Habitat

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63499/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVERS
More than 25,000 delegates will meet in Quito, Ecuador, in October to set out the United Nations' New Urban Agenda for member states.
The Habitat III conference will mandate the UN’s work in cities and settlements for the next 20 years. But Australia, one of the world’s most urbanised nations, is yet to play a major role in negotiations.
If you haven’t heard of the Habitat conference series, you’re not alone. Steered by one of the UN’s smaller organisations – UN-Habitat – it is the key negotiation process within the UN for planning the development of cities and human settlements.
Unlike the annual “Conference of the Parties” held by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, these events take place only once every 20 years. The Habitat conference has been held twice previously: in Istanbul in 1996, and in Vancouver in 1976.
Since then, humanity has crossed an urbanisation milestone. Half the world’s population now lives in cities. At the time of Habitat I, just over one-third were urban dwellers. Habitat III and the New Urban Agenda therefore represents a watershed moment for urban development globally.
<h2>Setting the New Urban Agenda</h2>
The 1996 Habitat Agenda called for sustainable development and access to adequate shelter. These goals have driven progress in many places. For instance, provision of adequate housing is now included in many national constitutions.
The Habitat Agenda also formed a platform for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), agreed in 2000. The MDGs expired in 2015 and were superseded by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals lie at the centre of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Habitat III, unlike Habitat II, builds out of these targets, not the other way around. The New Urban Agenda is therefore aiming to implement these goals in cities, particularly SDG 11: to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”. 
The current version of the agenda, the “zero draft”, was released at the end of July 2016, having undergone a series of revisions at preparatory negotiations. Unusually for the UN, this included direct feedback from civil society and other stakeholders, following public release of the draft.
The draft New Urban Agenda recognises that decisions about how we house, feed and mobilise urban populations will have a critical impact on human wellbeing and sustainability. Key focus areas include guiding national urban policies and systems of urban governance. The draft also has a strong emphasis on citizen participation and democratic processes.
What sets the agenda apart from its predecessors is the elevation of pressing global issues, such as urban informality, gender equity and disaster and climate resilience. It also recognises cities as drivers of economic and social development.
It is estimated that 70% of global economic activity is in cities. Cities also account for more than 70% of greenhouse gas emissions. The agenda will therefore be critical in achieving the COP21 targets agreed in Paris last year.
The current draft is not without controversy. Inclusion of the “Right to the City” has already stalled talks. And the future role of UN-Habitat is being hotly contested.
In its current form, the agenda redefines informal settlements and sectors as assets with the capacity to promote economic growth. It also recognises the right to equal access to jobs, urban infrastructure and affordable housing, emphasising design, participation and empowerment in meeting the challenges of informal settlements.
The key challenge for the New Urban Agenda will be distributing implementation to the thousands of cities that need development assistance across the world. Crucially, it is unclear who will monitor and evaluate progress, and how.
<h2>Australia missing in action</h2>
Unlike the Paris Agreement, the New Urban Agenda is not intended to be a legally binding document. Instead, it aims to provide guidance to member states and UN agencies. However, several nations are yet to engage with the Habitat III process, either through preparatory meetings or by submitting country-level urban reports.
The Australian government has so far been absent from the Habitat III process. In regional thematic meetings the Australian chair has remained empty, despite our heavily urbanised population, regional investment in urban development, and urban policy expertise.
The agenda represents a key opportunity to reflect on Australia’s role in engaging with pressing urban development questions at home and abroad.
Establishment of Australia’s first minister for cities by the Turnbull government in 2015 was seen as a strong platform for redefining an Australian national urban policy. However, the portfolio was short-lived, being downgraded to an assistant ministry six months later.
Australian cities face many challenges associated with sustainability and population growth. These include housing affordability and deficits in provision of essential infrastructure and services.
Stronger federal government leadership on national and international urban policy could promote economic prosperity and the sustainability of urban settlements at home. It could also improve Australia’s ability to engage with our Asia-Pacific neighbours on shared urban challenges, such as urban migration, the health and social impacts of climate change, and managing environmental resources for current and future generations.
More than 30 representatives of Australian non-governmental organisations, municipalities, peak bodies and universities are registered to attend Habitat III. However, it is not yet clear whether the government will be participating in the Quito negotiations.
Despite its challenges, the New Urban Agenda is persuasive. It will inspire urban actors to champion its cause and drive its implementation. It will undoubtedly be used to frame funding policies of important bodies like the UN Development Program, the World Bank and Asian Development Bank.
Fulfilling our UN member state role in Habitat III is an opportunity not to be missed. Through Quito, we can reinvigorate our national urban policy, build our regional profile and leverage and export our urban expertise. But, more importantly, by taking our seat at the table we will be playing our part in the transition of humanity into a sustainable, urbanised world.
Hayley Henderson is PhD Candidate in Urban Planning, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hayley-henderson-288490" target="_blank">here</a>.
Alexei Trundle is PhD Candidate, Australian-German Climate &amp; Energy College, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexei-trundle-11956" target="_blank">here</a>
André Stephan is postdoctoral research fellow, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andre-stephan-14991" target="_blank">here</a>.
Hesam Kamalipour is PhD candidate and research assistant in Urban Design, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hesam-kamalipour-288498" target="_blank">here</a>.
Melanie Lowe is research fellow, McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-lowe-288493" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Habitat III: the biggest conference you’ve probably never heard of

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65217/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Having run the diplomatic equivalent of a cross-country marathon, there was concern that negotiations on the New Urban Agenda might trip at the final hurdle. Three days of talks were needed, with negotiations continuing long into the night before agreement was reached on Saturday night in New York.
The agenda is a non-binding international agreement designed to shape urban development over the next two decades. It will be formally adopted at the UN Habitat III summit in Quito, Ecuador, from October 17-20, 2016.
Negotiations began in New York at the first preparatory meeting in September 2014. It was envisaged then, if everything went smoothly, that the final draft would be agreed at the third preparatory committee meeting in Surabaya, Indonesia, on July 25–27, 2016. The negotiators in Surabaya, however, could not reach consensus. Instead they punted the draft to a final intersessional meeting held in New York last week.
The road to Quito has been at times precarious and it is unclear how the agreement will be taken forward thereafter. It is a tremendous achievement, though, when you consider the highly contested terrain the international community has been able to negotiate to reach an agreement.
Credit should go to the dedicated team at UN-Habitat, the committed representatives from civil society (under the banner of the World Urban Campaign) and the member state negotiators. Although not without his critics, the leadership from UN-Habitat executive director Joan Clos has also been significant in moving the agreement forward (or at least not messing things up).
<h2>What is at stake?</h2>
The disagreements were many, but I would like to point out three particular issues of contention.
First, it is recognised that no single UN agency can reasonably be given responsibility to implement such an all-encompassing agenda for the future of our cities. UN-Habitat hoped to have this role, but its motivation was to gain both influence and financial resources.
Second, co-operation from sub-national, city and local governments is a prerequisite for successful implementation. From the very start of negotiations, they have felt excluded from what is principally an agreement between nation-states. Sub-national government wants more say on the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.
Third, civil society has fully engaged with the formulation of the agenda and successfully pushed for the principle of the “right to the city” to be included.
This was a huge and historic victory for civil society from a social justice perspective. This encapsulates the “paradigm shift” that Clos often talks about in terms of a new global emphasis on “cities for people, not for profit".
All of the above will be the subject of intense analysis and discussion once the New Urban Agenda is adopted. If taken seriously, each has the potential to be transformative.
First, the UN system now needs to reflect on how best to promote urban sustainability. Second, sub-national governments need to reshape how they interact and influence the UN. Third, cities need to re-evaluate how they work with and for their people.
<h2>A bumpy road ahead</h2>
Realistically, the biggest headaches will start from Quito onwards. By far the most significant challenge is the timing. For the UN, 2015 was an apex year with the adoption of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (the 2030 Agenda) and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
In contrast, 2016 has been a year of intense discussion and reflection on how best to implement and fund those two world-changing initiatives. The fundamental predicament will therefore be how to squeeze the implementation of the New Urban Agenda into an already jam-packed and rapidly evolving global schema.
The situation is complicated by the fact that a new UN secretary-general will take up office from January 1, 2017. They will inherit a UN system that needs drastic reform to deliver effectively on the 2030 Agenda. Some major reforms have been proposed, and the new UN chief is going to have their hands full.
The central aim is to reduce fragmentation and duplication of effort. This implies that we need a multi-agency approach to the New Urban Agenda.
This was one of the sticking points in New York last week as negotiators struggled with two proposals on implementation responsibilities.
The first option, supported by the G77 (pushed by UN-Habitat host country Kenya), was for a strengthened UN-Habitat with universal representation in its governing council and greater financial resources.
The second, from the European Union and others who would be footing the bill, was a recommendation that the institutional framework to support the New Urban Agenda be determined in the 72nd session of the UN General Assembly. This would effectively put off the decision to late 2017.
A compromise between these positions was reached in New York. This gives UN-Habitat a period of grace to move forward from Quito until new arrangements are determined.
<h2>Innovation should follow from Quito</h2>
There is a proposal that the best way forward would be to establish a new co-ordinating body – UN Cities – similar to UN Water and UN Energy.
This would certainly be more in line with the way that funding is moving from donors to the UN system in recent years – known as multi-partner trust funds – with the aim of increasing agency co-ordination.
An initiative like UN-Cities could also provide a more effective framework (or a clean slate) for how the UN works with sub-national government. Another option could be a UN Council for Cities and/or a Global Parliament of Mayors. Both represent a significant departure from the practice to date and would likely take some time to become a reality.
While these global-level institutional shell games play out, perhaps we may end up concluding that the most significant outcome from Quito is the emphasis on the right to the city.
There is a rich intellectual tradition reaching back to Henri Lefebvre’s1968 book, Le Droit à la ville. If seriously taken forward, the notion of the right to the city – essentially a human-rights approach to city governance, development and sustainability – would bring into focus a wide array of social justice issues. This includes how we deal with homelessness, urban poverty, gentrification and the privatisation of public space.
Can this transformation really happen, or are we doomed to repeat the follies of Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Protocol?
Brendan Barrett is research fellow/Research Coordinator, UN Global Compact Cities Programme, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-barrett-179124" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Habitat

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Habitat

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News