas about environment−development relationships were changing dramatically and by thetime of the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, it was widely accepted that environment and development must goforward together and in balance − in other words, towards sustainable development. Further, at the CitySummit in Istanbul in 1996, (Habitat II) governments of the world underlined the importance of human

2

settlements in the light of this new perspective. In addition, core ideas about economic and urbandevelopment were also changing, leading to a realisation that limited management capacities, not lack oftechnology or capital, is generally the key constraint to achieving sustainable development, and that changesin approach, policy and governance are required. Growing out of these revised ways of thinking, new ideashave begun to emerge, creating a new development cooperation paradigm which has its emphasis onleveraging resources (of all kinds), on partnerships and participation, and on sharing knowledge for advancingcollective know−how.

This EPM Source Book represents a remarkable milestone in the evolution of the new paradigm It isremarkable because the work leading up to it showed clearly how things were ripe for change in themid−1990s. Indeed, activities which began rather modestly in 1994 with the EPM Guidebook Project soonexpanded rapidly − the cities responded so enthusiastically and energetically that they ran away with theconcept.

The EPM Source Book documents this “explosion” of interest and shows, even at this early stage, theextraordinary extent to which energy has been released by opening up a new global partnership. It also showsthe key role played by a general process framework: Environmental Planning and Management − EPM. Thebasic EPM framework and its underlying ideas had been evolving and maturing for the past decade, largelythrough the cities participating in tie Sustainable Cities Programme. As it became more well−understood andaccepted, it provided a common framework through which a great diversity of cities (and later, internationalsupport programmes) could implement Agenda 21 and the Habitat Global Plan of Action at the local level andalso readily communicate with one another. It became a powerful unifying factor, helping cities andprogrammes to come together to share their concerns, ideas and experiences.

In the atmosphere of common purpose surrounding the City Summit, this process accelerated, leading to thespecial meeting on Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda. This was held on the eve of the Habitat IIConference and was attended by over 250 representatives from more than 75 cities and 20 internationalsupport programmes − probably the largest such gathering ever of policy−makers and practitioners directlyconcerned with urban environmental planning and management. The catalytic effect of this meeting promisesto be a major breakthrough, more effectively integrating and co−ordinating the activities of the United Nationswith those of local authorities. The EPM Source Book is a direct result of the interest and commitmentexperienced in Istanbul.

Perhaps the most important feature of the EPM Source Book is that it demonstrates how very much is actuallygoing on in the cities themselves − and emphasises how much there is to learn from that wealth ofexperience. The EPM Source Book does this by describing: (a) the common problems, common concerns,and increasingly common approaches among so many cities, revealing a widely−shared Urban EnvironmentAgenda; (b) how international programmes support cities in this work, using their various capacities, revealinga high degree of complementarity in approach; and (c) some of the events and activities which catalysed this“explosion” of ideas and energy.

In addition, the EPM Source Book shows how all of this has led to a wide range of rapidly−expandingfollow−up initiatives which could very well transform the ways in which we advance and apply our collectiveknow−how. Foremost among these is the Urban Environment Forum, a global networking and mutual−supportgrouping of cities and international support programmes, which was launched at the Habitat II Conference inJune 1996. This forum promises to be a real breakthrough in bringing to life the new paradigm of developmentcooperation for sustainable urban development. Other examples of important follow−up activities include theidentification of indicators which are directly related to different aspects of the EPM process and areoperationally−relevant. Another is the capturing and dissemination of EPM know−how using Internet−basedinformation systems and communication.

In keeping with its underlying spirit, this EPM Source Book has many contributors − in one sense literallyhundreds, considering how much has come from the policy−makers and practitioners who have contributedcase study material and who have actively participated in a series of international workshops in order toanalyse, refine, and consolidate that information. The actual drafting has been done by the core team ofprofessionals at the UNCHS/UNEP Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP), together with consultants andadvisers. The U.K. Overseas Development Administration and the Netherlands Government provided crucialsupport in initiating and sustaining the activities leading up to the Source Book, and numerous othergovernments, cities, and international programmes generously assisted by bringing participants to the variousworkshops and meetings.

3

It is our hope − indeed, our expectation − that the collaborative activities of cities and internationalprogrammes represented in this EPM Source Book will quickly bring the benefits of better environmentalplanning and management − real and visible improvements in living conditions − to urban populations all overthe world, especially the urban poor.

Jochen EigenCoordinator, Sustainable Cities ProgrammeNairobi, April 1997

Chapter 1 − Why Improve the Urban Environment?

The urban environment has received unparalleled attention in recent international debates on development.The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, 1992 (the “EarthSummit”) is now recognised as the landmark occasion when the world as a whole acknowledged − clearly andemphatically − the importance of the environment for social and economic development. This was articulatedin Agenda 21, the Conference's global agenda for action, which highlighted the importance of sustainablehuman settlements and emphasized cross−sectoral coordination, decentralization of decision−making, andbroad−based participatory approaches to development management. The Second United Nations WorldConference on Human Settlements (Habitat II − the “City Summit”) in Istanbul, 1996, took this point further inits global agenda for cooperation by acknowledging the direct and vital contribution that productive andsustainable cities can make to social and economic advancement. This understanding has been widelyaccepted among those concerned with the management of cities around the world, and has become the basisfor new concepts and approaches to urban environment−development relationships. In brief, the argumenthas three points:

• Sustainable Cities are Fundamental to Social and Economic Development• Environmental Degradation Obstructs the Development Contribution of Cities• Environmental Deterioration is Not Inevitable

1.1 Sustainable Cities are Fundamental to Social and Economic Development

It is now widely recognized that cities play a vital role in social and economic development in all countries.Urbanisation builds diversified and dynamic economies which raise productivity, create jobs and wealth,provide essential services, absorb population growth, and become the key engines of economic and socialadvancement. Thus, efficient and productive cities and towns are essential for national economic growth andwelfare; equally, at the local level, strong urban economies generate the resources needed for public andprivate investments in infrastructure, education, health, and improved living conditions.

KATOWICE: The agglomeration is the primary source of key raw materials for the Polish economy (all of itscoal and most of its steel), the centre of heavy industry, and the country's major source of electric power. Theprovince (of which the agglomeration is the urban−industrial core) produces 15% of national GDP with 10% ofthe Polish citizenry.

DAKAR: Although housing only about 25% of the national population, the Dakar area generates 68% ofSenegal's GDP and its workers account for 66% of the national wage bill; 80% of the country's industries arelocated in the metropolitan region, in resource use, it consumes three−quarters of the country's piped waterand 40% of its charcoal.

ABIDJAN: With 19% of Cote d'Ivoire's population, Abidjan generates 27% of GDP, houses 80% of thecountry's industry, and provides over half of secondary and tertiary sector employment,.

MANILA: Economically, Metro Manila is the industrial, financial and commercial centre of the country,although it contains only about 14% of the nation's population. 65% of the Philippines' large industrial firmsare located in the metropolis, including 90% of the meat processing capacity, 90% of electronics productionand 45% of paper mill output. While there is a national policy encouraging industries to locate outside Manila,it is estimated that the metropolis' industrial sector will continue to grow at 9% annually.

4

DURBAN: Durban is the busiest port in all Africa, and it is also the South Africa's top year−round touristdestination. The agglomeration has some 3% of South Africa's population, but it produces 9% of nationalGDP.

1.2 Environmental Degradation Obstructs the Development Contribution of Cities

The development potential of cities is increasingly threatened by environmental deterioration. Aside from itsobvious effects on human health and well−being, environmental degradation directly impedessocio−economic development. Water, air and soil pollution, for example, impose extra costs on business andindustry, and on households as well as public services. Inefficient use and depletion of natural resourcesraises input prices and operating costs throughout the economy, and also deters new investment. Heightenedrisk from environmental hazards has the same effect. In terms of impact, it is usually the poor who suffer mostcruelly and directly from environmental degradation, although the lives and health of all urban residents arealso affected. Failing to deal with the problem today, moreover, leads to much greater problems (and costs) inthe future. For development achievements to be truly “sustainable”, cities must find better ways of balancingthe needs and pressures of urban growth and change with the opportunities and constraints of theenvironment.

KATOWICE: By most measures, the Katowice agglomeration has the worst environmental conditions inPoland, with notoriously bad air pollution, water and soil contamination, solid waste heaps, toxic chemicalsetc. Equally, the area has the worst public health conditions in the country, primarily from diseases related toenvironmental pollution. The negative “image” projected by these conditions has been a deterrent to attractingmuch−needed new investment from outside the region. The vast amounts of degraded land in theagglomeration − covered by waste heaps from coal mines and steel mills, contaminated by heavy metals, anddangerously undermined − represent a direct barrier to urban redevelopment, and the costs of rehabilitatingthis vital land resource will be a heavy financial burden, and will divert funds from more directly productiveuses.

ISMAILIA: Several environmental factors limit Ismailia's development potential. Failure by the growingagricultural sector to adopt water conserving irrigation methods is creating serious pressure on waterresources, and hampering growth. Worsening lake pollution has negative economic consequences throughloss of tourism and recreational opportunities, depletion of fishery resources and deteriorating public health.

MADRAS (3): A critical shortage of water, resulting from an adverse climate but exacerbated by earlierunder−investment in surface−water supplies and by extraction of ground−water in excels of sustainablelevels, is a major deterrent to new industrial and commercial development. Coastal erosion in some areas has

5

damaged important road sections which serve major industrial areas.

IBADAN: Lack of environmental management has hampered Ibadan's development potential in two importantways. First, much of the city has no storm drains, sewers or gutters. This lack of drainage, combined withshallow valley floors, increase in impermeable surfaces, and poor solid waste management, has resulted in atleast ten costly and destructive floods in the last 70 years. Second, inadequate water supply, water pollution,poor refuse disposal, crowded and substandard housing, contaminated food, and disasters such as theflooding have heightened health risks for Ibadan's residents. As an extreme example, a cholera epidemicclaimed over 10,000 victims in the early 1970s.

COLOMBO: Conservative estimates suggest that by the year 2002 the annual costs of environmentaldegradation in the urban area could be US$60 million in lost property value, US$34 million in lost fish sales,US$14 million due to traffic congestion, and US$5.6 million in additional health care costs.

1.3 Environmental Deterioration is Not Inevitable

Although many cities seem to have difficulties in coming to grips with the requirements of sustainability andare suffering severe environmental and economic damage as a result, there are many encouraging signs thatenvironmental deterioration is not a necessary or inescapable result of urbanisation and economic change.Some cities seem to have made progress in striking the right balance − in finding development paths whichare more effectively attuned to environmental opportunities and constraints.

Indeed, mounting evidence from cities around the world shows that the fundamental challenge has to do withurban governance: learning how to plan better and more effectively manage the process of urbandevelopment, avoiding or alleviating problems while realising the positive potentials of city growth and change.New and more positive approaches to urban management can help to mobilise and effectively apply localresources − of all kinds.

GOTHENBURG: The municipal energy company developed a district heating system that uses energy fromsewage water with the help of heat pumps, reuses waste heat from oil refineries, and burns natural gas. Byphasing out oil as a fuel, the city has reduced carbon dioxide emissions per capita and lowered sulphurousemissions by 94% since 1984. “Best technology” and environmental awareness during the 1970s resulted inconsiderable cuts in point source emissions. An agreement was reached with the Volvo Company to reduceemissions from Internal transport work by 50 per cent within ten years; the target was met within five. Theexperience of such successes has led to the belief that there is a future in “green” business, and manycompanies push the image of Gothenburg as an environmental centre for commercial reasons.

6

MANILA: lead concentration used to exceed WHO standards by 2.2 times. However, ambient lead levelshave now fallen to within standards following the replacement of high−lead gasoline with low−lead fuel inmid−1993 and the Introduction of unleaded gasoline in early 1994.

DURBAN: Durban successfully implemented a programme (the Durban Metropolitan Open Space System −D'MOSS) to preserve its ecologically important urban lands; public lands have been consolidated and thenecessary private land acquired in order to link nine parks in an ecologically connected network.

CONCEPCION: The city of Concepcion succeeded in bringing together a large number of groups for therehabilitation of its urban lakes. Various ministries, the army, the local community, and the universitycontributed to the clean up and to the reintegration of the lakes into the life of the city. The citizens can nowenjoy once again the use of their lakes, health hazards have been reduced, and recreational activities arerestarting.

Chapter 2 − How Cities Improve the Urban Environment

A common focus of many innovative and effective approaches being worked out in cities today is a centralconcern within the actual process of urban environmental planning and management. Experiences in citiesand towns from countries all over the globe − despite their vast differences in physical, economic, social andpolitical situations − increasingly converge on this same viewpoint, this same framework for action.

Based on information from a wide variety of cities, a number of “guidelines” can be suggested, each of whichreflects the knowledge and insights − the “lessons”− gained through many different city experiences. Theseguidelines identify and describe ways which cities have found to be effective in moving towards sustainabledevelopment, and thus comprise a useful framework for a global approach to implementing the urbanenvironmental agenda. For convenience, these various guidelines can be grouped under five main headings,although individual guidelines may well be relevant under more than the one heading.

• Cities Improve Environmental Information and Technical Expertise• Cities Improve Environmental Strategies and Decision−Making• Cities Improve Implementation of Environmental Strategies• Cities Institutionalise Environmental Planning and Management• Cities Make More Efficient Use of Resources for Effective Change

7

2.1 Cities Improve Environmental Information and Technical Expertise

How cities identify, assess, clarify and prioritise environmental issues and mobilise the active participation ofthe various actors or stakeholders who need to be involved in the different activities of environmental planning

and management.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “As a starting point, organise environmental information into a cityenvironmental profile, involving all those whose cooperation is required in environmental planning andmanagement. This will identify stakeholders, and stimulate their interest and participation. The profile, anevolving document, is the first step in an ongoing process. Systematically identify stakeholders in the private,public, NGO, CBO and popular sectors so that there is full participation of all interest groups. Set prioritiesamong environmental issues through broad agreement among the stakeholders so that issues affectingquality of life, especially of disadvantaged groups, can be addressed expeditiously. Address cross−sectoraland cross−institutional implications and responsibilities squarely when elaborating and clarifying agreedpriority issues.” (Istanbul Manifesto, adopted on the eve of Habitat II, June 1996)

2.1.1 Preparing Basic Overview Information

Many cities have found it very useful to identify and clarify systematically the interaction betweenenvironment−development issues, thereby giving a better understanding of the complexities of the city'senvironmental problems, of their inter−linkages, and of the relationship between environmental anddevelopmental factors. One effective way to do this is through the process of developing a City EnvironmentalProfile, which is a compilation and synthesis of existing knowledge and data, focused on environmental anddevelopment management factors, especially in relation to the interests and roles of different stakeholders.The process of formulating and revising a City Environmental Profile is fundamentally concerned withestablishing the overall context for urban environmental management, with a particular emphasis oninter−relationships among issues and actors. Although based upon the best available scientific and technicalinformation, it is primarily a non−technical process which should involve extensive dialogue among thestake−holders of the city. Successfully done, the process of working out a City Environmental Profile willprovide a valuable starting point and common information base (which is normally updated regularly as newinformation becomes available) as well as promote a wider mutual understanding among the key actors andinstitutions to be involved.

IBADAN: To identify, clarify and articulate environmental issues, an NGO was hired in 1994 to produce a cityenvironmental profile. The NGO involved local professionals and obtained relevant data from governmentagencies. A comprehensive document was produced which contained basic information about Ibadan'sdevelopment and environment issues, along with a review of institutions responsible for environmentalplanning and management within the city. The profile was reviewed by government offices, traditionalcommunity leaders and selected professional associations.

ACCRA, ABIDJAN, DAKAR: These three cities collected urban environmental data and preparedenvironmental profiles with support from the UNCHS/UNDP/World Bank Urban Management Programme(UMP). This information was used to identify priority issues, and served as the basis for stakeholderconsultations, workshops, and town meetings.

DAR ES SALAAM: A group of consultants reviewed the impacts of development sectors on the city’senvironmental resources, as well as the constraints that the environment placed on future developmentoptions. The results were reported to a cross−sectoral Working Group in the City Council to highlight theimportance of environmental information availability in decision making. The resulting “City EnvironmentalProfile” is now being updated on a regular basis, and is linked into a monitoring system on environmentalindicators.

JOHANNESBURG: A system is under development to ensure that information obtained at the metropolitanand the municipal level is integrated and co−ordinated at the different levels of government, and also betweensectors and areas. Previously, data on environment and health conditions have been collected almostindependently of one another and in many cases these data−sets cannot be linked to one another. This hasmade it difficult to make full use of the information and to assess, for example, to what extent environmentalhealth problems result from problems with environmental conditions (e.g., respiratory illness and air pollution,or diarrhoeal diseases and water and sanitation services).

8

ISMAILIA: An environmental profile was prepared, illuminating key development−environment concerns, suchas agricultural issues, problems of unserviced informal areas, increasing lake pollution and inadequatemanagement of industrial and solid wastes. The profile also illustrated the complex system of environmentand development management arrangements involving local, governorate, and national levels of government.Finally, the profile was used to develop background papers for general discussion at a city−wide consultation.

DURBAN: The preparation of the Durban Environment and Development Study differed from the traditionalState of the Environment Reporting process: it did not simply involve the collection and documentation ofbiophysical and socio−economic data, but instead, a major component of the study was to determine andreview community perspectives on environmental management and sustainability issues.

HANOI: Between 1975 and 1993, various research projects about the urban environment were conducted. In1993−94, the results of these enquiries were used to identify issues systematically through preparation of anenvironmental profile. This expert−driven process was supplemented by the participation of a local NGO andby taking into account “public complaints”. The latter drew attention to ground water pollution andmanagement of the city’s largest cemetery as priority issues.

MANILA: An Environmental Management Strategy (environmental profile) was prepared through theMetropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme (MEIP), following recognition that the Land Use Planand Zoning Ordinance of 1981 were ineffective in managing the urban environment. Information waspresented in understandable common language. A multi−sectoral Steering Committee, technical workinggroups and consultants held workshops and meetings to identify environmental issues.

WUHAN: Several approaches have been pursued to develop baseline information for identifying andprioritising urban environmental issues. An environmental monitoring programme provides basic data forassessing environmental quality as well as establishing trends. Public complaints, media reports andsuggestions by members of the Wuhan People's Congress are also becoming important sources ofinformation. An environmental information system is being developed with support from the World Bank.These different sources of environmental data are being drawn together in an environmental profile as part ofthe UNCHS/UNEP−supported Sustainable Wuhan Project.

2.1.2 Involving Stakeholders

Most cities have found that successful environmental planning and management requires understanding,agreement, and coordinated action by the full range of public, private and popular sector groups andorganisations (stakeholders) at neighbourhood, community, city, and national levels. Cities recognise that it isimportant to undertake a wide−ranging process of identifying and involving stakeholders. Cities also recognisethat this process involves groups which may be outside the formal planning and management systems, such

9

as women, private sector groups and interests, and the marginalised and disadvantaged groups, especiallythe urban poor, at both city and neighbourhood levels. A variety of methods for constructively involvingstake−holders in different aspects of environmental planning and management can be used (for instance,Participatory Rapid Appraisal or similar techniques), helping to empower stakeholders and give them a senseof ownership and commitment. To identify relevant stakeholders for a specific issue, many cities around theworld apply the following simple test:

• Whose interests are affected by the environment−development issue at hand − or byenvironmental management strategies and actions that may be decided?

• Who possesses information and expertise needed for strategy formulation andimplementation?

• Who controls relevant implementation instruments or has the means to significantlyinfluence environment−developmental interactions?

BAMAKO: As part of the EPM exercise, a partnership was formed between the city administration and a setof key NGOs, CBOs and informal sector groups within one of the city's administrative districts. Called“Coordination for Sanitation” it had a critical role in moving the EPM process forward.

ABIDJAN: During the workshop “Strategic Environmental Management of the Abidjan Agglomeration”,experts facilitated the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders in consultative activities. These experts didnot take part or directly Influence decision making but supported consensus building as an initial step andensured proper representation of everybody's opinion.

BELO HORIZONTE: Belo Horizonte's participatory budgeting scheme Is working very well because of thesustained political support of the municipal government and the active involvement of the Important actors andstakeholders (NGOs, CBOs, PVOs, Universities, Private Sector). Public attitudes toward Implementingdecisions have been supportive, because of the careful publicity which ensures that people are properlyInformed. The mass media also play an Important role in awareness building and stakeholder mobilisation.

CONCEPCION: Meetings conducted to collect Information for an environmental profile helped the actors toimprove their understanding of the relationship between their activities and the environment, and of thespecific role they could play in environmental management. The meetings brought together representativesfrom similar types of organizations, active in different parts of the metropolitan area. This stimulated newinterest in the future of the city, for example, following their participation in this activity, the CBO “Juntas deVecinos” decided to meet more regularly to share their views on development.

GOTHENBURG: Different groups lead the environmental debate at different times, depending upon theissues at hand, but they have learned that they are not effective if they are out of step with each other. Thebusiness sector has been very active in promoting environmental awareness and action. The quality ofparticipation is also important, and Gothenburg has therefore developed mechanisms to assess and improvethe level of participation.

NAIROBI: Nairobi's 1903 workshop on “City Environment and Sustainable Development”, the city's firstexperience with stakeholder involvement, was part of a larger forum to develop a broad vision of the future.The process led to the recommendation that a stakeholder's City Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentNetwork be created to negotiate, with government officials, an action agenda on the environment.

ISMAILIA: Utilising the EPM process, a partnership was formed for the first time ever between three keyactors in the area: the Governorate of Ismailia, the Suez Canal University and the Suez Canal Authority. Allthree took the lead in different working groups, initiating coordinated actions to improve urban lakemanagement.

MADRAS (2): An NGO movement, Exnora International, was widely successful in improving street− andneighbourhood−level solid waste collection and street cleaning through community participation, by forginglocal partnerships with three key stakeholders: the residents themselves, ragpickers in the informal sector(renamed “street beautifiers”), and the municipal authorities.

DAR ES SALAAM: Stakeholder involvement started during preparations for the City Consultation onEnvironmental Issues, when “umbrella” organisations representing the private and (then nascent) popularsectors were invited to help prioritise the key environmental issues. Representatives of key public, private and

10

popular sector groups then formed cross−sectoral and multi−institutional working groups, initially to improvesolid waste management and to upgrade unplanned settlements. Three years later up to 40 working groupswere operational, addressing a wide variety of environmental issues and involving a wide range ofstakeholders who were thereby introduced to the ideas and practice of direct participation in environmentalplanning and management.

2.1.3 Setting Priorities

Clearly, no city can realistically expect to tackle successfully all of its environmental and development issuesat once. Accordingly, experience has shown the importance of being selective and of setting priorities, so thatattention and action may be focused on a limited array of problems and tasks in a strategic sequence. Itappears appropriate to look at priority natural resources issues and priority environmental hazard issues inparallel. Once local environmental issues have been identified and key stakeholders are committed toparticipate in their resolution, it is possible to work out with them which issues should receive priority attention.The criteria for prioritisation have, in many cases, been worked out through a participatory process andtypically derive from consideration both of the impacts associated with each environmental problem and of thelocal capacities to respond. Criteria for prioritising issues are numerous and have included the following, (a)the magnitude of health impacts associated with the problem; (b) the size of urban productivity loss caused bythe problem; (c) the potential for local capacity−building; (d) the potential for local resource mobilization; (e)the relative impact of the problem on the urban poor; (f) the degree to which the consequences are short− orlong−term; (g) whether or not the problem leads to an irreversible outcome; (h) whether special circumstancesoffer special opportunities; (i) the degree of social/political consensus on the nature or severity of problems;and (k) whether the problem is significantly affected by local responses and actions.

SEATTLE: An Environmental Priorities Project was initiated and, as a first step, a technical advisorycommittee of over 30 environmental experts was established to evaluate a wide range of environmental risksfacing the city. A policy advisory committee consisting of 40 environmental advocates, businessrepresentatives, tribal interests, academics, community leaders and local government managers then held aseries of public meetings to review the technical report's findings and answer several key questions, such as:What are the most urgent environmental challenges facing Seattle?; What can be done to address priorityproblems?; What is the role of local government? From this process, ten priority areas emerged, ranging fromreducing transport sources of environmental risk through pollution prevention, waste reduction, and recycling,to improving environmental management and co−ordination.

DAKAR: At a consultative workshop, working groups identified thematic priorities (natural and industrial risks,air pollution, solid waste, sanitation, and environmental education) and geographic “hot spots” (pollution of

11

Hann Bay and coastal erosion). At the workshop's final plenary, a consensus was reached to proceed withaction planning for the priority concerns of degradation of Hann Bay and industrial risks.

BELO HORIZONTE: The Municipal Council for Environmental Issues (COMAM) deliberates on allenvironmental issues, and its democratically−elected representatives decide on priorities. As a result, issuesare clarified, suggestions for initiatives are made and the general public develops a sense of responsibility forthe environment.

CONCEPCION: During a four month period, sector−based meetings with stakeholders were held, and twoissued emerged as priorities: deficiencies in (a) water resource management and (b) urban land planning andmanagement. These then formed the core of an initial city consultation held in mid−1994, at which they werealso the issues which generated the greatest interest, in relation to negative effects on development, conflict's,over success to natural resources, and exposure to environmental hazards.

ÖREBRO: The new Landugardsängen neighbourhood was planned on ecological principles to create asustainable urban environment, and to motivate the inhabitants to adopt environmentally conscious lifestyles.The project began by collecting information in response to practical questions voiced by the public, such as:“Do we have to follow all the specific planning guidelines? Do we have to plan for cars? Do we need wastecollection vehicles?” etc. Planning work was initiated on this basis, and although many of the ideas generatedwere not ultimately used, a whole new way of thinking about physical planning came into being.

ACCRA: In mid−1995, a week−long city consultation succeeded in bringing together over 150 stakeholders.Through extensive working sessions they reviewed the urban environmental issues affecting the city. Theyagreed on the most critical issues to be addressed? degradation of the Korle Lagoon and sanitation. Withinthose two priority issues, sub−issues were identified and prioritized.

HANOI: The Hanoi Environment Committee used the following criteria to prioritise an implementationtimetable: a) health effects; b) costs of damage; and c) severity of the problem (extent, and long−term versusshort−term impact). Issues were prioritised through surveys of their impacts on community health, theeconomy, and development generally.

COLOMBO: A stakeholder steering committee and a technical working group worked together with localconsultants to describe the extent of environmental degradation, to project future environmental conditions inColombo, to describe the lack of existing remedial measures and to compile an inventory and analysis ofenvironmental legislation and institutional arrangements. During this process, seven environmental prioritieswere identified.

DAR ES SALAAM: Environmental issues were initially identified through preparation of an urbanenvironmental profile. A subsequent five−day City Consultation on Environmental Issues attracted over 200participants, including the Prime minister, and reached consensus on nine priority environmental issues − andon a process to address them. More detailed strategies as well as short term interventions for each issuewere prioritised during follow−up “mini−consultations” over the following three years, as well as during workinggroup deliberations when detailed actions were negotiated for different institutions to implement.

12

2.1.4 Clarifying Selected Priority Issues

Environmental issues − and their ramifications − are almost always more complex than at first thought,especially when the inherent conflicts of interest among different stakeholders are taken into account. It hasoften proved valuable to follow a careful and deliberate process for developing a broad−based understandingof the full nature of environmental questions. By doing this in an extensive and participatory way it is possibleto systematically clarify environment−development relationships, cause and effect linkages, developmentneeds and impacts, productivity and sensitivity of natural systems, environmental hazard risks, etc. Suchclarification, supported by thematic maps and technical analysis, has proved to be an important prerequisitefor effective environmental planning and management.

IBADAN: The Ibadan city consultation was initially organised around three cross−cutting issues: sanitation,health and solid waste management, health and water supply, and institutional arrangements for Improvedsolid waste and water supply management. Stakeholders at the consultation then clarified the priorities as:waste management; water supply; and institutionalisation of the EPM process. Following the consultation,working groups were established with the technical capacity to further clarify the agreed priority concerns;waste recycling; water supply; and sanitation in the city's principal market.

DAKAR: Environmental studies were prepared with SCP support on two priority themes − Hann Bay pollutionand industrial risks. These studies, prepared by local consultants, examined the nature of the problem, therelationship between the problem and urban development, and the institutional setting of the issue. That sameyear, a three−day consultation was held with over 100 stakeholders to discuss the two issues and todetermine how best to proceed. Results are now being used to develop action plans to cover necessaryinvestments, technical assistance, policy reforms, and Institutional development.

KENYA SMALL TOWNS: In the Kenya “Green Towns Project”, two days of a three−day workshop are usedto clarify priority issues. Participants discuss ecological linkages between development and the environmentalissues identified during the first day. A “problem tree” is prepared, illustrating local cause and effectrelationships. A field trip and video further clarify linkages. At the end of the workshop, participants usuallyhave a good sense, both of common purpose and of priorities for action.

CONCEPCION: Basic information on priority issues was expanded, using formal methodologies for analysingcause/effect relationships. A “problem tree” detailing the causes of the issues and their effects was patientlyconstructed by the participants in cross−sectoral working groups. It allowed them to reach a clearer commonunderstanding of the complexity of the issues they had to address.

13

ISMAILIA: Based on the Environmental Profiler, the Steering Committee identified four broad issues to bereviewed at the city consultation: agriculture, industry, urban lakes and urban expansion, in the discussiongroups at the city consultation, key aspects of these thematic issues were identified but not elaborated.Subsequently, the working groups established by the city consultation distilled the specific questions undereach thematic issue. Answers to these questions were developed and documented by the working groups forupgrading of informal settlements, managing urban expansion, promoting agro−industries, water resourcemanagement, managing urban lakes and managing industrial waste in the industrial zone.

DAR ES SALAAM: Working groups compiled information from a wide variety of sources. Because eachsource had a slightly different perspective on the issue at hand, the exercise involved a deliberate process ofreconciling competing interests from the beginning. This broadened professional involvement, and helpedforge cross−sectoral and multi−institutional understanding and partnership. In the process, additionalinformation and expertise were obtained to further clarify the issues. Using resources available through theworking groups, most of the necessary technical expertise could be mobilised locally.

2.2 Cities Improve Environmental Strategies and Decision−Making

How cities prepare, assess, build consensus for, and reconcile issue−specific strategies and incorporate theminto overall and sectoral development policies and strategies.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “Through a broad−based process, focus strategies anddecision−making on clearly defined issues. Consider available implementation options, including theirfinancial, economic, technical, legal, social, and physical dimensions during strategy formulation. Involve allrelevant stakeholders in analysing issues and policy options, and developing strategies. This consensusbuilding across technical, political, social, and economic interests will help develop a sense of ownership andcommitment amongst the stakeholders, leading to better implementation and follow−up. Consider EPMstrategies within the existing framework for urban development and plan implementation, to fosterinter−agency collaboration for joint action.” (Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

2.2.1 Clarifying Issue−Specific Policy Options

Political, administrative and technical activities appear to take place most effectively in relation towell−identified and relatively narrowly specified issues, for which the relevant policy options can be mosteffectively prepared. In particular, clarification of issue−specific policy options brings a clearer understandingof costs and benefits for different stakeholders, and of “trade−offs” for the city as a whole. This approach not

14

only mobilises the involvement of relevant stakeholders but also provides a more realistic basis for reaching aconsensus on which to build implementable strategies. As part of this process it is helpful for strategies to bearticulated and publicised in the form of both technical and non−technical presentations and reports, tofacilitate the continued participation of relevant stakeholders in the ongoing process of clarifying policy optionsand agreeing strategies. Presentations and reports typically cover aspects such as: (a) a review of theenvironment−development issue, with a description of the environmental system from which it originates, thedevelopment concerns that are affected and the stakeholders that have been involved; (b) a summary of theoptions considered, the pros and cons of each option for various stakeholders, and the assumptions andprocedures that led to agreement on the selected option; (c) a summary of the analytical results comparingalternative approaches in terms of social, economic and environmental costs and benefits; (d) both detailedand summary mapping information, to securely place the information and the proposals in a cleargeographical context; (e) the agreed long−term environmental objectives and targets as well as interim goalsto guide phased interventions (such as preliminary outline of project profiles, initial identification of prioritygeographic areas and development sectors); (f) the associated policy reforms and institutional strengtheningthat have been agreed upon to support the implementation of the strategy; and (g) discussion of the indicatorsand statistics which could be used to track the progress of actions and their impacts.

ISMAILIA: The strategic development planning process which decided upon the issue focus of activitiesculminated in an Environmental Strategies Review Workshop where stakeholders and Interestedparties−discussed and agreed on issue−specific options, furthermore. The EPM process has been greatlyfacilitated by systematic mapping support. Recognising the potential use of maps in issue clarification andstrategy planning, the Sustainable Ismailia Project created a mapping section as part of its technical team. Astandard base map was developed and digitised, and, over a period of two years, supported by just oneprofessional, the mapping section, produced over a hundred thematic maps used by issue−specific workinggroups. The difficulty of comprehending complex environmental issues related to urban expansion, conflictingland use and water resources management has been eased remarkably with the use of these maps. This inturn stimulated the Governor to mobilise additional mapping equipment and resources and also led torequests for governorate staff to be trained through the project's work. This paves the way for institutionalisingan effective mapping function within the governorate.

ABIDJAN: In Abidjan's EPM process, the following criteria were used to develop policy options:implementation should avoid conflict; the solutions should rely on community participation; options should beecologically sustainable, financially viable and employment−generating; and all policy options should addressthe root causes of problems as well as result in better public health.

DAR ES SALAAM: Improved information and the involvement of a wider group of stakeholders enriched theconsideration of alternative policy options, particularly regarding solid waste management and management ofair quality and urban transportation. In both cases, the typical response over the years to poor managementhad been, respectively, to purchase more collection vehicles and to widen the roads. However, theinvolvement of private sector representatives in working groups for both issues better informed traditionalmanagers on the resources available, improved mutual understanding of potential roles, and led to theleveraging of private sector investment's in solid waste collection systems and an expanded public transportsystem.

GOTHENBURG: The Environmental Policy Management Group, responsible for overall environmentmanagement in the local authority, has developed an environmental policy to deal with emissions fromdifferent activities in the city. All municipal departments are required to develop environment managementplans and to try them out with environmental audits.

COLOMBO: The Urban Development Authority (UDA) took the lead in clarification of policy options,supported initially by a consultants' consortium and a technical working group. The consultative mechanismfor environmental strategy formulation was the formation of technical work groups of stakeholders withintensive workshops at each stage (over 60 hours each). The work groups set environmental quality goals,developed alternative strategies, and formulated actions plans. They then selected issue specific strategiesfor industrial pollution management and air quality management and prepared feasibility investment studies(i.e. central waste treatment for two industrial zones, restoring water quality in downtown lakes, and wastecollection in slums). Action plans defined both preventative and remedial interventions.

KENYA SMALL TOWNS: The last day of the “Green Towns Project” three−day workshop in each town isused to clarify issue−specific options. A video is shown to explain the process. Participants then divide intofour groups to prepare, respectively: a map showing ecologically vulnerable areas that need to be protected;another showing suitable agricultural land; a map indicating which areas are suitable for urban development;

15

and a “zero map” suggesting how the town might develop without any EPM. Maps are compared in a plenarysession and areas of conflict are traced onto a single map. Groups are reformed and assigned one conflictarea for which they are to come up with detailed but implementable solutions. Each group then identifies amost important, most wanted, and most realistic option.

2.2.2 Considering Implementation Options and Resources

Experiences have shown that to be realistic and robust, strategy formulation is best if integrated − from thevery beginning − with the consideration of implementation options and resources. In this way, the strategieswhich evolve have a better relationship with likely constraints and available resources (such as financial,economic, technical, administrative, physical). Building in these considerations from the beginning also allowsa consistent use of social cost−benefit analysis (and similar techniques), which is crucial for helping allstakeholders to understand the over−all limits and the trade−off of the EPM process, as well as the distributionof gains and costs among different groups. This has proved to be important by helping to ensure that strategicagreements which are reached will be reliable, in the sense that the agreeing stakeholders understand fromthe beginning the implementation and resource implications of the chosen strategies. This helps avoid thewasted effort of developing a technically ideal strategy which cannot subsequently be implemented.

DAR ES SALAAM: Recognising the lack of resources to service 60% of the city with basic water; roads,drainage and sanitary waste disposal systems, the working group on upgrading unplanned settlementsdeveloped a strategy for intervention. This strategy was based on prioritising neighbourhoods according to thestrength and representative nature of their community based organisations, and the expressed willingness ofthe households to contribute 20% of the estimated capital investments for their prioritised service need.Progress observed during upgrading included strengthened household participation and community groups,new mechanisms for leveraging funds at the neighbourhood level, and thus a greater sense of ownership andcommitment.

COTONOU: Awareness of resource limitations and implementation capacities were prime elements in thedevelopment of Cotonou's pilot waste management strategy. The strategy was based on; a) choosing anaffordable waste collection system; b) developing a waste treatment system based on appropriate technology;and c) recovering costs for improved sanitation. This resulted in action plane that included: a door−to−doorwaste collection system employing handcarts, a project for composting solid waste, and a project for low−costpay public latrines.

CONCEPCION: Prior to implementation of action plans, an assessment of the existing means ofimplementation was conducted, inventories were prepared in different ways by each of six working groups to

16

identify financial resources, technical capacities and institutional responsibilities. The participants of theworking groups were mandated by their respective institutions and, being aware of their own implementationcapacities, were able to commit their organisation. Using this resource assessment, working groups thendeveloped responsibilities, budgets and a time line for Implementation of their specific action plans.

ISMAILIA: Implementation options and resources were carefully considered in the development of Investmentprojects. A long list of projects was prepared, screened according to implementation feasibility, and prioritisedthrough stakeholder ranking of environmental, economic and social variables. Nine priority projects emergedfor which financial and technical pre−feasibility studies are being prepared.

BANGALORE: In upgrading one slum, the process revolved around affordable finance, appropriate housingdesign, and equitable land allotment, with each aspect being participatory. Financing was limited by eachhousehold's ability to pay, constraining the design and cost of the units to be constructed. Additionally,residents wanted ground−to−sky rights over a small piece of land and a dwelling that would eventually betheirs; they also ruled out the option of sharing toilets. Two affordable designs were finally developed thatwere acceptable to the community and feasible for implementation. The process of land allotment involved asystem whereby residents allotted houses to each other until everyone was satisfied.

KUCHING: Among the many environmental problems discussed, those associated with street vendors weresolvable by the Local Council at reasonable cost and within a limited time frame. This was in contrast withlarge problems such as squatters and central sewerage which would take major co−ordination and largeinvestments over a longer period of time. Thus, vendor−associated problems were tackled early on by theCouncil.

2.2.3 Building Broad−Based Consensus on Issue−Specific Objectives and Strategies

To succeed with preparation and implementation of urban environmental management strategies, experiencehas shown the importance of effective processes for consensus−building. Just as it is crucial to involverelevant stakeholders in the identification and prioritisation of issues, it is equally vital to involve them in theprocess of analysing issues and policy options and working towards agreed environmental managementstrategies. This approach recognises that strategy−building is not simply a technical exercise, but is an activityof consensus−building and compromise across a range of technical, political, social, and economic factorsand interests. This point is especially important for environmental issues, which cut across sectors, acrossgeographical boundaries, and across time. Approaches which acknowledge the existence of differences ofinterest have generally been more successful, whereas attempts to avoid conflict, for example through aforced consensus or a so−called neutral technical solution, have generally been less successful, especially in

17

the long−run. In addition, this consensus−building approach has shown that it can help diverse stakeholdersacquire a sense of ownership and commitment, leading to constructive engagement in implementation andfollow−up.

DAKAR: During the city consultation held in 1994, representatives from industry and local communities met towork out a consensus on now to address the issue of Industrial risks. This was the first such meeting − allprevious encounters had been confrontational, often taking place in court.

DAR ES SALAAM: In some cases, preliminary strategies from different working groups were in conflict. Forinstance, some working groups (Managing Transport; Recovering Open Spaces; Solid Waste) advocatedeviction of informal sector traders from the road reserve and open space, whereas the working group onintegrating the Informal Sector in the Urban Economy wanted to work with and support those traders in thoselocations. Members of all the working groups were brought together site by site to review their proposals Inconsultation with the traders affected. This resulted in improved understanding of strategy alternatives,generated better mutual understanding, and resulted in draft management agreements. These were thennegotiated between the City Council and the traders so that the latter managed their own environment andpaid fees and taxes to the Council in return for a degree of recognition and security.

CONCEPCION: Cross−sectoral working groups were created to address priority issues; where the issueswere more localised, community based organizations played an important role in facilitating the dialoguebetween institutional and technical actors and those most directly affected by the Initiatives. In Caleta PuebloHundido, the participation of the fishermen's Union and the Neighbourhood Organisation eased the path whenconflicting interests Emerged Conflicts arose when changes in land use in specific parts of the village werediscussed.

ACCRA: A series of meetings to build awareness and commitment led up to a city consultation in 1995, whichhelped to build a consensus from the city's ongoing debate about environmental issues. Good groupdynamics, familiarisation with the issues, use of facilitation techniques, and discussion in the local language,all helped to bring stakeholders together constructively and move toward consensus.

CAPE TOWN: A series of workshops−over a three−year period were used to build consensus on aMetropolitan Spatial Development Framework; expert facilitators and rapporteurs were used to developparticipation and consensus, and to maintain continuity between workshops.

ISMAILIA: The formulation of strategies was a long process, which at different stages involved various actorsin the city and the governorate. As a first step, working groups had consultative meetings with the governorand the elected officials, to jointly work out a vision and general policy priorities. These meetings werefacilitated by national consultants. The working groups then formulated outline strategies, after whichmini−consultations (with broad attendance) were convened to give wider exposure and to spur publicdiscussion. Finally, the Environmental Strategies Review Workshop was held, where actors from local andnational levels were once more invited to discuss and agree on the strategies. Through incrementalconsensus building process, different views and ideas were accommodated and the strategies wereprogressively refined while retaining the commitment various stakeholders.

18

2.2.4 Co−ordinating Environmental and Other Development Strategies

With a focus on issue−specific strategies, it became important for many cities to consistently co−ordinatestrategies. The primary need was to co−ordinate across the separate issue−specific strategies, in order tounderstand and incorporate the important inter−relationships among different environmental issues andstrategies. A second need was to co−ordinate with existing plans and strategies which were likely to originatefrom a different approach and therefore might not readily relate to the EPM issue−oriented strategy approach.A basic requirement was a framework − an organised process − for co−operation and collaboration. This didnot require the preparation of a “comprehensive” overall strategy − especially not in the old−fashioned MasterPlan sense of comprehensive planning. On the contrary, an effective co−ordination framework concentrateson the inter−linkages between issue−specific strategies and focuses especially on the needs for, and benefitsof, inter−agency collaboration and mutually−supportive joint action. The concern in cities is increasing for“connectedness” rather than “comprehensiveness”, in order to maximise potential complementarities, such asshared budget allocations, coordinated instruments of implementation, and overlapping geographic scope.

GOTHENBURG: The fifty has integrated environmental concerns into physical and land use planning. Matterand energy balances are used in physical planning to describe and understand the management of naturalresources. In Gothenburg's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, water circulation, nitrogen and energy analysesare included.

WUHAN: The city has taken two routes to integrating urban and environmental planning. During the 1980s,environmental protection was incorporated in Wuhan's five−year plan for economic and social development.However, limited interaction between the city's environmental protection bureau and other municipaldepartments led to problems. Now, the Bureau and other municipal departments are jointly preparing anenvironmental protection strategy with the Wuhan Planning Commission which is inter−institutional andcross−sectoral.

DAR ES SALAAM: Past approaches to coastal zone management Involved legislating against developmentwithin 90 m of the High Water Mark, in an attempt to protect investments from ongoing coastal erosion. Thishas proved difficult to enforce. Recent consultations on coastal erosion brought together better informeddecision makers as well as investors to discuss the causes of erosion, namely sand mining in river valleys,which unbalances the coastal systems, further consultations with the largely informal−sector sand miners arenow in hand to relocate them to larger deposits which offer a longer term and more sustained mining future, tobe followed by opening up the mined areas for community based urban agricultural development, which willprevent the return of miners or other forms of encroachment for urban development.

19

BELO HORIZONTE: The City Environmental Office and the Municipal Council for Environmental Issues havebegun to integrate environmental issues into the city's master plan. In the revised master plan two new typesof environmental zoning were used: environmental and landscape protection zones, to preserve the quality ofnatural resources in an area; and environmental protection zones, to maintain areas that support the over−allecological balance of the city. The former includes green urban spaces while the letter includes areas of highsoil permeability, watercourses, and critical vegetation.

SHENYANG: The recent revision of the city's master plan (1996−2010) made environmental protection animportant chapter and an independent sectoral plan focuses on environmental matters. The siting of newdevelopment projects must comply with the environmental zoning in the plan. No new polluting industries areto be allowed in the central city and existing highly polluting enterprises will be moved to less populoussuburban areas through both regulatory and incentive measures.

COLOMBO: Co−ordination occurred through several different routes: the EPM process helped to revise theColombo Master Plan; the city's Urban Development Authority set up its own environment unit to graduallyintegrate EPM into its land use planning and infrastructure development; and, at the national level, the EPMexercise became an integral part of the national environmental action plan.

2.3 Cities Improve Effective Implementation of Environmental Strategies

How cities develop, agree and implement issue−specific as well as organisation−specific environmental actionplans to operationalise their agreed environmental management and urban development strategies.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “Improve effective implementation of environmental strategies throughmeasures such as the following: application of the full range of implementation capabilities (e.g. regulations,economic incentives, investment programmes, and public information campaigns); through packages ofmutually supportive interventions; continuing involvement and consensus of all stakeholders; main−streamingof environmental responsibilities; agreement on action plans for implementation within a coherent strategicframework that has wide acceptance and political support; and through regular monitoring, evaluation andfeedback of implementation results.” (Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

20

2.3.1 Applying the Full Range of Implementation Capabilities

Implementation is very often a weak point: cities all over the world, but especially those in lower−income andtransitional countries, have chronic difficulties with implementing strategies and plans. With a firm foundationof broad−based stakeholder involvement and support, however, cities find it easier to mobilise diverse andcomplementary resources and capabilities for effective implementation. In particular, the active involvement ofa wide variety of public and private, formal and informal stakeholders can provide valuable implementationresources − for example, local knowledge, untapped human resources, in−kind economic and financial inputs,previously unused private sector or household sector finance, public agencies not previously involved. With amulti−actor approach to implementation, it becomes possible to utilise, in a co−ordinated andmutually−reinforcing way, a very wide variety of implementation instruments and techniques, including thefollowing:

• laws and regulations• fiscal and economic incentives• strategic capital investments• public information and education campaigns

NANTES: The city has strategically invested in a tramway system. The investment was accompanied by aseries of measures discouraging the use of private care in the city centre, and at the same time encouragingthe used public transport through special incentives. A city wide information campaign for behavioural changein transport practice was also used, promoting public transport and the use of bicycles. In addition, the cityprovided high quality planted and landscaped public areas for pedestrians and cyclists. The heart of Nantes,which used to be flooded by vehicular traffic, is now pedestrian friendly. This has reshaped the atmosphere ofthe city completely.

ISMAILIA: In the implementation of upgrading projects, Ismailia's successful past experience of communityparticipation and cost recovery schemes were replicated. The extensive public information and awarenesscampaigns were instrumental in increasing levels of community participation, in addition, fast−track actionsand small projects were initiated and implemented in some areas, such as fitting swamp lands, planting treesand developing retail markets.

DAR ES SALAAM: Implementation of action plans in Dar es Salaam has involved a range of approaches.The solid waste management action plan has relied on the increasing involvement of the private sector, publicawareness campaigns, improved environmental information collection and research, the formation of amanagement team, and technical assistance. Technical co−ordination, community participation, costrecovery, and technical assistance have been used to implement the slum upgrading action plan. Improvedenvironmental information, donor co−ordination, and support to an NGO have all played a part in theimplementation of the green space action plan.

GOTHENBURG: The city relies heavily on public information in implementation. A special “Eco Handbook” isdistributed to every household and working place in Gothenburg, containing practical advice about whichgoods one should choose in the shops, how one can save energy at home, how to deal with waste and refusein the best possible way and so on. The handbook is supported by no less than 16 municipal departments andcomparing.

MADRAS (3): The Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board has successfully privatised part of itswater supply system, a sewage pumping station and a sewage treatment plant. Water supply costs werereduced by 50%, operation and maintenance costs at the pumping station were lowered by 40% with nosacrifice in quality, and the cost of building a new sewage treatment plant was 30% less than if it had beenundertaken by the Board directly.

HANOI: The Law on Protection of the Environment calls for submission of environmental impact reports fornew and existing facilities and for enactment of detailed environmental assessments. The Government appliesthe Polluter Pays Principle step by step and promotes environmental improvements through incentives andsubsidies.

COLOMBO: Action plan measures were divided into two groups, each emphasising different implementationapproaches: remedial interventions and preventative actions. Remedial measures were designed to mitigateenvironmental degradation, improve infrastructure and enhance living conditions. Preventative measuresincluded ecological and wetlands conservation, land, use controls, monitoring and enforcement programmes,studies, and institutional development.

21

2.3.2 Agreeing on Action Plans for Implementation

Experience has shown the value of an integrated process leading from strategies directly into action plans,utilising the same participatory and consultative mechanisms in a continuous process. This approach helpsreduce the conflicts which commonly arise when strategy formulation and plan−implementation activities areseparated and dealt with in different institutions. Action Plans have been most successful when formulated asclear and detailed agreements for co−ordinated action, including agency−specific and stakeholder−specificagreements which describe each agency's or stakeholder's commitments for priority actions within awell−defined timetable, typically including: allocation of staff time and resources, use of financial resourcesand, for both investment and for operation and maintenance, detailed geographic focus, application of otherrelevant instruments for implementation, and use of a common system for monitoring the observance ofcommitments and achievement of action plan objectives. Formulated in this way, action plans are much moreeffective, and far more likely to be implemented successfully, than old−fashioned Master Plans orindependent annual budgeting exercises by separate agencies.

GOTHENBURG: In “Chemical Sweep” the municipality brought manufacturers, dealers and users of chemicalhazardous products together, encouraging them to exchange hazardous chemicals with less dangeroussubstances. Today, 90 per cent of the car washing stations in Gothenburg use environmentally−adapteddetergents. A similar project is “Clean Lubricants”, which alms at introducing environment−friendly lubricantsin different branches of industry and transport, by a carefully−designed plan of action involving all of thosewith a role to play.

INDORE: The Government took a subsidiary role in implementation of certain slum upgrading projects.Non−government institutions started pilot projects in each municipality, which were implemented by thecommunity and then followed by larger−scale projects. Private individuals, professionals and communities inthe slums played a key role in implementation.

DAR ES SALAAM: Action plans were prepared by participatory working groups aided by a technical team; inthis way, different actors who would be centrally involved in implementation were fully informed and preparedfor collaboration. This resulted in the formulation of financially feasible, technologically appropriate, andrealistic plans for: solid waste management; upgrading unplanned settlements; servicing planned land and citycentre renewal; managing open spaces, recreation areas, hazardous lands, green belts, and urbanagriculture; managing surface waters and liquid wastes; and upgrading the role of informal street basedbusinesses in the urban economy.

22

CONCEPCION: During the initial Consultation a group of participants realized that they were all planning toundertake concrete actions in the same geographic location “Caleta Pueblo Hundido”, and that they had nevercoordinated the actions plans. A working group was created to remedy this deficiency, avoid overlap, build oncomplementarity of planned actions and by doing so make a better use of their resources.

MANILA: Manila carefully prepared for implementation of the action plans which were discussed in a nationalworkshop and approved by all stakeholders. The emphasis was on information dissemination, awarenessraising and consensus building rather than on restrictions. A national agency provided technical support toassist local government unite. Pooling of resources and voluntary action of industries (for example clean air &clean river pacts) supplemented the public sector's implementation capabilities.

2.3.3 Developing Packages of Mutually Supportive Interventions

As part of the process of developing action plans, a variety of interventions will usually be identified andelaborated. Cities have found that interventions become more effective when formulated into sets of mutuallysupportive actions. Interventions, for example, are generally much more effective − and sustainable − if theyare planned and implemented in combination with a variety of other, complementary activities, such ascommunity involvement, private sector participation, or changes in laws or regulations. By inter−linkingplanned interventions, the over−all impact can be greatly increased − and this is precisely the advantage ofdeveloping interventions through multi−actor and multi−disciplinary working groups. Similar benefits can begained among capital investments as well, by developing separate investment proposals into mutuallyreinforcing “packages” of related capital investment and technical assistance projects. Investments are morelikely to succeed when they relate to a strategic framework, when they are part of a mutually supportivepackage of interventions, and when they have been agreed by all those whose co−operation is required. Suchinvestments are more attractive to potential funders.

OUAGADOUGOU: A consultative process was used to develop mutually supportive interventions to addressthe priority problem of solid waste management. The action plan was based on three inter−related elements:privatisation, cost recovery, and a clearer division of institutional responsibility, in the Third Urban Project,local consultants were used to support inter−ministerial committees which involved appropriate centralgovernment ministries, municipal services and resource people. The result was an intersectoral project withmany stakeholders identified for involvement In Implementation, rather than an isolated and unsupportedinvestment to be managed by one ministry.

DAR ES SALAAM: A cross−sectoral Working Group developed detailed action plans to implement a solidwaste management strategy based upon an “Emergency Clean−up Campaign”. This included a set of

23

interrelated activities: leveraging private Investment; coordinating City Council, private sector and communitybased collection systems; promoting recycling networks; and improving disposal methods, The “Clean−upCampaign” mobilised $250,000 of local public sector operational investments and $185,000 of donor capitalinvestments to improve the long haul transportation of wastes. Collection rose from close to zero to 250 tonsper day. Follow−up actions included a review of national legislation in order to enable private sectoroperations in municipal services, the development of City by−laws, and the negotiation of new contractualarrangements with a private collection company to operate within city centre and collect refuse fees from itsresidents.

CONCEPCION: One of the EPM working groups focused on poverty alleviation in an area known as CaletaPueblo Hundido. This group developed mutually supportive plans for tourism, housing improvement, emailbusiness−development, coastal protection, open space for children's recreation, improved Infrastructure,training for micro enterprises, and regularisation of land tenure.

ISMAILIA: Through the EPM process, nine priority projects (selected through a well structured process ofscreening) were developed into action profiles with prefeasibility studies. Most of the projects reinforce eachother; creating a spectrum of inter−linkages. The industrial waste treatment project, for example, will make thewaste water reusing project possible, while the waste water reuse project itself contributes to theenvironmental protection of Lake Timsah.

2.3.4 Reconfirming Political Support and Mobilising Resources

Experience has shown that there are, of course, no foolproof ways to ensure the maintenance of politicalsupport for desirable environmental management actions. Nonetheless, a participatory approach whichcarries the open involvement and public commitment of a wide range of public and private, formal andinformal stakeholders, generally stands a better chance of generating and maintaining the necessaryunderstanding and support. Of particular importance is the cultivation of organisational support − the support,explicit or tacit, of key administrators and managers within important institutions. Successful maintenance ofpolitical and organisational support has also been proven to make it easier to mobilise and effectively applythe necessary technical and financial resources. Indeed, when investment proposals and packages ofinterventions come out of an effective participatory and consultative process, with good evidence ofbroad−based political and organisational support, these investments become much more attractive topotential sources of finance.

ISMAILIA: The achievements of the Sustainable Ismailia Project have encouraged the political authoritiesIncreasingly to strengthen their support and commitment. The investment resources for one of the nine

24

projects (US$ 1 million) came from the governorate budget itself. Furthermore, the governor agreed to supportpermanently the process through one of the existing local funds. The financial commitment to the process hasalso been expressed through the governorate's readiness to replicate the experience in other cities of thegovernorate, primarily through national funding.

IBADAN: The Sustainable Ibadan Project was designed to mobilise political support from the very beginning.The project design was formulated with the participation of state government officials, eleven localgovernments, and local administrators, in addition to other stakeholders. Support was maintained throughsensitisation in the public sector; with local government officials attending one−day programmes to discussgoals, procedures and outputs.

WINDHOEK: The municipality shares responsibility with community groups for upgrading and maintaininglocal parks. With municipal support the Katutura Cemetery Project Committee was formed; the Parks Divisionprepared 250 holes for tree planting, and schools and other local interest groups contributed the planting ofthe trees and their maintenance. The committee was also able to raise funds from the communities to erect awall. The concept of mobilisation of community resources and effort is being replicated in two other areas.

CONCEPCION: After the success of activities on industrial risks in one municipality of the Concepcionagglomeration, regional authorities (the Intendente) supported the extension of this activity to the entire regionby providing political and financial backing. This led to the creation of a regional forum on technological riskjointly coordinated by the public sector and the industry with the involvement of the academic and thecommunity sectors, thus maintaining wide−spread awareness and support.

CHALON−SUR−SAONE: Associating private firms with the environmental concerns of the town has been amajor aim of the town. To ensure that this partnership should not be based on direct sponsorship and to avoidpeople saying that “firms pay up to ease their conscience”, the House of the Environment established anindependent fund for innovation in the environment.

DAR ES SALAAM: The holding of Environmental Issue Consultations, Strategy Review Workshops andDonor Consultations helps to keep key decision makers and umbrella organisations of the public, private andpopular sectors informed, and provides recurrent opportunities for such partners to reconfirm theircommitment to action plan implementation.

25

2.4 Cities Institutionalise Environmental Planning and Management

How cities incorporate EPM activities and approaches into their institutional structure and behaviour andestablish “system−wide” capacities to maintain the EPM process in the long run.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “Build capacities system−wide, involving all sectors of society, through along−term and continuing process. Institutionalise broad−based participation in decision−making through afirm legal framework. To this end, strengthen existing institutions and mechanisms for cross−sectoral andinter−institutional co−ordination, rather than creating new ones. Enhance institutional capabilities throughinformation, education/training and communication efforts at all levels. Establish measurable and time−basedindicators to monitor and evaluate institutional and participatory capacities. Disseminate monitoring results toall concerned, for a transparent review and adjustment of EPM.” (Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

2.4.1 Strengthening System−Wide Capacities for EPM

Cities have found that, in order for the improved environmental planning and management process to besustainable, it is crucial to build long−term, system−wide EPM capacities. The process needs to becomefirmly incorporated into the organisations, institutions and activities of the city, and into their daily routines ofactivity. Accomplishing this typically involves a wide range of efforts such as structural reforms and legislation,adjustment of recurrent budgets, skill−training, awareness−building and public information, and provision ofessential equipment. These system−wide strengthening efforts usually include not just public sector bodies,but the whole array of private and community sector groups which are involved. Strengthening efforts havealso been proven to work better if sustained over a period of time and not treated as “one−off” exercises. Inthis way they have a better chance of becoming firmly incorporated into the routine operations andexpectations of all the various actors.

CHALON SUR SOANE: The House of the Environment organised special courses in eco−training, held eitherin private firms or at the House of the Environment. Subjects include environmental auditing, managementdevices for the environment, auto surveillance, clean technologies and ecolabels. Its status as an approvedtraining centre has also enabled the House of the Environment to offer training for “watercourse maintenanceagents”. The House of the Environment complements its training of the unemployed with an awarenesscampaign, directed toward municipal decision makers. In this way, the Thalic river; which had beenabandoned long ago, benefited from “soft” rehabilitation by becoming a worksite school for training.

KENYA SMALL TOWNS: The “Green Towns Project” has strengthened system−wide capacity for EPM inthree ways. A “Training of Trainers” programme has created a central team of people equipped with thenecessary skills to work across institutions and stakeholders, and to carry out training workshops along withimplementation follow−up. Next, three “model towns” were used to both create awareness of the project, andto build the capacity of the Ministry of Local Government implement the Project. Finally, a training workshopwas developed as an easy−to−deliver package with videos and other planning tools.

CONCEPCION: Replication of EPM methodology has enhanced institutional capability. Positive−results in theEPM working groups had a catalytic effect whereby participants applied similar approaches in their owninstitutions. The regional government also enhanced its capacities by working with the local project toreplicate the methodology for preparing a regional development plan, a strategic plan for tourismdevelopment, and an approach for coastal zone management.

COLOMBO: Institutional strengthening was supported through: revising the Colombo Master Plan; setting upa GIS to assist pollution control enforcement; training central and local authority staff; providing environmentalmonitoring equipment to public and private sector labs; general training programmes and workshops; andsupporting waste minimisation and clean technology efforts in industries.

DURBAN: Members of all sectors of the community took the opportunity provided by the preparation ofDurban's Environment and Development Study to participate in the collection and review of the baseline data.Through this mechanism the research process will become a tool for education, capacity building, andcommunity partnerships even at the initial stages of implementing a Local Agenda 21.

26

2.4.2 Institutionalising Broad−Based Participatory Approaches to Decision−Making

Experience has shown that to move successfully through the various tasks of issue−identification,strategy−formulation, action−planning and implementation, the city's “stakeholders” not only need to beidentified and mobilised, but also empowered through legislation and with the knowledge, understanding, andcapability to effectively participate in an informed, constructive, sustained way. This has proven to be bestsupported by a clear commitment to capacity− and institution−building for stakeholder participation,encompassing the full range of stakeholders. These includes public and semi−public entities in a wide rangeof sectors and roles, at municipal, regional and national levels; the private sector (for example the businesscommunity, consultant firms, research institutions, training bodies), both formal and informal, and thecommunity sector (including NGOs, CBOs, neighbourhood groups, voluntary associations, and women'sgroups). Institutionalisation of these participatory capacities is usually aided by a variety of measures, suchas: (a) consistent sharing and systematic dissemination of information; (b) documentation in non−technicaland, where appropriate, local language; (c) capacity−building programmes specifically designed for NGOsand CBOs; (d) lower−level skill−training focused on small−scale organisations; (e) direct technical assistanceto informal sector groups; (f) incorporating gender responsiveness; and (g) “sensitivity” training for publicsector institutions to enhance their understanding of the needs and perspectives of non−public groups andorganisations.

DUNKIRK: The Industrial Environmental Plan was prepared jointly by all actors concerned. The procedurewas formalised and supervised by a steering committee composed of elected officials (based on theirconstituency and responsibilities), industrial representatives (Chamber of Commerce and Industry), the portauthority, environmental protection associations, state services, and Dunkerque−Promotion (the industrialpromotion organisation). All the main parties concerned are now working together on a continuing basis,ensuring vital maximum transparency and providing acceptable compromises to even the most demandingissues.

MADRAS (2): The Civic Exnora approach has spread rapidly and become institutionalised. In Madras Cityalone, about 1500 individual Civic Exnoras (autonomous street or neighbourhood level groups) arefunctioning, each involving around 75 families, and in total serving about 450,000 people. There is now anorganisation of Exnora Clubs with club activities, co−ordinated and supported by a senate of the umbrellaExnora International. The movement has not only helped generate civic pride and strengthened communitybonds by bringing people together to work towards environmental protection at the grassroots level, it is beingcontinuously strengthened by the interaction, information and technical assistance provided by the umbrellaorganisation to the individual groups.

27

ABIDJAN: The National Environment Department, with the Local Government Department, used the sameinformation−gathering technique's in seven secondary cities. Because of the demonstrated success of theAbidjan consultation, it organised participatory meetings in several of these secondary cities in order toaccustom local groups to EPM activities and participation.

MANILA: Non−government organisations and community−based organisations are actively involved in urbanenvironmental management and their active participation in government programmes and projects is beingencouraged. The participation of NGOs in the development planning process has been formalised andinstitutionalised the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD) as well as in regional and localbodies.

JOHANNESBURG: The Johannesburg City Council undertook a radical organisational restructuring, tofacilitate a more integrated approach to urban management. This resulted in the separate Departments ofHousing, Urbanisation, Community Health and Environmental Health being incorporated into a newDirectorate of Health, Housing and Urbanisation. An environment and development branch wad created toensure a co−ordinated, integrated and innovative approach to environment policy, development andassessment of environmental hazards and risks to human health.

2.4.3 Institutionalising Cross−Sectoral and Inter−Organisational Co−ordination

Implementation of environmental planning and management has usually been more effective if carried outthrough existing (but strengthened) local institutions. Superimposing new institutions is often inefficient, givesrise to organisational confusion and duplication, and is seldom sustainable. It has become essential, however,to work with existing organisations to develop systematically and patiently the understanding of, andcapabilities for, cross−sectoral, inter−institutional and multi−disciplinary collaboration. To achieve a trulysuccessful EPM process, most cities find it is necessary not only to build up these cross−sectoral andinter−organisational information flows and co−ordination mechanisms, but to embed them in the mandates,work programmes, and activities of the various organisations. This is often a daunting undertaking, but ifpursued consistently it leads to a truly flexible and sustainable institutional basis for environmental planningand management. It is recognised that to accomplish this effectively, capacity−building generally needs to gobeyond traditional “institutional development” measures, which are concerned mainly with strengthening withinorganisations, and encompass directly the specifically inter−organisational and cross−sectoral proceduresand behaviour which are central to successful environmental planning and management.

DAR ES SALAAM: Cross−sectoral and inter−institutional co−ordination is built into the EPM process. “DeskOfficers” were nominated from all relevant ministries, commissions, and parastatals, as well as from privateand popular sector interest groups, to provide clear contact points within each thematic working group. A

28

Coordinating Committee 'comprised of the chairpersons of City Council committees, municipal departmentheads and the desk officers, was established to monitor implementation and coordinate central as well aslocal government policy for the city. Technical proposals by the working groups were taken City Director toCouncil committees for approval. Similarly, the desk officers kept their institutions informed of City Councilactivities and assisted in implementation of agreed proposals.

JOHANNESBURG: A number of inter−sectoral committees were established, one of which is focusing onenvironmental management in the metropolis. To ensure coordination and integration, the environmentalmanagement committee is made up of representatives from other relevant line−function committees and itselfhas representatives on these committees (such as those dealing with transport, health, planning anddevelopment). This inter−sectoral, inter−departmental environmental management committee is chaired by acouncillor and assisted by the convenor for environmental management, a city official who also heads anenvironmental management technical task team. Thirteen other councillors from various sectoral committees,at both the metropolitan and substructure level, also take part in the decision−mating of the committee.

CONCEPCION: In response to weaknesses in land management in general, and in effective resourcemobilization in particular, an inter−sectoral working−group discussed at length the need to create a forum inwhich different actors could reach agreement and stimulate strategic urban projects. After many discussions,disagreements and negotiations, the working group established an inter−sectoral Board of Directors for theUrban Development Agency. The municipality of Concepcion contracted a professional support team andother board members provided office furniture and computers as in−kind support.

COLOMBO: Institutionalising the EPM steering committee structure gave a permanent high profile to urbanenvironmental issues; they are now routinely considered in an inter−organisational and cross−sectoral way.This institutionalisation also made it possible for environmental management to continue beyond the life ofexternally assisted programmes. The participation of a range of different government agencies in the EPMprocess made it clear that environmental management is more then just pollution control and requires a broadintersectoral approach.

DURBAN: As part of Durban's EPM process, 14 expert panels have been formed covering key sectors andproblem areas. A cross−sectoral workshop was used to understand linkages between key environment anddevelopment issues. A widely representative advisory committee and the development of a “Directory of GoodPractice” that highlights contributions made to sustainable development across the city's nine service units isnow helping to promote inter−institutional coordination.

SHENYANG: Under the co−ordination of the powerful Planning Commission, the Shenyang EnvironmentalProtection Bureau and other municipal departments are preparing a joint environmental protection strategythat is inter−institutional and cross−sectoral. In an effort to broaden participation in the EPM process, aLeading Group for the “Sustainable Shenyang” Project was created in 1994, led by the major and withmembership from different stakeholder interests, including a wide range of municipal agencies, banks, themedia, and educational groups. Its primary responsibilities are to provide co−ordination and strategicguidance; foster the active participation of relevant parties; review and react to environmental reports; andmobilise broad−based support for environmental activities both from within Shenyang and from the centraland provincial governments.

HANOI: In 1987, the Hanoi Environment Committee (HEC) was established by the Hanoi People'sCommittee. It includes representatives from many sectoral provincial departments. HEC is responsible forenvironmental quality management and monitoring, conducts environmental inspections, and directs andco−ordinates other organisations in the process of enforcement, HEC also participates in approval ofeconomic and social development projects in Hanoi.

29

2.4.4 Monitoring, Evaluating and Adjusting the EPM System

A variety of experiences have reinforced the importance of systematic monitoring and evaluation as anintegral part of strengthening environmental planning and management. Monitoring and evaluation is vital forunderstanding how well the EPM process is working and providing appropriate guidance: Is the informationreliable and useable? What are the gaps or problems in strategy co−ordination? How effectively arestakeholders being incorporated? Are action plans implemented in a cross−sectoral and effective way? Thedatabases established through work on the City Environmental Profile, and through subsequent work onstrategies and action plans, can provide some useful indicators. But cities have found it to be crucial todevelop a clear and reliable institutional framework and process, both for monitoring, (regular checking ofperformance indicators) and also for evaluation (periodic analysis and assessment of actions andachievements). The information from these monitoring and evaluation activities has proven to be essential forpolicy guidance − to inform the partners and, thereby, to give them a basis on which to adjust and improve theenvironmental planning and management process. The more successful monitoring and evaluation systems,therefore, tend to be those which are not given over to isolated technical units but which involve all of therelevant organisations and stakeholders, especially key decision−makers, backed up by specialist skills in aco−ordinating capacity. It is also important to stress that monitoring and evaluation here is not concerned withfinal outputs, such as statistical measurement of the physical environment, but most crucially is focuseddirectly on the effectiveness of the EPM process itself.

TILBURG: The city's new municipal environmental policy plan is built around concrete targets that are beingmeasured according to source, effect and performance indicators. Source indicators say something about theorigin or cause of environmental problems. Effect indicators gauge the impact on the quality of theenvironment. Performance indicators are used in respect to institutional implementation of the policy plan. Themunicipality reports annually on implementation of the environmental policy using these indicators.Implementation can then be adjusted on the basis of these evaluations.

ISMAILIA: Participants concluded that several adjustments were needed in the EPM process. The two−yearproject period was not adequate to apply and institutionalise fully the EPM process, locating the project withingovernment was problematic; starting the process in an independent setting might have been better. Thesequence of events was too rigid, especially the postponement of institutionalisation until late in the process.Finally, the process could have been more effective if it tied in with national−level decentralisation as well as ademand−driven mechanism for financial sustainability.

BAMAKO: The municipality−community partnership “Co−ordination for sanitation” is being evaluated by twoindependent NGOs to determine its replicability to other districts and other problems in the city.

30

2.5 Cities Make More Efficient Use of Resources for Effecting Change

How cities mobilise and use resources (of all kinds) in a focused way, to effect significant changes in urbanenvironmental management; seize special opportunities, leverage, and make strategic use of resources, in

order to maximise their impact; and strategically use external resources to complement local resources.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “Make optimal use of existing local and international resources throughan approach that is participatory, transparent, and intersectoral. Focus on local, community based activitiesthat are replicable. Share experiences through demonstration projects and through appropriate networking atthe local, regional and national levels. Improve cooperation between existing programmes and projects.”(Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

2.5.1 Utilising Special Opportunities

In many city experiences, “special” opportunities have been capitalised upon, to give a powerful push forwardfor particular environmental planning and management initiatives. This creative use of strategic opportunitieshas often helped to “kick−start” an EPM process or to give it a new impetus or direction. For example, theradical changes in institutional and political structures which have swept Central/Eastern Europe or SouthAfrica have provided important opportunities to move forwards in ways not previously possible.Reconstruction after a major disaster has often provided a major opening, both because of the investment andconstruction taking place and because of the urgency of action and the accompanying political support. Otherrelevant opportunities might include the up−dating of an urban development plan, a major new investmentprogramme, or a change in the local political balance.

KATOWICE: The political changes brought about by emerging democracy have resulted in the opening−up ofadministrative and decision−making procedures and in much greater general awareness of local governmentresponsibilities − and potentials. The release and dissemination (aided by the newly−freed media) ofpreviously restricted information on local environmental conditions has greatly raised public awareness andgenerated broad support for action. These factors facilitated the acceptance of the new cross−sectoral andparticipatory approaches to environmental planning and management which were being introduced by theSustainable Katowice Agglomeration Project.

DAKAR: Dakar's EPM process took advantage of several special opportunities. The metropolitan governmenthad just created an environmental sub−directorate at the instigation of the metropolis' president; the

31

subsequently presided over all three city consultations and provided continuing support to the process.Serious industrial accidents within the city were an important factor in maintaining public, professional andpolitical interest in EPM because one of its priority themes was industrial risk management.

DAR ES SALAAM: The virtual collapse of solid waste collection led to rapidly rising mounds of garbage in thecity centre, leading to crisis conditions in relation to public health and safety. This opportunity provided theopening and the political stimulus by which the Sustainable Dar es Salaam project was able to launch anemergency clean−up campaign which led directly into innovative (and previously−resisted) cross−sectoralactions for putting solid waste collection on a sustainable basis.

CONCEPCION: A fire in the Bahia San Vincente helped raise awareness on the issue of technological risksand the danger they represent to both the business sector and the security of the community. The Incidentplayed a critical role in easing the launching of activities on this issue, and in facilitating the involvement of allstakeholders, including political actors who provided strong support.

CAPE TOWN: The EPM process was able to continue during a period of political instability by takingadvantage of the special opportunities presented by emerging democratisation. These opportunities includedthe involvement of previously excluded stakeholders, changing attitudes of government officials, and formallinkage with other democratic discussion and decision−making processes.

2.5.2 Applying Specific Leveraging Strategies

When seeking to maximise the impact of available resources and capabilities for improving environmentalplanning and management, cities have found it helpful to develop and apply specific strategies for “leveraging”their activities. For example, a strategy of “demonstration−replication” is very often an effective approach:using limited resources to demonstrate − on a small scale − an initiative that is so designed that it can then beup−scaled and repeated subsequently on a broader scale. This can be particularly useful when administrativeand technical resources are limited. This type of leveraging of effort can also be used to apply the“demonstrated” approach to other topics/issues as well as to other places. Carefully selected efforts orinvestments, even on a small scale, can sometimes “show the way” and call forth large−scale matching andsupplementary resources from other sources. Seriously adopting and actively promoting the “facilitator role” ofgovernment is another effective strategy, which can expand and mobilise non−public and non−traditionalresources when the public sector faces constraints on financial and technical resources.

ISMAILIA: Encouraged by its success and achievements, the local and central authorities decided to expandthe SCP demonstration experience of Ismailia city to the other four urban centres of the governorate. Prior to

32

this, the cities had been emulating the Ismailia experience on a limited scale, primarily through drawinglessons to address similar issues. Representatives from the replicating cities have also been taking part inmajor events tike city consultations. This has provided the cities with necessary exposure, and has facilitatedthe launching of the expanded programme. By transforming the Technical Support Unit of the SustainableIsmailia project (SIP) into a permanent secretariat, poised to support all cities in the governorate, theinvestment and technical assistance needs of the expanded programme have been greatly reduced.

DAR ES SALAAM: The Government of Tanzania has decided to replicate the experience of the EPM processin Dar es Salaam to eight secondary cities. Anticipating that more cities would join the programme, the projectproposal developed to guide the replication process provides a framework into which additional cities can befitted on a “modular basis”. Capitalising on the core expertise crested at the Dar es Salaam SustainableProject (SDP), the government has also planned the establishment of a National Municipal Support Unit(MSU), which will provide the necessary technical support to the replicating secondary cities with minimalinternational expertise required.

IBADAN: A pilot project successfully demonstrated that small amounts of locally−generated funds could becombined with a participatory process to develop an urban resource for water supply. This experience helpedconvince local philanthropists to create a “Project Development Trust Fund for Ibadan City” under theauspices of the Sustainable Ibadan Project.

WINDHOEK: In 1990 the City Health Officer supported a pilot initiative of privatisation of household refuseremoval. This experience has since been replicated with 96 contractors each with an area of 100 dwellings.

DURBAN: To implement its metropolitan open space system, Durban has been able to leverage cityresources internally. Land purchases of ecologically desirable terrain for the system are being financed by thesale of environmentally less−desirable but surplus public land. The balancing of sales and purchases meansthat the system will be largely self−financing.

2.5.3 Networking Among Cities

Sharing experience and know−how among cities can be one of the most effective ways of expandingcapabilities without requiring large resource expenditures. Systems of “swapping” expertise, for instance, canallow a city to gain needed expertise in one area while sharing expertise it does have with another city.Twinning arrangements could be used in a much more focused way to assist with this process, especiallywhere cities in less−developed countries can draw upon technical assistance from “sister” cities. A variety ofprogrammes, such as those for technical co−operation among developing countries can also be utilised.

33

LYON: The metropolis of Lyon has gained significant experience in urban planning and management and isnow capable of sharing it. A good example of this is Grand Lyon's project with Ho Chi Minh City, managed bythe Urban Planning Agency. This cooperation rests mainly on the technical level. It focuses on skills ofimmediate interest to the communities concerned − specifically urban development − and consists of directexchanges between professionals from both cities.

MADRAS (3): Madras was motivated by successful use of wastewater for industrial purposes in the U.S. (inthe Bethlehem steel mills, and Lake Tahoe and Orange County in California). After learning from theseexperiences, Madras launched a series of pilot plant studies in activated sludge, trickling filters, biologicalnitrification−denitrification, and physical chemical treatment. Local industries then opted for approaches usedin California to renovate sewage for use as industrial cooling water.

DAR ES SALAAM, ISMAILIA: The potential of the Environmental Planning and Management (EPM) processto enable cities to develop their own expertise and to share ft with other cities has started to materialise. Thecities which have reached an advanced stage of the process have produced experts who are thoroughlyfamiliar with the EPM exercise. These are now being recruited by other cities who are just starting theprocess: for example, Lusaka has been assisted by expertise from Dar es Salaam, while Tunis has drawnupon Ismailia's experience. New cities, by drawing on the expertise of cities which have already gone throughthe process, are kick starting their own EPM exercise.

CONCEPCION: Local experience was shared with the municipality of Asuncion (Paraguay) and technicalsupport on project methodology will be provided for a riverfront strategic plan.

GOTHENBURG: The city is networking through the Swedish Association of Local Authorities, ICLEI, throughenvironmental twinning with Tallin in Estonia and Cracow in Poland, and through the GothenburgEnvironmental Network. The latter is a private sector initiative to exchange environmental information, makecontacts and create understanding, between the business, research and government communities.

CAPE TOWN: The experience of three cities with similar aspirations or socio−economic circumstances wereexamined (Los Angeles, USA, and Sao Paulo and Curitiba, Brazil). These cities were visited and contactswere maintained with various stakeholder groups in each city. Cape Town has also been able to networkamong South African and other African cities through its participation in the “Local Agenda 21” programme.

34

2.5.4 Making Strategic Use of External Support

Although the vast majority of technical and financial resources for environmental planning and managementcomes from local sources, external aid and technical know−how play a valuable supporting role. However, it isimportant for cities to work out appropriate roles for external assistance, to most effectively link the city's EPMneeds with the relevant external capabilities and support. A key strategy here has been to focus limitedexternal resources within a narrow framework of linked activities, so that they can build (not substitute for)local capacities − and so they are directed specifically to the most critical points in the EPM process. Citieshave also found, however, that care must be taken that external resources are of a type and scale thatmatches the “absorptive capacity” of local institutions.

SHENYANG: Although the city was financially constrained in its ability to deal with environmental problemsfor a long time, since the late 1980s foreign assistance has been used to implement priority environmentalactivities. Multilateral loans and bilateral and have helped to upgrade the transportation system, expand watersupply capacity and implement industrial pollution control. One current strategic investment is anenvironmental information centre and environmental training centre which is under construction with supportfrom the World Bank.

KENYA SMALL TOWNS: The attempt to rely solely on local resources and voluntary implementation haslimits in small towns, which characteristically have a much weaker resource base than larger cities in thesame country. External financing is often raised as an issue by towns and is sometimes seen as aprerequisite for the implementation of priority actions.

DAR ES SALAAM, DAKAR: Both cities discovered that excessive reliance on donor support, or too−rapidinflow of external funds, can make the EPM exercise unsustainable by discouraging the mobilisation andutilisation of local resources (institutional, human, and technical).

CONCEPCION: External support provided a sound financial base in the initial phase of EPM activities andgenerated confidence in local public and private institutions; it also helped build credibility for the EPMprocess, which is now entirely locally funded.

Chapter 3 − How Programmes Support Cities

In the effort to improve their urban environments, cities are supported by a wide range of internationalprogrammes. These are implemented by United Nations agencies, other multilateral development

35

organisations, bilateral development bodies, international NGOs, associations of local governments, and otherorganisations. Coming from different institutional and political backgrounds, these various programmesnaturally have different mandates, scopes of work, and orientations. Despite these differences, however, theinternational support programmes are united by a shared commitment to work − each in its own way − withthe cities of the world to help them deal effectively with their pressing environmental problems.

The Istanbul Manifesto reports: “In addition we have reviewed the experience of international programmes insupporting the cities' work towards sustainable growth and development, and found compelling evidence of avariety of effective strategies for supporting cities in implementing their environment agenda; therefore, werecommend that the following approaches be broadly applied and further developed:

• Programmes Support Environmental Planning and Management Demonstrations• Programmes Support City Networking for the Sharing of Know−How• Programmes Provide Specialised Expertise and Information for EPM• Programmes Support EPM−Relevant Applied Research and Development.”

(Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

Participating International Programmes and their Principal Support Modalities

conducting citydemonstrations in

environmentalmanagement

supportingcity

networkingfor the

sharing ofknow−how

providingspecialized

expertise andinformation to

cities

supportingcities through

appliedresearch anddevelopment

programmes withfocus on citydemonstrations

Sustainable CitiesProgramme (SCP)− UNCHS/UNEPSustainable CitiesInitiative − USAIDUrbanEnvironmentalTrainingProgramme(UEMP) − GTZInternationalCentre forSustainable Cities(ICSC) −Canadian NGOLocal InitiativeFacility for theUrbanEnvironment(LIFE) − UNDPMetropolitanEnvironmentalImprovementProgramme(MEIP) − WB,UNDP

programmes withfocus on citynetworking

UrbanManagementProgramme,Environment(UMP/E) −UNCHS, WB,UNDP

36

UrbanEnvironmentForum (UEF) −UNCHS/UNEPCITYNET, Reg.Network of Loc.Auth. for the Man.of HumanSettlementsEnvironmentalManagementNetwork −UMP/LACSustainable CitiesProject −European UnionBaltic MunicipalEnvironmentalAudit (MEA)Project − Union ofBaltic Cities

programmes withfocus onproviding specialexpertise

Awareness &Preparedness forEmerg. at LocalLevel (APELL) −UNEP/IEPublic PrivatePartnershipProgramme(PPPP) − UNDPHealthy CitiesProject WHOInternationalEnvironmentalTechnologyCentre (IETC) −UNEPCities FeedingPeople − Int.DevelopmentResearch Centre(IDRC)Integrity in UrbanGovernance −TransparencyInternational (TI)

programmes withfocus on appliedresearch

GEMS − AirProject − UNEP

Nat. Res. Syst.Prog., Peri−UrbanInterfaceResearch −NRI/ODALocal AgendaModelCommunitiesProgramme 21 −

37

ICLEICapacity Buildingfor the UrbanEnvironment − IHS

International support programmes have been developing − through years of experience − a great diversity ofincreasingly effective strategies for co−operating with and supporting cities. Some programmes work only inspecific geographical areas, while others operate worldwide; some focus on particular issues or activities, andothers on special sectors or “points of entry”; some programmes are concerned with technology, others withadministration or planning; some work through technical assistance, others through information exchanges,and others through research. This wide range of different programme approaches is a source of strength,because it matches the diversity of support to the diversity of environmental problems and city needs.

Indeed, one of the important purposes of this EPM Source Book is to narrow the potential “knowledge gap”between cities and support programmes, by helping the cities to understand better the types of support whichare available from international programmes, while at the same time helping those programmes to betterrespond to and work with the cities − and especially to ensure that their support activities are mutuallyreinforcing and complementary. By strengthening complementarity among activities and by promoting genuinedemand−led partnership with the cities, the international support programmes can work more effectively withinthe framework established by the cities' own urban environmental priorities.

To illustrate how support activities are converging toward a common agenda for support to cities, a review of22 international support programmes active in the field allowed four major categories of support modalities tobe identified. This four−way grouping, although it simplifies and clarifies the exposition, necessarily placesprogrammes into single categories, whereas in reality many of the international support programmes haveactivities in two, three or even all four of the categories (as shown in the matrix diagram which cross−relatesprogrammes and support modalities).

3.1 Programmes Support EPM Demonstrations

The fundamental challenge facing cities today is to plan better and manage more effectively the process ofurban development, in order to avoid or alleviate environmental problems while still realising the positivepotentials of city growth and change. Many international support programmes aim directly at helping cities toimprove their EPM capabilities. Typically, this is done by working with local partners to develop specific EPM“demonstrations”, through which new approaches and methods can be worked out and applied in the realworld of local conditions. These programme−supported “demonstrations”, addressing specific issues butcarefully focused on the general EPM process, then provide on−the−job−training to local practitioners, andvaluable guidelines and frameworks which can be applied to other issues in the same city, or to other cities inthe country with a diminishing need for external support.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “Support environmental planning and management demonstrations atboth the city−wide strategic level, and at the neighbourhood level. Key features of the strategic level are,firstly, to incorporate EPM into existing city management systems; secondly, to actively involve the privatesector and public interest groups in the formulation of environmental plans; and thirdly, to establish anongoing information monitoring system open to the public and useful to project and management objectives.At the neighbourhood level, initiatives should emerge from expressed community needs and leadership ofrepresentative community organisations. This two−pronged approach will strengthen municipal capacity toplan and manage, will make effective linkages between community action and local government operationsand services, and will demonstrate immediate benefits of the EPM approach to city residents. Four importantprinciples should guide both levels of activity. Firstly, initiatives should be locally defined, and cities and localcommunities should be firmly in control of the direction and content of assistance offered by externalagencies. Secondly, external inputs should be in scale with local capacities, and the activities be used tostrengthen local capacities. Thirdly, any demonstration projects should emphasise both institutional andfinancial sustainability. Finally, any initiatives, while creative and innovative, should be easily understood andoffer clear benefits.” (Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

International Centre for Sustainable Cities (ICSC) − Canadian NGO: The ICSC promotes sustainableurban development around the world through demonstration projects using Canadian experience andtechnologies. Its focus is on implementation of tangible pilot projects on the ground, with projectimplementation involving all local stakeholders. ICSC is currently active in seven locations, emphasising

38

enhancement of administrative managerial capacities (Poland, India, China), provision of special expertise forurban environmental management (China, Thailand), and supporting sustainable housing development(China, Canada).

Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme (MEIP) − World Bank: The MEIP is a pilotprogramme aimed at funding innovative solutions to the environmental problems in large Asian cities. Theprogramme supports demonstration projects in six Asian cities, working closely with the local and centralgovernment agencies which are responsible for urban development and environment matters. Preparation ofcity/region environmental strategies and development of local Action Plans and Community DemonstrationProjects are supported by capacity building and training activities.

Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) − United Nations Development Programme(UNDP): The LIFE programme focuses on local initiatives for urban environmental improvement at theneighbourhood level, with an emphasis on NGO, CBO and local government action to deal with urbanenvironmental problems affecting the poor, it is funding small−scale community activities in some 12 countriesin Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Sustainable Cities Initiative − United Stated Agency for International Development (USAID): Thisinitiative is designed to consolidate developments from existing USAID programmes with a new emphasis onenvironmental services. The USAID approach underlines the need for a participatory process, especially inthe development of new types of public−private partnerships for long−term solutions to urbanisation problems.The initiative supports replicable city demonstrations which emphasise citizen participation in the achievementof a balance of economic, environmental and social concerns.

Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP) − UNCHS (Habitat)/UNEP: The SCP has developed a family ofcity EPM demonstration projects, currently active in over 20 different cities around the world. Each of theseSCP projects involves a city−level strategic partnership focused on capacity−building to provide municipalauthorities and their partners in the public, private and community sectors with an improved environmentalplanning and management capacity. Special emphasis is laid on broad−based participation in a

39

cross−sectoral and inter−organisational process. Each city project is supported by specialist expertise andfacilities from the SCP core team, who also assist the local partners in the crucial task of replicating the SCPdemonstration experience to other issues and into other cities in the country and the region.

? Urban Environmental Training Materials Program (UEMP) − German Corporation for TechnicalCooperation (GTZ): The UEMP encourages city governments to integrate participatory environmentalplanning and management mechanisms into their urban development decision−making processes. It supportsthe development of guidelines on urban environmental management, as well as the formulation ofenvironmental action planning procedures; it also provides support for implementing demonstration projectsbased on locally agreed action plans.

3.2 Programmes Support City Networking for the Sharing of Know−How

Cities all over the world are facing a similar range of environmental problems, and are developing a variety ofapproaches for dealing with them. Taken altogether, the experiences built up in this way constitute arapidly−expanding and potentially very powerful stock of knowledge. Many international programmes havetherefore developed activities to assist cities in pooling and sharing this knowledge, especially throughnetworks which provide a systematic framework for direct exchange of information, ideas and experience.Networks can be expanded to encompass hundreds or even thousands of participant cities, providing aneffective means for mutual learning by disseminating on a wide scale the “lessons” learned in demonstrationprojects and other activities.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “Use major opportunities offered by city networks for promoting urbansustainability and for implementing the urban environment agenda. City networks are effective because citiesface common challenges and expectations, especially in the area of environment. Support technicalexchanges and transfers of expertise from peer to peer (city to city) as they are politically more acceptable,institutionally more viable and economically more efficient. Networking also empowers cities by enhancinginstitutional and political capacities. Through networking, influence decision−making processes at national andinternational levels and increase access to various resources which will nurture the autonomy of localgovernments. Networks at all levels are demand−driven. Irrespective of available funding, networks aresustainable as long as neighbourhoods, cities, programmes, etc wish to network. As cities recognise theopportunities and benefits of networking at all levels, national governments should endow cities with theauthority to implement local initiatives for networking with other cities. City networking needs facilitation,resources and training.” (Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

Urban Management Programme, Environment Component (UMP/E) − UNCHS/World Bank/UNDP: Oneof the activity components of the global Urban Management Programme, the UMP/E aims to help urbandevelopment practitioners enhance their ability to manage the environmental problems faced in cities,primarily through city, country and regional consultations, through global research and synthesis, and throughsystematic dissemination of materials. UMP/E activities are locally oriented through the UMP’s decentralisedsystem of regional networks, based on regional pools of experts and regional co−ordinators.

Baltic Municipal Environmental Audit (MEA) Project − Union of Baltic Cities (UBC): The UBC, a networkof 62 municipalities around the Baltic Sea, is the lead organisation, on behalf of the countries bordering theBaltic, for the MEA−project, which is one part of an overall international programme to improve the ecologicalstate of the Baltic Sea. The main aim of the programme is the development of a comprehensiveenvironmental audit model for Baltic cities, utilising the network of city level municipal specialists, and twinningarrangements amongst the cities.

Sustainable Cities Project − European Union: The Sustainable Cities Project aims to incorporateenvironmental objectives in the European urban development strategies, in partnership with cities and NGOs,as part of the Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements. Programmesupport focuses on networking and conferences, information dissemination, and review of researchdocuments.

40

Environmental Management Network: Urban Management Programme, Regional Office for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (UMP−LAC): UNCHS/World Bank/UNDP: One of the decentralised offices ofthe Urban Management Programme, UMP−LAC focuses on the expansion of the urban environment network,the fostering of south−south cooperation, the survey and development of manuals, and the encouragement ofinnovative small scale activities. UMP−LAC has supported the creation of a regional electronic mail aminformation network which provides local governments and urban practitioners with information andreferences for improved urban environmental management.

Urban Environment Forum (UEF) − UNCHS/UNEP: The Urban Environment Forum is a broad network ofcities and international support programmes focused on urban environmental planning and management.Growing out of the EPM Guidebook activities and a series of international conferences, the UEF waslaunched at the “Habitat II” Conference in Istanbul in June 1996. The UEF facilitates the advancement ofcollective know−how by a variety of means: organising annual meetings; facilitating systematicinformation−sharing through a variety of media; and maintaining and developing a documentation processbased on city experience. UEF already has participants from cities from all regions of the world as well asfrom numerous international programmes.

CITYNET − Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements: Citynetacts as a focal point and facilitator to promote exchanges of expertise and experiences amongst variousurban actors, particularly city/municipal governments and NGOs. It is concerned specifically with thedevelopment of human settlements in Asia and the Pacific, supports city networking, documentation anddissemination of urban practices information through seminars and workshops, and exchange of specialisedexpertise.

41

3.3 Programmes Provide Specialised Expertise and Information for EPM

Many aspects of the EPM process involve utilisation of specialised technologies or information. Often,however, this expertise or information is not readily accessible to the cities, either from their own resources orfrom the resources of their country or region. An important role is played, therefore, by internationalprogrammes which mobilise the needed specialised expertise, working with cities to develop its applications intheir particular circumstances while at the same time enhancing and developing local capacities.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “Enhance and develop local capacities by providing access to existingspecialised expertise within cities and within international programmes, and by organising and pooling theresulting knowledge. Such pools of specialised knowledge should be owned by their users, so that they areoperationally relevant and can be used efficiently. To this end, build partnerships and consultation processeswithin the international community and between international programmes and cities for the appropriate use ofspecialised expertise; identify or develop “packages” of specialised expertise applicable to common settingsand issues; use the best available means to provide local access to expertise, such as the Internet; andnetwork at global, regional, national and local levels to share expanding collective know−how as widely aspossible.” (Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC) − United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP): The focus of IETC is on transfer of environmental technology in relation of the management of largecities and their freshwater resources, responding to the tremendous need of cities in developing and transitioneconomies for environmentally sound technologies (ESTs). IETC serves as an intermediary between sourcesand users of ESTs by bringing together interested parties through a variety of forums. The main objective is tobuild partnerships to assist Governments to address environmental issues; IETC also builds partnerships withother international agencies.

Public−Private−Partnership for the Urban Environment (PPP) − United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP): This programme promotes the involvement of international and national companies,local companies, municipalities, and public agencies in partnerships and joint ventures to turn urbanenvironmental problems into viable business opportunities. The programme supports the development ofeco−efficient projects to provide infrastructure services for municipalities and industries, providing support toproject identification, viability analysis, company creation and start up, and replicability. The programmeemphasises participation and shared responsibility for urban problem solving.

Healthy Cities Project − World Health Organisation (WHO): The Healthy Cities Project strives to improvehealth and living conditions in urban areas with local governments as the key partners. Its activities aredesigned to improve environmental health and to support ecologically sound urban development. LocalMunicipal Health plans highlight potential solutions on a community−wide basis, generating awareness in andpromoting collaboration between municipal health authorities, NGOs, and communities. Local city activitiesare supported by WHO regional and country organisations with information and access to specialist expertise.

Integrity in Urban Governance Programme − Transparency International (TI)− an international NGO:The programme focuses on integrity in urban governance; it aims to curb corruption by encouraginggovernments to implement effective laws and anti−corruption campaigns, and to enhance publicaccountability through transparency of business transactions. Initial programme involvement tends to bethrough key civic leaders, developing into a broader−based local chapter encompassing influential citizensand appropriate NGOs. The actual content of local activities, however, is locally determined.

Cities Feeding People − International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada: The programmeaims to encourage and improve policies and technologies which support, promote and manage sustainableurban agricultural systems. Special attention is paid to strengthening the food and water security ofhouseholds by minimising demand and pollution through waste water treatment and reutilisation. Theprogramme supports research and development, specialised expertise and information exchanges, and citynetworks. For application of its expertise on the ground, partnerships with other programmes are also utilised,for instance with the Sustainable Dar es Salaam Project.

Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies at Local Level (APELL) − United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP), Industry and Environment Unit: The APELL programme focuses on industrialenvironmental risk management. Its goal is to prevent technological accidents and to reduce their impacts byassisting decision makers and technical personnel to increase community awareness of the hazards, and toprepare response plans for use in emergencies. The programme provides specialised expertise andinformation through APELL's global network of international experts, enabling cities to launch local

42

partnerships with industries and communities. APELL works globally and has developed operationalpartnerships with numerous specialised agencies and industrial associations.

3.4 Programmes Support EPM−relevant Applied Research and Development

For some aspects of EPM there is still not enough known about the technical and operational processes orabout the physical conditions themselves. Cities are in great need of reliable understanding on which to basepolicies and actions, yet may lack the methodologies and capacities for generating operationally−relevantanswers. A fourth important modality of activity for international programmes, therefore, is support for appliedresearch and development which is directly relevant to the needs of urban environmental planning andmanagement. By sharing this expertise on a wider scale, international programmes can support appliedresearch which could not be afforded by individual cities. International programmes can also help cities withthe design, organisation and funding of EPM−relevant research programmes based on partnerships betweenglobal and local efforts − thereby helping to develop local capacities.

The Istanbul Manifesto recommends: “There is a need for good quality information and methodologies tosupport environmental planning and management. A substantial, though under−utilised, body of relevantresearch exists. Therefore, design and funding of need−based research programmes which are based onpartnerships between ongoing global and local efforts are required; policy makers and local communitiesshould be involved in research and should receive access to research results; the scientific community shouldcommit itself to address operational priority needs; and decision−makers should commission scientificresearch relevant to implementing the urban environment agenda.” (Istanbul Manifesto, June 1996)

Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme − International Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiatives (ICLEI): The Local Agenda 21 Initiative focuses on the enhancement of institutional andparticipatory capacities in local authorities. It seeks to mobilise local stakeholders and to help them toformulate and implement local Agenda 21 programmes for their own communities. Programme supportincludes research collaboration between municipalities, as well as city demonstration training for local officials;Information and research results are systematically disseminated.

Capacity Building for the Urban Environment − Institute for Housing and Urban DevelopmentStudies (IHS): This comparative research and training programme is being conducted in collaboration withlocal partners in four different countries, with IHS providing a support and networking role. The researchidentifies, communicates and promotes the application of “best practices” in urban environmental planningand management, Support is aimed at local capacity−building and involves research studies, networking, bestpractices documentation, creation of an Institutional database, and compilation of technical Information.

43

? Natural Resources Systems Programme, Peri−Urban Interface Production Systems Research(NRSP−PUR), Natural Research Institute (NRI−ODA): The programme supports policy Initiatives tooptimise utilisation of peri−urban resources, based on research − executed in partnership with localinstitutions − into agricultural and natural resource productivity and overall waste utilisation in various citydemonstrations. The research is aimed at producing strategies for peri−urban environmental planning andmanagement. Programme support also Includes provision of specialist expertise and Information to citiesthrough demonstration projects, as well as dissemination of research findings.

GEMS/AIR Programme − United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP/WHO: The GEMS/Airprogramme has been active for twenty years, focusing on monitoring urban air pollution world−wide. Theprogramme aims to strengthen monitoring capabilities in participating cities, which actually conduct themonitoring, with GEMS/Air providing a global data and information clearing house. Support is given fortechnical expertise in methodology and quality assurance, and to the twinning of cities for equipment andexpert support.

Chapter 4 − Sharing Lessons of Experience and Advancing Collective Know−How

There is evidence of an impressive range of initiatives and accomplishments in urban environmentalmanagement world−wide, and of the resources and expertise, local and international, which have beenmobilised and effectively applied. There is also a newly emerging development cooperation paradigm, whichfocuses on advancement of this collective know−how, building upon this local experience and knowledge.Growing out of the work which has led to the EPM Source Book, a global partnership − the UrbanEnvironment Forum − is taking shape. This remarkable process surrounding the EPM Source Book is brieflydescribed in the following:

• Towards a New Development Cooperation Paradigm• Sharing Experience: An Evolving Global Partnership• Organising the Exchange

44

• The Accumulating Results• Looking Forward: The Urban Environment Forum

4.1 Towards a New Development Cooperation Paradigm

An important shift in ideas is occurring, based on the insights and understandings − such as thosedocumented in this EPM Source Book − that are emerging from the hard−won lessons of practical experiencein cities all around the world. There is great diversity among these many cities: vast differences inenvironmental, developmental, and managerial−administrative settings. Nonetheless, they are united bysimilarly grave urban environmental problems, by a shared understanding of the importance of environmentalplanning and management, and by a common commitment to deal effectively with their urban environmentalproblems.

Cities also share a growing disenchantment with the older development assistance paradigm and itstop−down expert−determined solutions, so typically technology− or investment−driven and reliant onout−dated and inappropriate master−planning approaches. They know that new approaches must come fromthe cities themselves. It is, after all, in the cities that environmental problems are felt most directly, and it isthrough their experiences that effective new approaches and realistic agendas, developed from the bottom upand firmly rooted in the local situation, are being successfully worked out.

The international support programmes which have been working with the cities are also diverse: for example,different resources, modalities of operation, organisational bases. But they too have come to recognise theshort−comings of the old development paradigm, and to see that new approaches are necessary. These newapproaches, some of which are described in this EPM Source Book, emphasise partnership and the need forinternational programmes to play the role of facilitator. They acknowledge the importance of local expertiseand knowledge, and of building collaboration on a basis of mutual learning and support to local partners.

Thus, a movement, from all sides, towards a new development co−operation paradigm can be seen, onewhich is centred on advancing collective know−how, which accepts the fundamental necessity for abroad−based participatory approach, and which is founded on local experience worked out in practice. Thecentral ideas are of partnership − genuinely working together − and of mutual help and the widest possiblesharing of experience. This new approach does not have a monopoly on wisdom, nor does it pretend to haveall the answers needed for the complex and difficult problems which face cities today; but it does provide themost promising way forward towards sustainable urban development.

45

4.2 Sharing Experience: An Evolving Global Partnership

When cities facing similar problems begin to share their experiences in a systematic way, a potentiallypowerful learning process is initiated. As this process develops and gathers momentum, it generatesever−widening circles of communication, information exchange, and collaboration. This in turn produces veryreal and valuable additions to collective “know−how”: understandings and insights which evolve and

46

strengthen as more and more cities participate.

In order to promote such a process, in late 1994 the UNCHS/UNEP Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP), inassociation with the UNCHS/UNDP/World Bank Urban Management Programme, Environment Component(UMP/E), initiated a collaborative effort (with support from the Governments of the U.K. and The Netherlands)to capture the lessons of experience of cities in dealing with their urban environment agenda. Initial activities,guided and unified by a common analytical framework, were based upon a systematic review of city−leveloperational experience, including a number of commissioned case examples − each prepared in accordancewith the common framework − as well as others generated by co−operating international programmes.

However, because of the increasingly enthusiastic response and participation of a growing number of cities,the activities begun through this initiative “took on a life of their own” and quickly grew well beyond the originalscheme. The first major broadening of participation was through a four−day Regional Workshop on“Environmental Strategies for African Cities”, held in Dakar, Senegal, in June 1995. City case studies werebrought to the Workshop, which attracted participants from 21 African countries, as well as participation andfinancial support from several international agencies and programmes. At the end of the Workshop, Ministersand other senior government representatives convened a formal inter−governmental meeting, whichtransformed the technical recommendations of the Workshop into an agreed political declaration whichdefined common “Environmental Strategies for African Cities”. This Dakar Declaration was subsequentlysigned by 111 government decision−makers and development practitioners from 21 African countries andfrom several international development support agencies.

The Dakar Declaration highlighted the principal elements in environmental planning and management (EPM)and the key tasks within each element. Signatories agreed to promote and develop these principles through:(1) local environmental planning and management demonstrations; (2) national follow−up and replications;and (3) regional sharing of know−how and technical resources. To support these activities and facilitatecontinuing cooperation and exchange of experience, UNCHS helped to develop a global information andcollaboration network, building on the national and international participation in the Dakar Workshop, and onthe partnerships developed through the EPM Guidebook project. Additional city case studies were prepared inline with the EPM framework (itself revised on the basis of the Dakar experience) to ensure comparability ofresults.

By the time of the International Conference on “Environmental Strategies for Asian Cities” in Madras, India, inFebruary 1996, twenty−six new city case studies were available, the majority from Asia but also from Africa,South America, North America, and Europe. Accordingly, although the primary emphasis was on the Asianexperience, the Madras Conference was truly international: more than one hundred people participated,representing 17 countries from all over the world as well as a wide range of international programmes anddevelopment agencies. The four−day Conference was highly participatory and tightly−focused, leading at theend to a clear assessment of common factors and general lessons and converging toward broadly−applicableconclusions. These were synthesised and articulated as the Madras Declaration on “Environmental Strategiesfor Asian Cities” providing further evidence of the evolving new approach to the challenges of sustainableurban development, an approach based on partnership and a common commitment to a participatory processof urban environmental planning and management.

With the momentum and energy generated by the Madras Conference, follow−up activities were intensive. Itsnumerous case studies were added to those from the Dakar Workshop and those which had been separatelycommissioned, to provide a large and globally−diverse information base, all presented in a common format tofacilitate the extraction of common themes and similar experiences. The detailed work of the individualConference sessions, which had been designed to provide a rigorous assessment of the whole approach, wasrecorded and used − together with the concrete evidence from the case studies − to revise and further refinethe EPM framework, which was then documented as Volume 1 of the first draft EPM Guidebook, in April 1996.

To respond to the tremendous interest and energy generated by the Dakar and Madras conferences, and bythe development of the EPM Guidebook, it was decided to organise a global gathering, to be held as a specialevent of the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) at Istanbul in June 1996.Financial support and participation from numerous sources was available to help bring together a broadspectrum of city decision−makers, urban practitioners, and support programme professionals.

Opened by the Secretary General of Habitat II, the International Meeting on “Implementing the UrbanEnvironment Agenda” was attended by over 250 representatives from more than 75 cities and 20 internationalsupport programmes. After 40 city and programme presentations and nine working group sessions, the resultsof the meeting were synthesised into the Istanbul Manifesto on Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda.

47

The Istanbul Manifesto emphasised the powerful evidence which shows how energetically and successfullycities and their partners are developing new, more promising approaches to urban environmentalmanagement world−wide. The participants committed themselves firmly to support application and furtherdevelopment of these evolving EPM approaches, and recommended that international programmes bestrengthened and reinforced in their support of the cities doing this. In addition, the Istanbul Manifestorecommended that, in order to provide a firm basis for strengthening the cities' abilities to implement their newurban environment agenda, the dialogue among cities and between cities and programmes should bestrengthened and further developed. Indeed, me Istanbul Meeting clearly illustrated the tremendous potentialof such collaboration − and showed the depth of global interest and support for it. That is the firm foundationupon which all subsequent efforts have been established.

4.3 Organising the Exchange

Throughout the evolving process of sharing experience, considerable care has been taken to ensure that theinformation generated is well−focused, substantive, and consistent. By closely supporting the preparation ofcase studies, providing a clear analytical framework as well as a common presentational format, it waspossible to make the results more compatible and comparable. And because the central focus was always onthe process of environmental planning and management, rather than on the details of specificenvironment−development interaction, there was greater commonality and applicability across cities. Thismade it possible to accumulate experience in a more meaningful way, with additional case studies bringingnot just greater variety but also greater depth. Finally, because the organising framework itself − the basicEPM approach − is constantly being applied and fine−tuned, it does not become a limiting factor but insteadallows the whole exchange process to evolve while still maintaining continuity in the case study and cityexperience information base.

In a similar way, the international workshops have been carefully prepared and organised to gain maximumbenefit from the face−to−face sharing of ideas and experience. As genuinely working events, these meetingssucceeded in calling forth an extraordinary amount of energy and participation from those attending; therewas no “reading” of papers to a dozing audience! Working intensively in alternating plenary and working groupsessions, the participants examined the case studies (and their own experiences) in relation to the basicelements of the shared EPM framework. This was done both horizontally (looking at one element of the EPMprocess across all case studies) and vertically (looking at a group of similar case studies in relation to thecomplete process). With that analysis in hand, the workshops then reassessed the case studies, extractingcommon factors and general lessons, synthesising results, and converging toward broadly−applicableconclusions − conclusions which were based on the evidence (from operational experience in the cities) andfindings of the workshop − not on theory or preconception.

This general format provided for both detailed analysis as well as wide−ranging debate and exchange ofviews. Assessment of the case studies supplied a common basis for examination and comparison withexperiences from the cities of the participants. This over−all process of assessment−synthesis−generalisationprovided a clear basis on which the workshops made technical and policy recommendations, which were inturn the foundations for the workshop declarations.

In addition, the systematic analytical process of the workshops provided a series of reviews and criticalassessments − by a wide range of experienced practitioners − of the basic EPM framework itself. Combinedwith the steadily−accumulating knowledge which builds up through city case studies, this repeatedprofessional peer review has allowed the April 1996 draft version of the EPM framework, for instance, to bemodified and fine−tuned.

The International Meeting in Istanbul was organised somewhat differently, because of its larger size and itsmore limited time. An intensive and tightly structured programme, to which the participants responded with aremarkable degree of concentration and co−operation, allowed the meeting to complete three major activities.First, there was a review of twenty city experiences, in five panels organised around elements of theirenvironmental planning and management process. Next was a review of twenty international supportprogrammes, organised in four panels by type of support modality. And finally, there was a series of workinggroup sessions organised around the nine panels from the earlier sessions, the results of which weresynthesised into a formal declaration, the Istanbul Manifesto.

48

4.4 The Accumulating Results

The results of this expanding and diversifying process are beginning to accumulate. One of the mostimportant results so far is the stock of information and the body of knowledge represented by this EPM SourceBook. A large quantity of systematically documented city case studies, all the more valuable because of theirshared focus and common analytical format and approach, is already available and is steadily being added to.There is much more, however, than simply a stock of information; the city experiences documented in thecase studies have been brought to life through the international workshops and other exchanges, in whichthey are actively used to deepen our awareness and comprehension of what is going on in the cities of theworld.

And that is another very important result of the over−all process: a progressively clearer and more widelyshared understanding of the process of environmental planning and management − and of the myriad ways inwhich the general EPM process works out in practice in different circumstances. Moreover, because thisgradually sharpened understanding is based on debate and exchange among practitioners, and on evidencefrom real−world experiences, it has proven to be widely acceptable (in contrast to more general conceptsbased on theorising).

Finally, the information−sharing and network−building activities which have grown so naturally out of this openand bottom−up process are now proving to be the most dynamic and powerful result of all. There has been animportant opening−up of genuine dialogue and practical cooperation, through growing awareness of commonproblems and agendas, as well as of complementarities and opportunities for collaboration. The partnershipbetween decision−makers and development management practitioners from so many cities and so manyinternational programmes who have given their strong commitment and energetic support to these activitiesrepresent probably the most valuable accomplishment. It constitutes the firm foundation on which a trulyglobal movement − The Urban Environment Forum − is taking shape, a partnership and participatorynetworking facility which will carry forward the work begun so promisingly in 1994.

4.5 Looking Forward: The Urban Environment Forum

The modest initiative begun with the EPM Guidebook project in late 1994 has grown far beyond its originalscope, developing rapidly in direct response to enthusiastic and eager participant demand, and building upextraordinary momentum in a number of important ways:

• a very wide range of cities and international programmes have become active participants,with the circles of involvement continuously widening to encompass ever more urbandevelopment practitioners from all over the world

• participants from cities and international programmes have learned to share theirexperiences and pool their ideas systematically and constructively

• donors have become progressively more closely involved, with international supportprogrammes linking in their own networks of cities active in urban environmentalmanagement

• an unusual breadth and depth of city−level experiences have been (and are still being)documented, in a systematic way, using a common analytical framework to enhancecomparability and mutual understanding

• the city documentation is not only still expanding but is “alive” in the sense of dealing withreal−world city experiences which are still underway and still grappling with the problems ofsustainable urban development.

These developments have led, quite naturally and of their own momentum, to the establishment of the UrbanEnvironment Forum − a global network joining all those, in cities and international programmes, who wish tohave more accessible and effective facilities for information exchange, mutual learning, and collaboration inurban environmental planning and management. This Urban Environment Forum (UEF) will be one of theprimary means through which our collective knowledge will continue to deepen − and through which thesuccesses of the cities will be made known to, and hopefully replicated by, an ever−widening range of citiesand countries.

49

The scope and purpose of the Urban Environment Forum were well summarised by Ms. ElizabethDowdeswell (United Nations Under−Secretary−General and Executive Director of UNEP) in her closingaddress to the international meeting “Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda” in Istanbul in June 1996:“By agreeing to work together, we can assist in the more effective transfer of technologies and best practices.We can create synergy among the different participants, so that the overall impact of the programmes can beenhanced. The process of exchanging views is also extremely important in focusing the inputs from externalassistance programmes more closely on the needs of the cities. This is not a networking exercise merely forits own sake. We are working with critical issues, searching for practical solutions to problems and seekingcontinuously to disseminate news of “what works” and replicate those success stories as effectively aspossible.”

All of this is indeed ambitious, and it will take the sustained effort and commitment of all partners to make it acontinuing success. The publication of this EPM Source Book, the most important initial output, provides aclear framework and foundation which will inform and guide UEF participants and help give direction tosubsequent activities. But it should be seen as only the first of many valuable outputs of the UrbanEnvironment Forum. Indeed, it can already be foreseen that the UEF will involve a wide variety ofmutually−reinforcing activities, to be developed in response to clearly−expressed needs, and initially likely toinclude the following:

1. Institutionalising the Urban Environment Forum as a living process, through well−preparedand properly−supported annual meetings of the participating cities and the internationalsupport programmes with which they are cooperating; this will encompass:

• annual meetings structured around common themes and using a commonframework (the EPM process);

• a supporting secretariat, for organising meetings substantively, maintainingcontinuity between meetings, supporting follow−up, and helping withmobilisation of technical and financial support for this exchange.

Where appropriate, the UEF will also join with other organisations by assisting in regional oreven national meetings which share the same broad purpose.

2. Developing and institutionalising a full−scale information sharing process, to ensure thatthe rapidly accumulating knowledge and experience in the cities and internationalprogrammes is swiftly made widely and effectively available; this will ultimately encompass:

• use of the full range of forms of written documentation, not only full−scalereports such as the EPM Source Book but also summary reports,newsletters, fact sheets, case study abstracts;

• use of translation to publish documentation in different languages;

• development of regional centres for information dissemination;

• development of a homepage on the World Wide Web;

• utilisation of UNEP−Mercure and other systems to extend access toelectronic communication through the Internet;

• preparation of local language videos; and '

• preparation of interactive CD−ROMs.

3. Continuing and deepening the documentation process, not only by expanding the numberand range of case experiences, but also by “tracking” city experiences already documentedso that they may be updated and followed through; this will encompass:

• regularly adding new city case examples, supervised and supported toensure consistency with the over−all framework and hence comparability withthe existing stock of information;

50

• periodically re−visiting older city case examples, to up−date theirexperiences and to capture any new or changed lessons; and

• periodically revising hard copy, electronic, and audio−visual materials, toreflect the steady accumulation of new information and new thinking, andalso to allow, as the sample grows, more confident generalisations and waysof matching city needs and situations with documented experiences andlessons; this could well include revised and up−dated future versions of theEPM Source Book.

Built up in this way as a response to energetically demonstrated demand and proven willingness tocollaborate, the Urban Environment Forum will develop into a powerful mechanism through which cities andprogrammes around the world can collaborate effectively − and directly − in working out appropriateapproaches to urban environmental problems. Arising out of ever−widening circles of participation, andfocused directly on the cities themselves, the Urban Environment Forum will be a genuinely “bottom−up”network − something which is clearly “of and for” the urban environmental management practitionersthemselves.

Wally N'Dow, Secretary General of Habitat E, Executive Head of the United Nations Centre for HumanSettlements (UNCHS), encouraged this development in his opening address to the Istanbul meeting'Implementing the Urban Environment Agenda' by saying: “In recognition of the tremendous impact that aneffective exchange of cities and international support programmes can have in guiding the future managementof our cities, I encourage you, as the Secretary General of the City Summit, to consider how your Meetingcould become the beginning of a continuing process rather than just the conclusion of a valuable but once−offeffort.”

Elizabeth Dowdeswell, United Nations Under−Secretary−General Executive Director of the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), echoed this idea in her closing address: “Continuing and improving thepartnership among the cities and the participating international organisations will not achieve sustainablesettlements by itself. It will, however, enable us all to move forward hi a mutually supportive manner and takeus further along the road to securing a better quality of life; for all, in the cities of tomorrow.”

References

City Case Studies

51

Location of the city case studies

ABIDJAN: BUILDING AN EPM STRATEGY WITH COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION, CREPA, Direction de laSalubrite, Ministere de l'Environnement et du Tourisme, BPV 83, Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire; Tel: +225−228 349;Fax: +225−229 322; author: Gouganou Kopieu

ACCRA: REACHING CONSENSUS THROUGH A CITY CONSULTATION, Accra Sustainable Programme(ASP), P.O. Box 2892, Accra, Ghana; Tel: +233−21−664 687; Fax: +233−21−667 340; e−mail:[email protected]; author: Ben Kofi Doe, Project Manager

BAMAKO: USING PARTNERSHIPS TO SUPPORT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, IAGU/CentreSahel, B.P. 931, Bamako, Mali; Tel: +223−226 878; Fax: +223−230 104; author: Ms. Djeneba Kouyate Diana,Environmental Research Officer

BANGALORE: NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL, Bangalore DevelopmentAuthority and the Association for Voluntary Action and Services, 560 020 Bangalore, India; Fax: +91−80−3365036; authors: A. Ravindra, Chairperson, and Anita Reddy

BELO HORIZONTE: INCREASING TRANSPARENCY IN URBAN GOVERNANCE THROUGHPARTICIPATORY BUDGETING, Municipal Secretary for International Affairs, Av. Alvares Cabral, 200−4,Andar−Sala 402, Belo Horizonte, Brazil; Tel: +55−31−277 4358/9; Fax: +55−31−277 4355; author: PauloRoberto Paixao Bretas, Municipal Secretary of International Affairs

CALCUTTA: INVESTIGATING ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS THROUGHPILOT PROJECTS, All India Institute of Public Health and Hygiene, Calcutta 700 073, India; Fax:+91−33−241 2539; author: Prof. K.J. Nath, Director

CAPE METROPOLITAN REGION: TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES, ChittendenNicks Partnership, P.O. Box 16073, Vlaeberg, Cape Town, South Africa; Tel: +27−21−216 042; Fax:+27−21−215 826; author: Simon Nicks, Consultant

COLOMBO: INSTITUTIONALISING AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, MEIP, Ministry ofPlanning: Ethnic Affairs and National Integration, Sethsiripaya, Battaramulla, Kotte, Colombo, Sri Lanka; Tel:+94−1−863 954; Fax: +94−1−863 905; e−mail: [email protected]; author: Ravi Pereira, NationalProgramme Coordinator

CONCEPCION: FOLLOWING THROUGH AND SCALING−UP THE EPM PROCESS, SustainableConception Project, Rengo 370 A, Conception, Chile; Tel: +56−41−224 745; Fax: +56−41−223 342; e−mail:[email protected]; author: Luis Tapia, Coordinator

52

COTONOU: DEMONSTRATING GOOD EPM PRACTICE ON A SMALL SCALE, CREPA−Benin, B.P. 882PK3, Cotonou, Benin; Tel: +229−311 093; Fax: +229−315 316; author: Ms. Nathalie Adjademe

DAKAR: IDENTIFYING GEOGRAPHIC AND THEMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THROUGHCONSULTATION, Sustainable Dakar Project, IAGU, B.P. 7263, Dakar, Senegal; +22−1−250 826; Fax+22−1−250 826; e−mail: [email protected]; author: Oumar Cisse, Project Manager

DAR ES SALAAM: EXPANDING EPM CAPACITIES THROUGH DEMONSTRATION AND REPLICATION,Sustainable Dar−es−Salaam Project (SDP), P.O. Box 9182, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; Tel: +255−(051)−113659−114 014, Fax: +255−(051)−114 014; author: Bituro Majani, Project Manager

DELHI: INCREASING FLEXIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS IN EXISTING MASTER PLANS, TownCountry Planning Organisation, Government of India, New Delhi 110 049, India; Tel: +91−11−685 6352; Fax:+91−11−329 049; author: E.F.N. Ribeiro, Former Chief Planner

DURBAN METROPOLITAN AREA: DETERMINING COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES ON PRIORITYISSUES, Urban Development Department, P.O. Box 680, Durban 4000, South Africa; Tel: +27−31−300 2527;Fax: +27−31−300 2225; author: Dr. Debra Roberts, Environmental Manager

GOTHENBURG: USING LOCAL AUTHORITY INITIATIVES TO MAXIMUM EFFECT, City Planning Authority,P.O. Box 2554, S−403 17 Goteborg, Sweden; Tel: +46−31−611 711; Fax: +46−31−611 733; author: LarsBerggrund, Senior City Planner

HANOI: USING EXPERT WORKING GROUPS TO PRIORITISE ACTIONS, Centre for Natural Resources &Environmental Studies, (CRES) − Vietnam National University, 19 Le Thang Tong, Hanoi, Vietnam; Tel:+84−4−826 2932; Fax: +84−4−826 2932: e−mail: [email protected]; author: Vu Quyet Thang, ProjectCoordinator

HYDERABAD: IDENTIFYING URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOR A PLANNING PROCESS, Societyfor Preservation of Environment and Quality of Life, 703/3 Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034,India; Tel: +91−40−399 752; author: V.K. Bawa, Secretary

IBADAN: MOBILISING RESOURCES THROUGH A TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE,Sustainable Ibadan Project, P.M.B. 5204, Ibadan, Nigeria; Tel: +234−2−810 1912; Fax: 234−2−810 4536;author: David Taiwo, Project Manager

ISMAILIA: IMPLEMENTING ACTION PLANS AND INSTITUTIONALISING THE EPM PROCESS,Sustainable Ismailia Project, P.O. Box 191, Commercial Street, Sheik Zaid, Ismailia, Egypt; Tel: +20−64−344585; Fax: +20−64−344 585; author: Gulelat Kebede, EPM Process Expert

JOHANNESBURG: MAKING USE OF POLITICAL TRANSITION TO INITIATE ENVIRONMENTALREFORMS, Environmental Management, Health, Housing and Urbanisation, GJTMC, P.O. Box 1477,Johannesburg 200, South Africa; Tel: +27−11−407 7070; Fax: +27−11−339 4529; author: Yasmin vonSchirnding, Former Director

KATOWICE: BRINGING TOGETHER MUNICIPALITIES TO CREATE AN EFFECTIVE EPM PARTNERSHIP,Sustainable Katowice Agglomeration Project, Warszawska Str. 4, 40−006 Katowice, Poland; Tel: +48−32−1539210, Fax: +48−32−153 9209, e−mail: [email protected]; author: Dr. Anna Starzewska−Sikorska,Consultant

KENYA SMALL TOWNS: MOBILISING VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION FOR EPM, Green TownsProject, Ministry of Local Government, P.O. Box 54909, Nairobi, Kenya, Tel: +254−2−221 711; Fax:+254−2−221 600; author: Ms. Emmy M'mbwanga

KUCHING CITY: USING CITY COUNCIL STRENGTHS TO RESOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS,Sarawak State Health Department, Tun Abang Haji Openg Rd, 93590 Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia; Tel:+60−82−256 566; Fax: +60−82−424 959; authors: Andrew Kiyu, Deputy Director, Jamilah Hashim, DeskOfficer, and Daniel Voon, Acting Health Superintendent

MADRAS (1): FOCUSING ON A CROSS−SECTORAL ISSUE TO MOBILISE STAKEHOLDERPARTICIPATION, Sustainable Chennai Project, 8 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai (Madras) 600 008,India; Tel: +91−44−830 802; Fax +91−44−854 2673; authors: K. Allaudin IAS, Member Secretary, CMDA and

53

N. Sundararajan, Senior Strategic Planner

MADRAS (2): STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY BONDS THROUGH IMPROVEMENT ACTIONS AT THEGRASS−ROOTS LEVEL, Exnora International, 42 Giriappa Road, T. Nagar, Madras 600 017, India;+91−44−493 3527; +91−44−493 3527; author: T.K. Ramkumar, Secretary General

MANILA: REDEFINING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT − FROM ACTOR TO CATALYST, MEIP,Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Visayas Avenue, Quezon City, Manila,Philippines; Tel: +63−2−992 965; Fax: +63−2−928 2965; e−mail: [email protected]; author: BebetGozun, National Programme Coordinator

NAIROBI: WORKING WITH AN NGO TO IDENTIFY ISSUES AND TO PLAN ACTIONS, Mazingira Institute,P.O. Box 14550, Nairobi, Kenya; Tel: +254−2−443 219; Fax: +254−2−444643; e−mail:[email protected]; author: Davinder Lamba, Executive Director

OUAGADOUGOU: COMBINING EXPERIENCES FROM PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL PROJECTS,DPPACV, Ministere de l’Environnement et du Tourisme, 03 BP 7044, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; Tel:+226−307 098; Fax: +266−310 086; author: Jeremy Bazie

SEATTLE: USING RISK ASSESSMENT AS A BASIS FOR PARTICIPATORY PLANNING, PlanningDepartment, City of Seattle, Seattle WA 98, USA; Tel: +1−206−324 4638; Fax: +1−206−324 4638; author: JimStreet, Consultant

SHENYANG: USING EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS TO SUPPORT EPM ACTIVITIES,Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21 (ACCA 21), 109 Wanquanhe Road, Haidian District, Beijing100080, China; Tel: +86−10−262 6057; Fax: +86−10−258 8127; e−mail: [email protected]; author: Shi Han,Programme Coordinator

TILBURG: MONITORING PROGRESS IN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, City ofTilburg, P.O. Box 90155, 5000 LH Tilburg, The Netherlands; Tel: +31−13−542 9011; Fax: +31−13−542 9396;author: Roel van Gurp, Alderman

WINDHOEK: USING RENEWABLE RESOURCES IN A SUSTAINABLE WAY, Ministry of Regional and LocalGovernment and Housing, Private Bag 13289, Windhoek, Namibia, 197 Nelson Mandela Road; Tel:+264−61−297 2101; Fax: +264−61−22 60 49; author: Dr. Amathila Libertina, Minister

WUHAN: INITIATING REPLICATION PROJECTS, Administrative Centre for China's Agenda 21,109Wanquanhe Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100080, China; Tel: +86−10−262 6057; Fax: +86−10−258 8127;e−mail: [email protected]; author: Shi Han, Programme Coordinator

Other city information not yet included in case studies:

CHALON−SUR−SAONE: Environmental mobilisation: Town Hall, +33−3−85 48 01 70, contact: DominiquePerben

DUNKIRK: An integrated industrial environment and development process: Urbanism and DevelopmentAgency of the Flandre−Dunkirk Region; Tel: +33−3−28580640; contact: Christophe Lesort, Director

INDORE: Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (MMDA), Madras 600 008, India; Tel: +91−44−835659; Fax: +91−44−848 416

LYON: A system of strategic planning: Greater Lyon; Tel: +33−4−78 27 71 31; contact: Henry Chabert,Assistant Mayor

MADRAS (3): Experiences in use of renovated sewage as industrial water at Madras: Public WorksDepartment, Institute for Water Studies, Madras 600 113, India; Tel: +91−44−235 1674; contributor: C.Sundararaman, Asst. Executive Engineer

NANTES: Intermodality, a spatial restructuring and social solidarity tool: Greater Nantes; Tel: +33−2−40 41 9000; contact: Jean Marc Ayrault, Mayor

54

ÖREBRO: Building an ecological commune: City of Örebro, P.O. Box 30000, Örebro, Sweden; Tel:+46−19−211 416; Fax: +46−19−211 220; contact: Gunilla Gustafsson, Head of the Local EnvironmentalAdministration

International Support Programme

Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies at the Local Level (APELL), United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP), Industry and Environment Unit, Tour Mirabeau, 39−43, quai AndreCitroen, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France, Tel: +33−1−44 37 1431, Fax: +33−1−44 37 1474, e−mail:[email protected]; contact: Janet Stevens, Programme Coordinator

Baltic Municipal Environmental Audit (MEA) Project, Union of Baltic Cities (UBC), Linnaakatu 61, 20100Turku, Finland, Tel: +358−21−262 3412, Fax: +358−21−230 3518, e−mail: [email protected];contact: Mikko Jokinen, Director of the Environmental Protection Office

Capacity Building for the Urban Environment, Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies(IHS), Weena 718, P.O. Box 1935,3000 BX Rotterdam, The Netherlands, Tel: +31−10−402 1523, Fax:+31−10−404 5671, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Ed Frank, Project Leader

Cities Feeding People, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), 250 Albert Street, P.O. Box8500, Ottawa K1G 3H9, Canada, Tel: +1−613−236 6163/2310, Fax: +1−613−567 7749, e−mail:[email protected]; contact: Luc J.A. Mougeot, Senior Programme Specialist

CITYNET, Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements, 5F,International Organizations Center Pacifico−Yokohama, 1−1−1 Minato Mirai Nishi−ku, Yokohama 220, Japan,Tel: +81−45−223 2161, Fax: +81−45−223 2162, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Mariko Sato,Programme Officer

Environmental Management Network, Urban Management Programme, Regional Office for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (UNCHS (Habitat)/UNDP/World Bank), Av. Naciones Unidas 1084, Ed. Bco.La Previsoria, Torre b. ap. 612, Casilla 17−17−1445, Quito, Ecuador, Tel: +593−2−462132/462136/463 007,Fax: +593−2−462 134, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Yve Cabannes, Regional Coordinator

GEMS − Air Programme, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/World Health Organisation(WHO), P.O. Box: 30552, Nairobi, Kenya, Tel: +254−2−62 3527, Fax: +254−2−62 4310/3934, e−mail:[email protected]; contact: Verle Vandeweerd, Chief of State and Environment Report Unit

Healthy Cities Project, World Health Organisation (WHO), 20 Avenue Appia, CH−1211 Geneva,Switzerland, Tel: +41−22−791 3559, Fax: +41−22−791 4127, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: GregoryGoldstein, Coordinator

Integrity in Urban Governance Programme, transparency International (TI) InternationalNon−governmental Organisation, Heylstraße 33,10825 Berlin, 10825 Berlin, Germany, Tel: +49−30−7875908, Fax: +49−30−787 5707, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Peter Eigen, Chairperson

International Centre for Sustainable Cities (ICSC), Canadian Non−Governmental Organisation, 1150 −555 West Hastings Street, P.O. Box: 12071 Harbour Centre, Vancouver, B.C., V6B 4N5, Canada, Tel:+1−604−666 0061, Fax: +1−604−666 0009, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Martin L. Crilly, ExecutiveDirector

International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC), United Nations Environmental Programme(UNEP), 2−110 Ryokuchi Koen, Tsurumi−ku, Osaka 538, Japan, Tel: +81−6−915 4585/84, Fax: +81−6−9150304, e−mail: [email protected] or [email protected]; contact: J. Whitelaw, Director

Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme, The International Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiatives (ICLEI), City Hall, East Tower, 8th Floor, 100 Queen Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 2N2,Tel: +1−416−392 1462, Fax: +1−416−392 1478, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: PratibhaMetha, Director

55

Local Initiative Facility−for Urban Environment (LIFE), United Nations Development Programme(UNDP), United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017, U.S.A., Tel: +1−212−906 6602, Fax: +1−212−906 2057,e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Robertson Work, Global Coordinator

Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme (MEIP), World Bank, 1818 H. Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., Tel: +1−202−458 2726, Fax: +1−202−522 1664, e−mail:[email protected]; contact: David G. Williams, Director

Natural Resources Systems Programme, Peri−Urban Interface Production Systems Research(NRSP−PUR), Natural Resources Institute (NRI−ODA), Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, U.K., Tel:+44−1634−883111, Fax: +44−1634−883959, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Chris Lewcock, Director

Public−Private−Partnerships for the Urban Environment (PPP), United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), United Nations Plaza, New York 10017, U.S.A., Tel: +1−212−906 6973, Fax:+1−212−906 6973; e−mail: luis.gomez−[email protected]; contact: Luis Gomez−Echeverri, ProgrammeDirector

Sustainable Cities Initiative, USAID, Office of Environment and Urban Programs, Center forEnvironment, Global Bureau, Room 409, SA−18, 320 Twenty−First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.20523−11−82, U.S.A., Tel: +1−703−812 2484, Fax: +1−703−875 4384, e−mail: [email protected]; contact:Viviann Gary, Director

Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP), UNCHS (Habitat)/UNEP, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya, Tel:+254−2−62 3225, Fax: +254−2−62 4263/4, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Jochen Eigen,Coordinator

Sustainable Cities Project, European Union (EU), Rue de la Loi 200, B−1048 Brussels, Belgium, Tel:+32−2−296 8702, Fax: +32−2−296 9554; contact: Eric den Homer, Project Manager, Head of UrbanEnvironment Unit

Urban Environment Forum (UEF), UNCHS (Habitat)/UNEP, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya, Tel:+254−2−62 3225, Fax: +254−2−62 4263/4, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: UEF Secretariat

Urban Environmental Training Materials Programme (UEMP), German Corporation for TechnicalCo−operation (GTZ), Dag−Hammarskjöld−Weg 1−5, P.O. Box 51 80, 65726 Eschborn, Germany, Tel:+49−6196−79 1339, Fax: +49−6196−7153, e−mail: [email protected]; contact: Annette Bähring,Planning Officer

Urban Management Programme, Environment Component (UMP/E), UNCHS (Habitat)/UNDP/WorldBank, P.O. Box 30030, Nairobi, Kenya, Tel: +254−2−62 3225, Fax: +254−2−62 4264, e−mail:[email protected]; contact: Jochen Eigen, Environment Advisor

Contributors to the EPM Source Book

The EPM Source Book has many contributors, literally hundreds, considering the many developmentpractitioners from cities and national governments around the world, from international support programmes,and from development organisations, who have actively participated in the process of preparing thisdocument. Through their participation in the international workshops, the contribution of their operationalexperiences, their review and discussion of the accumulating material, and their direct involvement in thedrafting of conclusions, declarations, and the Istanbul Manifesto, these practitioners are the real authors andowners of the EPM Source Book. A listing of their names is provided in the box that follows. Full references,including up−to−date contact addresses, can be found in Volume 3. Special thanks are due to the 33 authorsof the city case studies, whose names and contacts can be found in Reference 1 next to the cities on whichthey have reported.

The overall process has been conceptualised, co−ordinated, and documented by the core team of theUNCHS/UNEP Sustainable Cities Programme in Nairobi, which also prepared, organised, and mobilisedfunding for the international workshops. Special mention is due to the internal Task Force for the EPM SourceBook led by Jochen Eigen (SCP Coordinator) and including Jean−Christophe Adrian (SCP Advisor), EleanorCody (Information Officer), Bernd Decker (Urban Environment Officer) and Rob de long (Associate Expert).

56

The Task Force also involved consultants: Douglas McCallum (Lead Consultant) did most of the draftingthroughout the three−year process and helped maintain continuity as moderator of all three internationalworkshops; and Joe Leitmann helped summarise the case studies into the abstracts presented in Volume 2.From the UNEP side Tony Edwards was an important contributor and supporter, and Julie Larrabee helpedwith the layout for this publication.

Financial support for the EPM Source Book came primarily from the British Government (ODA) and the DutchGovernment (VROM and DGIS) who contributed generously to the funding of local and internationalconsultants and to the travel cost for meeting participants. In addition, financial and in−kind support camefrom a large number of other development organisations concerned with the urban environment, including theUS Agency for International Development (USAID), the Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit (GTZ, Germany), the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS, TheNetherlands), the International Development Research Centre (IDRC, Canada), the International Centre forSustainable Cities (ICSC, Canada), the Natural Resource Institute (NRI, U.K.), the European Union (EU), theUnion of Baltic Cities (UBC), the World Bank, the World Health Organization (WHO), the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP), The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The United NationsCentre for Human Settlements (Habitat), Citynet, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives(ICLEI), and Transparency International (TI, Germany). In addition, cities from the industrialised world havefunded their own participation in the workshops and have contributed their own case studies. Last, but notleast, the cities and their central governments which have hosted the three international workshops − Dakar(Senegal), Madras (India), and Istanbul (Turkey) − deserve special thanks for their important support tomaking the EPM Source Book project a success.

Participating Cities

Abidjan (Cote d'Ivoire), Accra (Ghana), Ahmedabad (India), Asuncion (Paraguay), Bamako (Mali), Bangalore(India), Banjul (Gambia), Beijing (PR China), Belo Horizonte (Brazil), Blantyre (Malawi), Bodrum (Turkey),Brazzaville (Congo), Brisbane (Australia), Bursa (Turkey), Cajamarca (Peru), Calcutta (India), Chattanooga,Tennessee (USA), Chimbote (Peru), Coimbatore (India), Colombo (Sri Lanka), Conacry (Guinee), Concepcion(Chile), Cotonou (Benin), Dakar (Senegal), Dar es Salaam (Tanzania), Durban (South Africa), El Alto (Bolivia),Freetown (Sierra Leone), Freiburg (Germany), Gabarone (Botswana), Gauteng (South Africa), Geneva(Switzerland), Gothenburg (Sweden), Gulu (Uganda), Hamburg (Germany), Hanoi (Vietnam), Harare(Zimbabwe), Heidelberg (Germany), Hyderabad (India), Ibadan (Nigeria), Ilo (Peru), Innsbruck (Austria),Ismailia (Egypt), Istanbul (Turkey), Jakarta (Indonesia), Johannesburg (South Africa), Johnstoneshire(Australia), Kampala (Uganda), Kanagawa (Japan), Katowice (Poland), Kenya Small Towns (Kenya),Köpenick (Germany), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), La Havana (Cuba), La Paz (Bolivia), Lagos (Nigeria),Leicester (U.K.), Lima (Peru), Lusaka (Zambia), Madras (India), Manila (Philippines), Maputo (Mozambique),Melbourne (Australia), Montreal (Canada), Mumbai (India), Nairobi (Kenya), Nampula (Mozambique), NaviMumbai (India), Newcastle (Australia), Niamey (Niger), Nouakchott (Mauritanie), Örebro (Sweden),Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Port−au−Prince (Haiti), Quito (Ecuador), Recife (Brazil), Rome (Italy), SaintLouis (Senegal), Santa Cruz (Bolivia), Santos (Brazil), Seattle (USA), Seoul (Korea), Shenyang (PR China),St. Denis (France), Sundsvall (Sweden), Surabaya (Indonesia), Tilburg (The Netherlands), Tunis (Tunisia),Venice (Italy), Victoria (USA), Vienna (Austria), Vlaeberg (South Africa), Waitakere (New Zealand), Windhoek(Namibia), Wuhan (PR China).

Participating Programmes

Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies at the Local Level (APELL), United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP), Industry and Environment Unit, Baltic Municipal Environmental Audit (MEA) Project,Union of Baltic Cities (UBC); Capacity Building for the Urban Environment, Institute for Housing and UrbanDevelopment Studies (IHS); Cities Feeding People, International Development Research Centre (IDRC);CITYNET Regional Network of Local Authorities for the Management of Human Settlements; EcologicalCities, Organisation for economic Co−operation and Development (OECD); Environmental ManagementNetwork, Urban Management Programme, Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (UNCHS(Habitat)/UNDP/World Bank); GEMS−Air Programme, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/WorldHealth Organisation (WHO); Healthy Cities Project. World Health Organisation (WHO); Indian HumanSettlements Programme (IHSP), Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS); Integrity inUrban Governance Programme, Transparency International (TI); International Centre for Sustainable Cities(ICSC), Canadian Non−Governmental Organisation; International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC),United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme, TheInternational Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI); Local Agenda 21, International TrainingCentre, The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI); Local Initiative Facility for Urban

57

Environment (LIFE), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); Metropolitan EnvironmentalImprovement Programme (MEIP), World Bank; National Preparations for Habitat II, UNCHS (Habitat) NaturalResources Systems Programme, Peri−Urban Interface Production Systems Research (NRSP−PUR), NaturalResources Institute (NRI−ODA); Public−Private−Partnerships for the Urban Environment (PPP), UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP), Sustainable Cities Initiative, USAID, Office of Environment andUrban Programs, Centre for Environment, Global Bureau; Sustainable Cities Programme (SCP), UNCHS(Habitat)/UNEP; Sustainable Cities Project, European Union (EU); UNEP Regional Office for Africa, UNEP;Urban Environment Forum (UEF), UNCHS (Habitat)/UNEP; Urban Environmental Training MaterialsProgramme (UEMP), German Corporation for Technical Co−operation (GTZ); Urban ManagementProgramme (UMP), UNCHS (Habitat)/UNDP/World Bank; Urban Management Programme, EnvironmentComponent (UMP/E) UNCHS (Habitat)/UNDP/World Bank; Urban Management Programme, Regional Officefor Africa, UNCHS (Habitat)/UNDP/World Bank; Urban Management Programme, Regional Office for Asia andPacific (UMP AP), UNCHS (Habitat)/UNDP/World Bank.

Participating National Organisations

Australia, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID); Austria, Bundesministerium fürAuswärtiges − EZA und Koordination der International Entwicklungspolitik; Federal Ministry for Environment;Benin, CREPA/BENIN; Ministere de l'Environnement, de l'Habitat et de l'Urbanisme; Botswana, Ministry ofForeign Affairs; Ministry of Housing; Burkina Faso, DPPACV, Ministere de l'Environnement et du Tourisme;Canada, Canadian Urban Institute; Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA); Organisation CKI;Chile, Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo; Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo; Ministerio de Vivienda yUrbanismo; Congo, l'Urbanisme et l'Habitat; Cote d'Ivoire, Direction generale des collectivites, Ministere del'Environnement et du Tourisme; Denmark, DANIDA; Ecuador; Corporation OIKOS; Finland, City of Turku;France, Ministere de la Cooperation; Ministere de l'Environnement; Gambia, Ministry for Local Governmentand lands; Ministry of Industry and Trade; Germany, Habitat International Coalition (HIC); Women for Peaceand Ecology (Europe); Ghana, Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare; Ministry of Environment; Ministryof Local Government and Rural Development; Guinee, Ministere de l'Urbanisme et de l'Habitat; India, Institutefor Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS); Italy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGCS); Kenya,Environmental Management Services; Ministry of Local Government; Mali, Conseil superieur del'Environnement, Ministere du Developpement, Ministere de l'Urbanisme; Namibia, Ministry of Regional andLocal Government and Housing; Niger, Ministere de l'Hydraulique et de l'Environnement; Nigeria,Environmental Assessment Division, Federal Ministry of Works and Housing; Federal EnvironmentalProtection Agency (FEPA); Federal Ministry of Works and Housing; Project Africa Consortium; Republic ofKorea, Kyong Provincial Government; Senegal, Ministere de l'Hydraulique; Ministere de l'Urbanisme et del'Habitat; Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone Housing Corporation; South Africa, Development Bank of SouthernAfrica; Ministry of Environment, Gauteng Province; Sweden, Swedish International Development Authority(SIDA); Switzerland, Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC); Tanzania, Ministry of Land, Housing and UrbanDevelopment; The Netherlands, International Housing Affairs; Ministry of Foreign Affairs; U.K., OverseasDevelopment Authority (ODA); South Bank University; U.S.A., University of Nebraska − Lincoln; USAID;Uganda, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Physical Planning.

Salina Abdullah (Kuala Lumpur); Alhaji Abdullahi Adamu (Lagos); Nathalie Adjademe (Cotonou);Jean−Christophe Adrian (Sustainable Cities Programme); Eric Adriko (Kampala); Tunde Agbola (Ibadan);Elijah Agevi (Nairobi); Daniel Agwekum Ohene (Accra); I.A.S. Allaudin (Madras); John Yaw Amankrah(Ghana); Libertina Amathila (Windhoek); Anthony Tawia Amuzu (Accra); Roland Andersson (Sundsvall);Nathaniel Amatey Armah (Accra); Silva Arrais (Recife); Gladys Asiama (Ghana); Ahmed Askar (Ismailia);Judy Astuti (Surabaya); Alex Avuletete−Tamakloe (Accra); Jean Marc Ayrault (Nantes); Dosu Babatunde(Ibadan); Alioune Badiane (Urban Management Programme, Regional Office for Africa); Annette Bähring(Urban Environmental Training Materials Programme); Mariama Nene Balde (Conacry); Oumar Balde(Dakar); Doril Balvin Diaz (Lima); Jean−Yves Barcelo (National Preparations for Habitat II); DaliaBardaupriene (Toronto); Chang Hee Bark (Republic of Korea); Matteo Bartolomeo (Venice); Carl Bartone(Urban Management Programme, Environment Component); Koura Bassolet (Ouagadougou); C.S. Bateman(Hyderabad); Abdoulaye Bathily (Dakar); Sahadou Bawa (Niamey); V.K. Bawa (Hyderabad); Jeremy Bazie(Ouagadougou); Patrick Beckley (Freetown); Charles Bens (Toronto); Lars Berggrund (Gothenburg); K.K.Bhatnagar (New Delhi); Julien Bikou (Brazzaville); Kalyan Biswas (Calcutta); Leif Blomquist (Gothenburg);William R. Bloxom (Ibadan); Paulo Roberto P. Bretas (Belo Horizonte); Gerrit Ph. Brokx (Tilburg); James E.(Jeb) Brugmann (ICLEI); Karin Buhren (Sustainable Cities Programme); Thomas Bulten (Kampala); JorgeCabrera (Asuncion); David Capistrano (Santos); Lilia Casanova (International Environmental TechnologyCentre); Henry Chabert (Lyon); Shem Chaibva (Harare); Ralph Chephethe (Botswana); Vaidya Chetan (NewDelhi); Chan−Ae Choi (Seoul); Oumar Cisse (Dakar); Daour Cisse (Dakar); Omar Cisse (Dakar); Giles Clarke(U.K.); Peter Classens (Environmental Management Network); Eleanor Cody (Sustainable Cities Programme);

58

Paolo Coppini (Italy); Martin L. Crilly (International Centre for Sustainable Cities); David Crocket(Chattanooga, Tennessee); Penelope Croucamp (Durban); Komi Severin D'Almaida (Cotonou); VincentDalibgou (Ouagadougou); Tumbul K. Danso (Banjul); Amath Dansoko (Dakar); G. Dattatri (Madras); GlynnDavies (South Africa); H.V. Dayal (Bangalore); Nieto De los Rios (Chile); Zou Deci (Beijing); Bernd Decker(Sustainable Cities Programme); Cor Dijkgraaf (Rotterdam); E. Den Hamer (Sustainable Cities Project); K.Dharmarajan (New Delhi); N. Dharumalingam (Madras); Medoune Diagne (Dakar); Seydou Diakite (Bamako);Abdoulaye Daouda Diallo (Dakar); Djibril Diallo (Dakar); Julio Días Palacios (Ilo); Gayl Dickson (U.K.):Florence Dillsworth (Freetown); Ernest Dione (Dakar); Ousseynou Edje Diop (Dakar); E.O. Diop (Dakar);Masse Diouf (Dakar); Anna Dodd (Leicester); Ben Kofi Doe (Accra); Ladislau Dowbor (Santos); DavidEdelman (Capacity Building for the Urban Environment); Anthony K. Edwards (Human Health andWell−Being); Benjamin Clement Eghan (Ghana); Habiba Eid (Ismailia); Peter Eigen (Integrity in UrbanGovernance Programme); Jochen Eigen (Sustainable Cities Programme); N.G. Ekeh (Lagos); MuhamedNagib El Aruni (St. Denis); Mohamed Abel−Salam El−Maghoub (Ismailia); Marco Encalada (EnvironmentalManagement Network); Serigne Modou Fall (Saint Louis); Imtiaz Faookhi (Leicester); Muhammad Faqih(Surabaya); Mbaye Mbengue Faye (Dakar); Bernardo P. Ferraz (Maputo); Paul Flanagan (Australia); DanielFlood (Sustainable Cities Programme); Maria Elena Foronda (Chimbote); Ed Frank (Capacity Building for theUrban Environment); Otto Frey (Vienna); Colin Fudge (Sustainable Cities Project); Chris Furdey (U.K.);Viviann Gary (Sustainable Cities Initiative); Patterson Kuria Gathuru (Nairobi); Basile Gbaguidi (Cotonou);G.S. Gill (Navi Mumbai); Viswanathan Gita (Madras); Gregory Goldstein (Healthy Cities Project); LuisGomez−Echeverri (Public−Private−Partnerships for the Urban Environment); Justyna Gorgon (Katowice);Bebet Gozun (Manila); Roel van Gurp (Tilburg); Gunilla Molin Gustafsson (Örebro); Suhadi Hadiwinoto(Jakarta); Jeremy J.D. Hager (Sustainable Cities Initiative); David Hales (U.S.A.); Danielle Harder (Seattle);Hans Harms (Hamburg); Robert Harvey (Waitakere); Jamilah Hashim (Kuching); Peter Heller (Freiburg);Isabelle Hentic Rondot (Canada); Miguel Angel Hernandez (Concepcion); Jorge Arturo Herreros (Asuncion);Greg Heys (Newcastle); Parikh Himanshu (Ahmedabad); Filomenita Mongaya Hoegsholm (Journalist);Michaela Hordyk (Capacity Building for the Urban Environment); T. David Houssou (Cotonou); MarykHuysman (Capacity Building for the Urban Environment); Patchamuthu Illangovan (MetropolitanEnvironmental Improvement Programme); Marina Irigoyen (Lima); Balla Jahumpa (Banjul); A.K. Jain (NewDelhi); I.A.S. Jayanthi (Madras); Liqiang Jiang (Shenyang); Darshan Johal (International Centre forSustainable Cities); Rob de Jong (Sustainable Cities Programme); Michael A. O. Johnson (Freetown); MikkoJokinen (Finland); (Baltic Municipal Environmental Audit Project); Charles Kajoba Kitonsa (Kampala); SophieKalimba (Blantyre); Mohamed Lamine Kalle (Bamako); R. Kamatchi (Madras); Jean−Baptiste Kambou(Ouagadougou); R.M. Kapoor (Calcutta); Ndiaye Oumar Karamoko (Dakar); Florence Kariuki (SustainableCities Programme); Margareta Karlsson (Urban Management Programme, Regional Office for Africa); GulilatKebede (Sustainable Cities Programme); Collen J. Kelapile (Botswana); Earl Kessler (Sustainable CitiesInitiative); Nightingale Keyes (Manila); William Keyes (Manila); M.N. Khullar (New Delhi); Beatrice Kimuna(Sustainable Cities Programme); Kiwon Kim (Republic of Korea); Eum Kyung Kim (Seoul); Paul Kirai(Nairobi); Martin Kitilla (Dar es Salaam); Andrew Kiyu (Kuching); Yoshiharu Komori (Kanagawa); Idrissa Kone(Abidjan); Josef Konvitz (Ecological Cities); Gouganou Kopieu (Abidjan); Nda N. Kouadio (Abidjan); DjenebaKouyate Diarra (Bamako); Martin Krulis (Innsbruck); Rhee Kum Ra (Seoul); Anne Kuria (UNCHS); Rosa MariaLama (Concepcion); Gabriele Langschwert (Austria); Timothy Larson (Urban Management Programme,Regional Office for Africa); Reena Lazar (Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme); Joe Leitmann(SCP Consultant); Manyepedra Patrick Lesetedi (Botswana); Christophe Lesort (Dunkirk); Chris Lewcock(Natural Resources Systems Programme, Peri−Urban Interface Production Systems Research); FrancoiseLieberherr (Switzerland); Jan Lindberg (Örebro); Sheldon Lippman (Metropolitan Environmental ImprovementProgramme); Hector Lopez (Chile); Christoph Lüthi (Urban Management Programme); El Housseynou LY(Dakar); Ole Lyse (Sustainable Cities Programme); Bocar M'Backe (Dakar); Emmy A. M'mbwanga (KenyaSmall Towns); Misty Macoufee (Victoria); Ann Magee (Waitakere); Sherif Mahmoud (Ismailia); Jamil MahuadWitt (Quito); Bituro Majani (Dar es Salaam); T.S.G. Makunda (Nairobi); Alfredo Maldonado Tiñini (El Alto);Joyce Malombe (Nairobi); Michael Manolson (ICLEI); Jose Marquez (Nampula); Jaspal Singh Marwaha (NewDelhi); Tshediso Mashinini (Johannesburg); Shizuaki Matsufuji (Kanagawa); Maritza Jesus Mayo D'Arrigo(Cajamarca); Douglas McCallum (SCP Consultant); Eddie McEachen (Johnstoneshire); Catherine McGuire(Lincoln); Gaston Mejia (La Paz); Gina Mendez Murtado (Santa Cruz); L.M. Menezes (Madras); ChristophMenke (GTZ); Pratibha Metha (Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme); Giséle Meynet (France);Joram Mgweno (Dar es Salaam); Liliana Miranda Sara (Lima); Luc J.A. Mougeot (Cities Feeding People);Michael Mouritz (Newcastle); Anna Mtani (Dar es Salaam); Nasser Munjee (Mumbai); Francis M. Muwowo(Lusaka); Fisho P. Mwale (Lusaka); E. Mwanbulukutu (Dar es Salaam); Christophe Nado (Abidjan);Madhavan Nambiar (Madras); K.J. Nath (Calcutta); Joyce J. Ndesamburo (Dar es Salaam); Mame GogoBanel Ndiaye (Dakar); Abdoulaye Ndour (Dakar); Thiecouta Ngom (Dakar); Hassan Ali Ngwilizi (Dar esSalaam); Erasmo Nhachungue (Maputo); Abdoulaye Niang (Nouakchott); Karamoko Niare (Bamako); SimonNicks (Vlaeberg); Kirsten Norregaard Rasmussen (Denmark); John Ntambirweki (Kampala); NatNuno−Amarteifio (Accra); Michael Odwar (Gulu); Toye Ogunyemi (Ibadan); Samson Ojo (Ibadan); Joseph

59

Oyewole Okunfulure (Lagos); Gladys Okungbowa (Lagos); Hamaida Omrani (Tunis); Victor EkundayoOnoviran (Nigeria); Abdul Osman (Leicester); Mariam Ouattara (UNEP, Regional Office for Africa); EustacheOuayoro (Ouagadougou); Comfort Owolabi (Lagos); Thomas Oyieke (Nairobi); Ender Özisik (Bodrum); ElkePahl−Weber (Hamburg); E. Pappoe (Accra); Michael Parkes (U.K.); Tjondro Sugianto Parwoto (Jakarta);Sheela Patel (Mumbai); Mary Pattenden (Local Agenda 21 Model Communities Programme); BonifacePegawagnaba (Abidjan); Dominique Perben (Chalon−sur−Saone); Ravi Pereira (Colombo); Anna MariaPinchera (Rome); Mario Polese (Montreal); Erich Pramböck (Austria); Paul Proue (Capacity Building for theUrban Environment); Hu Qian (Wuhan); Gabriele Quinti (Rome); Eva Quistorp (Germany); Jonas Rabinovitch(Public−Private−Partnerships for the Urban Environment); Chris Radford (Sustainable Cities Programme); R.Raghunathan (Coimbatore); Sharma Rajiv (New Delhi); Arcot Ramachandran (Bangalore); S. Ramarathinam(Madras); K. Ramchand (New Delhi); T.K. Ramkumar (Madras); T.S. Ranadarajan (Madras); A.R.Ranganathan (Madras); Anantha A. Ranjana Dass (Madras); Bhaskara Rao (Bangalore); A. Ravindra(Bangalore); Anita Reddy (Bangalore); Georgina Rey Rodriguez (La Havana); Narjes Riahi (Tunis); E.F.N.Ribeiro (New Delhi); Debra Cynthia Roberts (Durban); Brian Roberts (Brisbane); Allan Rodger (Melbourne);Michael Rotich (Nakuru); Danas Ruseckas (Toronto); Aliou Saar (Dakar); Michal Sablik (Katowice); Sutay KaliSagnia (Banjul); Erdem Saker (Bursa); Claudio Salcedo (Chile); Mahazou Sani (Niamey); Mohamed Sankhare(Dakar); Happy Santosa (Surabaya); Debendranath Sarangi (Madras); Beato Sason (Manila); Mariko Sato(CITYNET); Ivan Savage (Freetown); Yasmin von Schirnding (Johannesburg); Paul Schuttenbelt (Dar esSalaam); Michel Seek (Dakar); Richard Segodi (Garborone); Herbert Sekandi (Kampala); Monika Semmler(Sustainable Cities Programme); Aysu Sengul (Istanbul); Esther Serah (Garborone); Rajiv Sharma (NewDelhi); Kerry Sheppings (Durban); Han Shi (Beijing); Sicelo Shiceka (Gauteng); Hiroshi Shiroi (InternationalEnvironmental Technology Centre (IETC)); Clarence Shubert (Urban Management Programme, RegionalOffice for Asia and Pacific); Shamin Siddique (Madras); Aminata Diarra Sidibe (Bamako); Hilary PrasannaSilva (Colombo); Kulwant Singh (New Delhi); B.A. Singh (New Delhi); Hanne Sorensen (Concepcion); PeterSoulsby (Leicester); Moussa Soumah, (Conakry); Abdou−Lahad Sourang (Dakar); Sy Kadiatou Sow(Bamako); Ron Spreeckmeester (The Netherlands); I.A.S. Sridhar T.S. (Madras); Anna Starzewska−Sikorska(Katowice); Florian Steinberg (Indian Human Settlements Programme); Janet Stevens (Awareness andPreparedness for Emergencies at Local Level); Jim Street (Seattle); P.S.A Sundaram (New Delhi); C.Sundararaman (Madras); Petrus Swart (Windhoek); Hannes Swoboda (Vienna); Agnieszka Szczepanska(Katowice); Marie Claude Tabar Nouval (France); David Taiwo (Ibadan); D.M. Talawa (Dar es Salaam); FranTannerfeldt (Sweden); Luis Tapia (Concepcion); R. Thanasekaran (Madras); Vu Quyet Thang (Hanoi); FideleTonon (Cotonou); Katherin Topar (Sustainable Cities Progamme); Souty Toure (Dakar); Alphamoye Traore(Bamako); Pablo Trivelli (UMP−LAC); Klaus Ulbricht (Köpenick); Verle Vandeweerd (GEMS−Air Programme);Waldo Vargas (Capacity Building for the Urban Environment); Genevieve Verbrugges (France); Alain Viaro(Geneva); Paola Viero (Italy); Leslie Voltaire (Port−au−Prince); Magatti Wade (Dakar); Oumar Wane (Dakar);Alpha Wane (Dakar); Beate Weber (Heidelberg); Emiel Wegelin (Capacity Building for the UrbanEnvironment); Wang Weizhong (Shenyang); Edmundo Werna (South Bank University); Anneke Wevers (TheNetherlands); David G. Williams (Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Programme); Dorothy Wilson(Waitakere); Robertson Work (Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment); Mikio Yamane (Kanagawa);Seung−Hee You (Seoul); Soko Guillaume Zabi (Abidjan); Xiuying Zhou (Wuhan); Kerstin Zillmann (Hamburg);Monika Zimmermann (Local Agenda 21, International Training Centre).

List of Abbreviations Used

Agenda 21 Global Agenda for Action (Rio Conference)APELL Awareness and Preparedness for Emergencies at the Local Level (UNEP)ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian NationsCBO Community Based OrganisationCity Summit Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, Istanbul 1996CIDA Canadian International Development AgencyCSD Commission for Sustainable DevelopmentDGIS Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Directorate General for Development Co−operation, The

NetherlandsEarthSummit

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 1992

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African StatesEMS Environmental Management Strategy

60

EPM Environmental Planning and ManagementEU European UnionGDP Gross Domestic ProductGTZ German Corporation for Technical Co−operationHabitat II Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, Istanbul 1996IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank)ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental InitiativesICSC International Centre for Sustainable CitiesIDRC International Development Research CentreIHS Institute for Housing and Urban Development StudiesILO International Labour OrganisationIMF International Monetary FundLA21 Localising Agenda 21MEIP Metropolitan Environmental Improvement ProgrammeNGO Non−Governmental OrganisationODA Overseas Development Administration (U.K.)OECD Organisation for Economic Co−operation and DevelopmentPVO Private Voluntary OrganisationSAP Structural Adjustment ProgrammeSDC Swiss Development Co−operationSIDA Swedish International Development AuthoritySADC Southern African Development CommunitySCP Sustainable Cities Programme (UNCHS, UNEP)TI Transparency InternationalUBC Union of Baltic CitiesUEF Urban Environment ForumU.K. United KingdomUMP Urban Management Programme (UNCHS, UNDP, World Bank)UMP/E Urban Management Programme, Environment Component (UNCHS, UNDP, World Bank)UMP−AP Urban Management Programme, Regional Office for Asia and Pacific (UNCHS, UNDP, World

Bank)UMP−LAC Urban Management Programme, Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean

(UNCHS, UNDP, World Bank)UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Conference 1992)UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)UNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVROM Ministry of Housing, Planning and Environment, The NetherlandsWHO World Health OrganisationNotes

61

environmental planning and management (epm) source book ... · environmental planning and...

Documents