CEPA strategy guidance note on Strengthening urban governance September 2023 The United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration (CEPA) has developed a set of principles of effective governance for sustainable development. The essential purpose of these voluntary principles is to provide interested countries with practical, expert guidance on a broad range of governance challenges associated with the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. CEPA has identified 62 commonly used strategies to assist with the operationalization of these principles. This guidance note addresses strengthening urban governance, which is associated with the principle of subsidiarity and can contribute to strengthening the inclusiveness of institutions. It is part of a series of notes prepared by renowned experts under the overall direction of the CEPA Secretariat in the Division for Public Institutions and Digital Government of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Funding for the sub-series on the principle of subsidiarity was generously provided by the United Nations Project Office on Governance. In reading this guidance note, individuals in government ministries and agencies who are less familiar with the topic will be able to understand the fundamentals. Those who have perhaps taken initial steps in this area with limited follow-through or impact will be able to identify how to adjust elements of their practice to achieve better results and to better embed and institutionalize the strategy in their organizations. Those who are more advanced in strengthening urban governance will be able to recognize the practices which contribute to its success. CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Understanding the strategy Urban governance arrangements and strategies apply to many levels of government, business, and society. Differences in geography and history, and differing economic, social, cultural, religious, and administrative factors, give rise to unique local urban governance systems and strategy arrangements within countries. The information and guides available on urban governance are substantial.1,2 However, there is a great diversity of thought about its scope, scale, functions, and roles. Some align it closely with sustainable development.3 Others focus on its role in urban planning, policy, and programme coordination for service delivery and building partnerships and networks.4,5 Urban governance also embraces the concept of urban systems.6 These perspectives give rise to a comprehensive range of definitions.7,8 A working definition for urban governance used in this guidance note comes from the Governance and Social Development Resource Centre Urban Governance Topic Guide.9 Urban governance refers to how government (local, regional, and national) and stakeholders decide how to plan, finance, and manage urban areas. It involves a process of continuous negotiation and contestation over the allocation of social and material resources and political power. It is, therefore, profoundly political, influenced by the creation and operation of political institutions, the government's capacity to make and implement decisions, and the extent to which these decisions recognize and respond to the interests of the poor. It encompasses a host of economic and social forces, institutions, and relationships. Urban governance is primarily concerned with the decision-making processes used to plan, manage, build, finance, and deliver a wide range of public and private goods and services in urban areas. It also covers the relationships between various actors from governments, institutions, organizations, and civic interest groups in providing and consuming these services. The nature and strength of relationships and the many interactions and transactions between diverse actors across and between multiple levels of government, business, and community (including at the international level) determine what happens in towns and cities, Avis, W. R. (2016). Urban governance: Topic guide. 60. https://gsdrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/UrbanGov_GSDRC.pdf da Cruz, N. F., Rode, P., & McQuarrie, M. (2019). New urban governance: A review of current themes and future priorities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1499416 3 Badach, J., & Dymnicka, M. (2017). Concept of ‘Good Urban Governance’ and Its Application in Sustainable Urban Planning. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 245, 082017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/245/8/082017 4 Raco, M. (2020). Governance, Urban. In A. Kobayashi (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition) (pp. 253-258). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10650-X 5 Vargas-Hernández, J. G. Urban Governance, Democratic Decentralization, and Natural Resources. In Urban Governance, Democratic Decentralization, and Natural Resources (pp. 175-199). IGI Global https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/urban-governance/31092 6 Urban systems are concerned with the functional organization of urban areas. Urban systems research utilizes the language of systems theory to grasp the complexity of the urban and the city. van Meeteren, M. (2019). Urban System. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0400 7 Raco, M. (2020). Governance, Urban. In A. Kobayashi (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography (Second Edition) (pp. 253-258). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102295-5.10650-X 8 Vargas-Hernández, J. G. Urban Governance, Democratic Decentralization, and Natural Resources. In Urban Governance, Democratic Decentralization, and Natural Resources (pp. 175-199). IGI Global https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/urban-governance/31092 9 Ibid. 1 2 1 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance how well they function, and the quality of life and services enjoyed by the people who live and work in them. The purpose of an urban governance strategy is to support the efficient operation, sustainable development, and management of urban areas. It aims to provide information, tools and frameworks to steer good decision-making toward achieving desirable sustainable development outcomes for an assortment of plans, policies, and programmes for urban areas. Key to these achievements is the development of mechanisms for better outcomes-planning, improved mobilization and use of resources, and enhanced connectivity and inclusiveness in decision-making processes. Doing this requires understanding how to engage actors involved in making decisions on strategic issues (whether for poverty-alleviation programmes or the provision of regional infrastructure) in a way that will achieve the best development outcomes. Urban governance supports the delivery of public goods and services in urban areas, from large cities to small towns. As the populations of urban areas grow, or in some countries decline, the capacity to manage them becomes more challenging. Today's urban areas face risks from climate change, pandemics, pollution, refugee influxes, and shortages in housing, infrastructure, and social services. Finding solutions to these challenges requires better urban governance. Effective urban governance embraces the interests of any group with a direct say or role in managing and running the countries, states, and cities in which people live. It also involves formal and increasingly informal self-organizing systems of governance. Managing these many and often conflicting interests is a significant challenge of urban governance strategy. For this reason, UN-Habitat and other international agencies have developed extensive programmes to support urban governance activities. Urban governance has gained a central role in global sustainable development efforts. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Urban Agenda provide a basis for countries to build their respective strategies for sustainable development. It is estimated that at least 65 per cent of the United Nations’ 17 SDGs and 169 targets can only be achieved locally through a focus on urban areas.10 Many of the SDGs relate to urban settlement management, governance, and development. SDG 11 and its 12 targets specifically relate to urban areas—to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. While the SDGs do not mention or provide direct guidance to urban governance strategies or processes, they include many principles for formulating and implementing strategies. The New Urban Agenda also calls for transformative commitments for sustainable urban development, focusing on social inclusion, ending poverty, inclusive urban prosperity and opportunities for all, resilient urban development, and establishing a supportive framework for building the urban governance structure. 10 European Commission, Urban Data Platform Plus, https://urban.jrc.ec.europa.eu/thefutureofcities/urban-governance#the-chapter 2 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance The SDGs and New Urban Agenda focus on generating outcomes for the sustainable development of urban areas, but do not provide a ready-made strategy. Both rapid growth and the decline of cities present significant challenges that call for multiple types of urban governance strategies that are well-targeted to address specific issues. As put by UN-Habitat in 2022: Whichever future urban challenge cities face, whether it is poverty, health, housing, or the environment, urban governance always has a critical enabling role in ensuring that the capacities and resources of institutions and people match their responsibilities and desires. Sustainable urban development is not likely to be achieved without effective multilevel urban governance—including local governments, civil society, and national governments. Governments have been tested since 2020 with the impact of COVID-19 and a global economic crisis, which means now is the time to rethink urban governance and put cities on the path to an optimistic future scenario.11 The environment, social and governance (ESG)12 principles and reporting are also important for private and public sector decision-making concerning the governance of urban areas. ESG principles began as a framework for business investment and were designed to be integrated into entities’ strategic planning. This would create enterprise value by expanding organizational objectives to include identifying, assessing, and managing sustainability-related risks and opportunities for all organization stakeholders (including but not limited to customers, suppliers, and employees) and the environment.13 ESG principles focus on three environmental management principles: social engagement, corporate sustainability values, and good governance practices. They are also becoming essential to risk management—ESG reporting focuses on compliance with legislation and standards and addressing sensitive cultural issues. Central and local governments have begun applying ESG principles (which draw on the SDGs) to urban governance. Local authorities have a critical role in driving progress on the ESG front14—especially as a mechanism for businesses to engage with communities-ofinterest to develop partnerships and networks to generate ideas for localized, sustainable development solutions to urban problems. Local governments can adapt examples of good ESG models15 to their own context and scale16 when applying ESG principles and reporting on their urban governance strategy. 11 UN-Habitat. (2022). Envisaging the Future of Cities: World Cities Report 2022. https://unhabitat.org/wcr/ 12 Wilburn, K., & Wilburn, R. (2020). ESG Reporting Using UN Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability, 15(2), 109-128. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2434859852?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true 13 Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Principles and Criteria. Investopedia. Retrieved 15 September 2022. https://www.investopedia.com/socially-responsible-investing-4689738 14 KPMG. (2021). The Future of Local Government: Embracing connectivity and customer centricity. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2021/future-of-local-government-report.pdf 15 Esmailpour, N., Goodarzi, G., & Esmailpour Zanjani, S. (2021). The model of good sustainable urban governance based on ESG concepts. Journal of Urban Management and Energy Sustainability, 3(1), 96-107. https://doi.org/10.22034/jumes.2021.249506 16 Armstrong, Anona and Li, Yongqiang, Governance and Sustainability in Local Government, Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 16(2), 2022, 12-31. doi:10.14453/aabfj.v16i2.3 3 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance The World Bank has introduced a porthole platform for available data relevant to sovereign risk ESG analysis and decision-making with on-site tools to explore data visualizations and dashboards and to engage with partners and practitioners.17 The Australian government has begun introducing legislative requirements for adopting ESG principles linked to green finance, COVID-19 recovery, and climate change.18 These requirements are related to the issue of capital in the financial markets by the public and private sectors for sustainable energy projects and climate mitigation projects. Urban governance operates at multiple administrative, functional, and geographic levels and scales. Hence, urban governance strategy is not singular or homogeneous but pluralistic, heterogeneous, clustered, layered, and diverse. It embraces a composite set of urban management strategies that operate at multiple urban system levels. Urban governance strategy needs to be conceived as a composite set of integrated urban systems strategies, bounded by sustainability principles, and designed to deliver a broad range of urban public goods and services. These strategies are managed and implemented under various public, private, and community organization partnership arrangements. Long-term thinking is required to address complex urban governance strategy challenges. The 'foresight ecosystem' is most effectively built at the institutional or system level and is meaningfully and deliberately woven into processes, structures, and mindsets.19 See the guidance notes for foresight methods,20 and the CEPA strategy guidance note for strategic planning and foresight21. The role, scope, and scale of strategic approaches and processes for urban governance are changing. Urban governance strategy extends well beyond local factors and considerations. New systems of cities and metropolitan regions are emerging, with no governance arrangements for managing these effectively. The growth of trade, travel, communications, and investment between cities at the regional, national, and global levels has resulted in urban areas that are more interdependent and connected, making them more vulnerable to disruptive events and foreign policy influences. An effective urban governance strategy, therefore, must monitor and respond to external events. Urban governance now embraces managing cities' national and international systems, but it is difficult to manage these arrangements, especially along economic development corridors transiting several countries. As a result, the urban governance strategy will need to become more dynamic, integrated, and multi-faceted as well as being more collaborative, transparent, inclusive, and self-organized. These are the issues addressed in this guidance note. World Bank. (2019). Sovereign Environmental, Social, and Governance Data: Tools, and Guidance. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/esg/ 18 Asten, H., Stutt, T., & Wootten, J. (2021). ESG reporting involves a focus on compliance with legislation and standards, addressing sensitive cultural https://iclg.com/practice-areas/environmental-social-and-governance-law/australia 19 The SOIF has developed a four-stage learning journey; cf. the work of Ozcan Saritas, who proposes a 7-step process in "Systemic Foresight Methodology," in: Meissner, D. et al, (eds), 2013, Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future, Springer, Berlin, pp. 83-117. 20 See UNDP overview of foresight tools https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-07/UNDP-RBAP-ForesightPlaybook-Appendix-2022_0.pdf 21 Available at: https://publicadministration.un.org/Portals/1/Strategy%20note%20%20strategic%20foresight%20Mar%202021_1.pdf 17 4 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Why is urban governance important? More than 55 per cent of the world's population (or 4.5 billion people) lives in urban areas. The world urban population is growing at around 1.8 per cent per year22 — a rate expected to fall to 1.1 per cent by 2050. By then, an estimated 2.27 billion more people will live in urban areas, 800 million of whom (approximately 35 per cent) will live in Africa. Urban areas are also growing at rates faster than population growth. Managing urban growth is one of the most formidable challenges facing governments globally, with the growing need for improved urban governance, management, and development of urban areas becoming more evident. With more than 75 per cent of the world's population expected to live in urban settlements by the end of the century, it is imperative to improve the way these settlements are governed and managed if the quality of life of the people living in them is to improve. Well-managed cities play a crucial role in supporting the social and economic growth of surrounding towns, villages, and rural areas. Well-managed cities are also essential in providing the policy framework and consistency of decision-making required for encouraging private and non-state investment. According to Slack and Côté,23 urban governance:  plays a critical role in shaping the physical and social character of urban regions  influences the quantity and quality of local services and the efficiency of their delivery  determines the sharing of costs and distribution of resources among different groups  affects residents' ability to access local government and engage in decision-making, influencing local government accountability and responsiveness to citizen demands. Well-managed cities can act as engines of growth and provide inhabitants with better job opportunities and improved healthcare, housing, safety, and social development. Further, cities can contribute to national growth through increased revenue generation, political stability, and post-conflict reconciliation. Conversely, poorly planned, managed, and governed cities can become centres for poverty, inequality, and conflict. Integrating framework Actors and agents in urban governance Many actors and institutions play an important part in urban governance activities and arrangements (Figure 1). Governments at all levels have a mandate and strategic role in managing urban transformation, forging partnerships, and facilitating transactions among Figures and estimates in the introduction use World Urbanization Prospects 2018 data and information available from United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs https://population.un.org/wup/ 23 Slack, E., & Côté, A. (2014). Comparative Urban Governance. Future of cities: working paper, Issue. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360420/14-810-urbangovernance.pdf 22 5 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance many organizational actors as key urban management and development stakeholders.24 City governments are the lead public actors in urban governance. They are primarily responsible for rule-setting, regulating, funding, and developing urban infrastructure; however, much of what shapes a city is outside the control of city administrations—many other actors and stakeholders are engaged in urban governance processes.25 As a result, there is often a mismatch between the functional city and the jurisdictional legal and administrative boundaries in urban areas. This gives rise to inter-governmental rivalry and conflict between levels of government, especially between local and central government agencies. Sub-national and local governments may in some countries be seen as inferior to the national government rather than as complementing tiers of government within an overall national system of urban governance. Figure 1. Actors and institutions of urban governance The market and private businesses, agencies of the central state, or the collective voluntary action of civil society determine the daily experiences of urban dwellers. However, the roles of governments in engaging in labour markets, delivery of goods and services, and basic infrastructure, land, services, housing and public safety mould the urban governance model. UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and UN-Habitat. (2010). The state of Asian cities 2010/11. Nairobi: UNHabitat/UNESCAP. 211-212 25 Devas, N., & Amis, P. (2004). Urban Governance, Voice, and Poverty in the Developing World. Earthscan Publications. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=pG5PAAAAMAAJ 24 6 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance All urban areas have significant gaps between rich and poor regarding access to social, economic, and political opportunities (particularly decision-making) and the ability to participate in and leverage the benefits associated with urban living. International actors add another dimension to urban governance arrangements and strategy. These actors influence decisions and activities related to direct foreign investment, aid, emergency management, access to finance, human rights, and environmental management related to climate change. State or local governments that choose not to consider the governance interests or concerns of international actors run the risk of losing out on investment opportunities, access to global resources, and technologies that could contribute to the development of urban areas. There is always the chance that local and broader international perspectives and interests will conflict, leaving local governments facing difficult choices about what levels of interest best serve local communities. Negotiating a balanced position between global and local actors may result in a local government compromising some community interests to gain access to critical resources and other assistance to address development problems. These are the urban governance negotiating skills that local authorities will need to learn. Scope and scale of urban governance Urban governance operates at different scopes and scales. The scope (the extent to which urban governance incorporates a broad spectrum of applications and processes) can be very broad or narrow, depending on the scale and diversity of interest, resources, and activities involved. These processes operate through the functions and mandates of organizations (formal and informal) that apply at multiple levels and jurisdictions. More detail on scope is discussed in the Methods of implementing urban governance strategy section. The scale of urban governance is related to managerial territory and administrative responsibility, which range from local urban areas to national/global systems at city levels (Figure 2). Responsibility for urban strategy at a broader scale (for example, in metropolitan regions) may fall under a regional organization of councils or development commissions. Others at a small scale are inclined to be more targeted—for example, stream catchment management might involve a local community organization and a group of volunteers established to maintain local waterways. The approach to urban governance strategy for these two examples will be different. The first will have formal governance arrangements; the latter will be less formal and more self-organizing. These examples illustrate the complexity, scope, and scale of applications of urban governance strategies. 7 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Figure 2. Scales of urban strategy Within these levels of territorial responsibility, a wide range of vertical and horizontal crosssectoral interactions between players and parties exist. When competing agendas are involved, it can be challenging for governments to coordinate different activities and decision-making styles. The design and application of the urban governance strategy must consider scale factors carefully. This calls for a clear identification of the targets and actors that should be involved in making and implementing urban governance strategies at multiple levels. The scope of urban governance includes a dimension of participation. Location and communications, access to education, skills, knowledge, and the nature of closed and authoritative government structures and decision-making processes have historically constrained stakeholder involvement in urban governance. With the global trend toward participatory governance, the widespread use of the internet and social media, and a bettereducated citizenry, broader discussion, debate, and transparency in decision-making processes have been made possible. The United Nations Urban Governance Index (UGI) 26 provides a tool for measuring some of these changes as is illustrated in Figure 3. 26 UN -Habitat Urban Governance Index and Template https://mirror.unhabitat.org/content.asp?typeid=19&catid=595&cid=6833 8 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Figure 3. Urban governance index conceptual framework Source: UN-Habitat 2003 Both the scope and scale of urban governance systems have widened considerably—especially with the development of networks replacing reliance on hierarchical lines of communication and decision-making systems. The emergence of large-scale communities-of-interest and peer to peer movements spanning beyond local interests complicates the design of urban governance strategy. The scope and scale of urban policy and governance strategy are becoming more “glocal,”27 calling for variations and combinations of local and global interests to be considered in strategy design and implementation. Public sector situation and trends The concept and scope of urban government and involvement in urban governance have changed considerably in recent years. Calls for more consultation, participation, transparency and accountability have introduced many new actors and intermediaries and shifted Gocal is a term of or relating to the interconnection of global and local issues, factors, etc.: a glocal conference on community development, or relating to the tailoring of globally available policy, products and services to local markets. Dictionary.com 27 9 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance responsibilities for planning, managing, and governing urban areas from governments to a much broader audience and set of actors. Models of urban governance There is a long history of interest in urban governance, starting with the urban growth machine theory and progressing to the theory of change and the urban regime theory. Table 1 describes four traditional models of urban governance: managerial, corporatist, pro-growth, and welfare. Table 1. Models of urban governance Defining characteristics Managerial Corporatist Pro-growth Welfare Policy objectives Efficiency Distribution Growth Redistribution Policy style Pragmatic Ideological Pragmatic Ideological Nature of political exchange Consensus Conflict Consensus Conflict Major public-private exchange Competitive Concerted Interactive Restrictive Local states in its relationships Exclusive Inclusive Exclusive Inclusive Primary contingency Professionals Civic Leaders Business The State Key instruments Contracts Deliberations Partnerships Networks Pattern of subordination Positive Negative Positive Negative Key evaluation criteria Efficiency Participation Growth Equity Source: Pierre, J. (1999).28 These models have many variations, depending on the nature of a country's political system. Countries with federated government structures tend to adopt a diversified range of models compared with more centralist and organized governments. The alignment of national urban policy and governance arrangements tends to be much more complicated, involving extensive negotiation and consultation in countries with more open, decentralized, and developed government systems. This does not mean one model is better than another. The size, population, and constitutional makeup of countries influence the choice of model. Emerging models Collaborative urban governance An emerging model of urban governance is collaborative governance. It is designed to overcome resource shortfalls, generate a critical mass of urban infrastructure and services, pool public capital, and reduce public transaction costs. For local governments, it is a way to solve common problems by using shared information and resources—especially for providing utility, emergency management, and other government services. Collaborative urban governance can be applied at different levels (for example, neighbourhood, town, city, and Pierre, J. (1999). Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics. Urban Affairs Review, 34(3), 372-396. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780879922183988 28 10 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance metropolitan levels). It represents necessary institutional reform in the field of urban governance that can make an important contribution to the management and development of cities. Box 1. Managing urban green spaces in Africa: a collaborative governance approach Africa's urban green spaces are under severe threat and must be protected. Guided by collaborative governance theory, several African cities have devised strategies to enhance the management of their urban green spaces. A study of urban green space management in several southern African cities has revealed concerns about the inadequate operation of urban planning regulations, the pressures of urbanization, and socioeconomic and political challenges. In response, the authors developed and tested strategies built on collaborative governance principles, such as facilitative leadership, dialogue, mutual understanding, consensus building, community participation, and regulation of power among stakeholders. They found that these principles increased stakeholders' commitment to activities, promoted a high sense of resource ownership, supported wider organizational networks, and enhanced the capacity for joint action to undertake initiatives or projects that could help manage urban green spaces more effectively. Source: Adjei Mensah et al. (2015). Managing urban green spaces in Africa. Several countries have introduced more collaborative urban governance arrangements to manage development in urban areas. For example, Auckland, New Zealand, has introduced new regional governance for improved service delivery,29 and Vuonislahti, Finland,30 has adopted collaborative governance models for tourism development. Collaborative urban governance models are being applied in cities in Asia,31 Africa,32 North America, Europe, and Latin America to manage the impacts of COVID-19.33 Other countries have adopted collaborative models of governance for disaster management. A local collaborative initiative in Chandigarh, India was used to address climate change by introducing solar systems.34 The Republic of Korea35 has introduced more transformative urban governance arrangements for land reclamation and community improvements. Kenya O’Leary, R. (2014). Collaborative Governance in New Zealand: Important Choices Ahead. https://www.fulbright.org.nz/publications/2014-oleary/ 30 Keyim, P. (2018). Tourism Collaborative Governance and Rural Community Development in Finland: The Case of Vuonislahti. Journal of Travel Research, 57(4), 483-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517701858 31 Roberts, B., & Addison, M. (2015). Application of Collaborative Urban Governance as a Tool to Improve the Management and Development of Asian Pacific Cities. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3799.3682 32 Adjei Mensah, C., Andres, L., Beazley, M., & Roji, A. (2015). Managing urban green spaces in Africa: A collaborative governance approach. In (pp. 205-237). 33 Cyr, J., Bianchi, M., González, L., & Perini, A. (2021). Governing a Pandemic: Assessing the Role of Collaboration on Latin American Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 13(3), 290-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1866802x211049250 34 Garg, B., & Barach, R. (2021). Collaborative governance for urban sustainability: implementing solar cities. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 43(4), 236-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2021.1925132 35 Roberts, B. H., & Addison, M. (2015). Application of Collaborative Urban Governance as a Tool to Improve the Management and Development of Asian Pacific Cities (DISCUSSION PAPER 1, Issue. https://www.academia.edu/17326857/Application_of_Collaborative_Urban_Governance_as_a_Tool_to_Improve_the_Management_and _Development_of_Asian_Pacific_Cities 29 11 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance has introduced models for collaborative urban governance as part of decentralization to improve local government information systems in cities.36 Urban network governance A substantial body of literature is available on new forms of urban network governance. This form of governance involves formal and informal coordination between actors in delivering a wide range of public goods and services. It is characterized by organic or informal social systems, in contrast to the bureaucratic government structures and the formal relationships between them.37 Urban network governance strategies can be used successfully as an integrating framework for sustainability and38 can help to focus attention on the interplay between political-economic structures and local political activities in particular places. This, in turn, helps people understand how local governance decisions are made in the face of external factors, structural pressures, and actions. Blanco states that: The proliferation of network types of governance is one of the most evident signs of such a process of change, up to the point that some consider these kinds of arrangements as a reflection of the emergence of a new global paradigm of urban governance.39 There are many good examples of urban network governance, most of which are present in developed economies. It has been widely applied to European regeneration housing and community development projects.40 Barcelona applied an urban network governance strategy to regenerate two urban neighbourhoods,41 and Vancouver used urban network governance to plan for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.42 Urban network governance has been applied to improve slum settlements in India,43 urban planning for regeneration in Chinese cities44 and neighbourhood improvements in Rio de Janeiro.45 Global and regional assessments Weinstein, J. & Goldstein, J. 2012. The Benefits of a Big Tent: Opening up Government in Developing Countries. A Response to Yu & Robinson’s The New Ambiguity of “Open Government,” 60, UCLA Law Review Disclosure, 38 (2012). 37 Jones, Candace, Hesterly, William S., and Borgatti, Stephen P. (October 1997). "A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms". Academy of Management Review. 22 (4): 911–945. doi:10.5465/AMR.1997.9711022109. JSTOR 259249. S2CID 1446183. 38 Covarrubias, M., Spaargaren, G., & Boas, I. (2019). Network governance and the Urban Nexus of water, energy, and food: lessons from Amsterdam. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 9(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-019-0196-1 39 Ibid. 40 van Bortel, G., Mullins, D., & Rhodes, M. (2009). Exploring network governance in urban regeneration, community involvement and integration. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 24, 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-009-9134-4 41 Ibid. 42 Parent, M., Rouillard, C., & Naraine, M. (2017). Network governance of a multi-level, multi-sectoral sport event: Differences in coordinating ties and actors. Sport Management Review, 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2017.02.001 43 Zérah, M.-H. (2011). I.S.A. Baud and Joop de Wit (eds.), New Forms of Urban Governance in India: Shifts, Models, Networks and Contestations. South Asia Multidisciplinary Academic Journal. 44 Zhang, W., Zhang, X., & Guangdong, W. (2021). The network governance of urban renewal: A comparative analysis of two cities in China. Land Use Policy, 106, 105448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105448 45 Paschoal, B., & Wegrich, K. (2019). Urban governance innovations in Rio de Janeiro: The political management of digital innovations. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1310561 36 12 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance The global extent to which countries and cities emphasize improved urban governance varies significantly—as do the pace and the processes involved. In their extensive comparative assessment of city governance and local decision-making models in the United Kingdom, Slack and Côté identified a wide range of emerging significant global trends, as summarized in Box 2.46 Box 2. Emerging trends in urban governance ● There are many governance institutions and decision-making models that reflect local contexts and histories and the complexity of the issues to be resolved. ● Some form of region-wide authority is essential for large cities and metropolitan regions. International evidence suggests formal regional government structures, fragmentation with voluntary cooperation, and special purpose bodies are most common. Many cities have been moving toward two-tier models and regional coordination (for example, regional authorities or commissions, among others). Globally, most cities continue to face enormous challenges in coordinating services and economic development in a fragmented landscape under voluntary partnership arrangements. ● Decentralization must be coupled with fiscal autonomy. Some countries (such as Indonesia and Kenya) have progressed with administrative decentralization; however, fiscal decentralization has been much slower in devolving revenue-raising tools to local governments to pay for their new responsibilities. ● Localization is a philosophical embrace of an agenda of devolution of functions of public policy and decision-making to the most effective level and platform of delivery: that is, local. Central to the approach is the greater involvement of citizens in governance and new relationships and arrangements among central and local governments. Practically, it embodies four broad principles: decentralization of power, better local decision-making; strengthened local democracy; and civil and community renewal.47 ● COVID-19 has impacted the re-centralization of control and resources, disrupting city governance arrangements. Many cities and local metropolitan governments, especially in poorer countries, had neither the funds nor the capacity to manage the pandemic and the economic shocks that followed, leaving central governments to play a more direct role in emergency management affairs. ● Large cities and city regions are different. They differ from other municipalities in size and density, financial and administrative capacity, and political ideology. In countries such as Spain and Germany, cities and city regions have different (or 'asymmetric') governance arrangements and powers. While there has traditionally been a diversity of governance models in the United Slack, E., & Côté, A. (2014). Comparative Urban Governance (Future of cities: working paper, Issue. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360420/14-810-urbangovernance.pdf 47 Storey, V., & Farrar, M. (2009). The New Localism in the UK: Local Governance amid National Goals. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 108, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984.2009.01152.x 46 13 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Kingdom, initiatives such as City Deals have recently sought to devolve powers and tailor policies based on local capacity and conditions. ● Central governments have a critical role in enabling the success of cities and metropolitan regions. In most advanced and middle-income economies, cities have a central place in national economic prosperity. However, the national (or sub-national) role in urban governance varies. Central and provincial/state governments play a pivotal role in inter-governmental coordination and equalization for fiscal differences, incentives for inter-municipal cooperation and governance innovation, and, in some cases, direct regional service delivery. ● Capable and visible city leadership is critical. Many decision-making models exist, and local context is important. For large cities and city regions especially, models with a directly elected mayor appear to have greater potential to provide coherent city visions, mobilize coalitions of stakeholders, and provide accountability for citizens. ● Externality factors have an increasing impact on urban and regional governance. Dramatic changes to the global economy and production systems have led to greater interdependence between cities to access the resources, goods, and services needed to develop and manage towns and cities. Climate change, access to clean water, dealing with pollution, supplying energy, and food security require strengthening external governance arrangements and cooperation between cities and nations. ● Collaborative governance is an emerging model of urban governance, especially at the metropolitan region level. The current models of urban governance are highly competitive, where local governments compete for a diminishing pool of national resources to fund infrastructure and provide goods and services for their constituents. Some metropolitan regions—for example, Southeast Queensland in Australia and Portland, Oregon in the United States—have adopted more collaborative models of metropolitan urban governance to leverage resources, share services, and develop information systems for urban development and emergency management. Source: Slake et al. (2014). Urban governance challenges Making urban governance strategies and practices more effective is not easy.48 The first challenge is to create the enabling environment frameworks for urban governance arrangements to work efficiently when external factors come into play. (The CEPA strategy guidance note on the enhancement of local capacity for prevention, adaptation, and mitigation of external shocks provides readers with more information on this issue.)49 Governments, at all levels, seek to ensure urban governance arrangements operate responsively within flexible and acceptable bounds defined by policies, customs, values, laws, and beliefs. However, when da Cruz, N. F., Rode, P., & McQuarrie, M. (2019). New urban governance: A review of current themes and future priorities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1499416 49 Add LINK 48 14 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance the boundaries of jurisdiction and authority of urban governance need to extend to metropolitan regions and beyond—for example, to cross-border cities or networks of cities— the enabling environment arrangement is much less certain. Second, how can governments integrate the strategies and decision-making processes associated with urban governance across policy and planning, resource allocation, and communication domains to make them work more efficiently? Urban governance systems that use a corporatist model of governance (see discussion on models of urban governance later in the note) based on high-level command-and-control management arrangements may work in some countries but not in others. There are also inherent contradictions in policy agendas, prioritization, and the allocation of national resources to cities and metropolitan regions. Third, there are obstacles facing stakeholders at different levels in navigating urban governance structures to produce transformative outcomes. Stakeholders and interested parties require the rules of engagement to be defined at multiple levels and scales in order for transformative outcomes to be produced. In addition, the internet and social media have changed the rules and nature of engagement to include all levels, local to global, on some issues. For example, which stakeholders and actors should be involved when an urban development proposal has the potential to affect a UNESCO World Heritage-listed site? Fourth, while the competitive model of local government drives efficiencies when allocating public resources in cities, it does not generate sustainable and equitable development outcomes, especially in metropolitan regional and secondary/intermediary cities.50 Historically, metropolitan local governments have been reluctant to share information, collaborate on planning and economic development, or share resources for developing regional infrastructure if they do not see benefits to their constituents. Self-interest and political rivalry can leave projects half-finished, with fewer regional services, inefficient use, and high costs for the delivery of local goods and services. A key issue for metropolitan regions is how urban governance strategies can create better cooperation and collaboration to build essential regional services. The growing information technology divide affects participatory urban governance, especially between the old and young, and the rich and poor.51 Finally, urban governance arrangements between cities, especially in polycentric metropolitan regions and along rivers and coastlines, are not adequately integrated. Many metropolitan management systems do not have well-developed governance arrangements for integrated planning, pooling resources, finance, or coordination of the delivery of regional infrastructure, services, and facilities. This leads to reduced connectivity, productivity, and critical mass capacity for cities52 to improve sustainability. The failure of the major cities on the Ganges River and its tributaries (upon which 400 million people, or 40 per cent of India's population, Roberts, B. H. (2014). Managing Systems of Secondary Cities: Policy Responses in International Development. Cities Alliance. http://www.citiesalliance.org/node/4972 51 Sanders, C. K., & Scanlon, E. (2021). The Digital Divide Is a Human Rights Issue: Advancing Social Inclusion Through Social Work Advocacy. Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, 6(2), 130-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00147-9 52 Ball, P. (2005). Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another. Arrow Books, London 50 15 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance depend) to agree upon an urban governance arrangement to work collaboratively on SDG target 6.1 (Universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all living in the river catchment) illustrates the need for urban governance strategies to be extended to a system of cities. The current challenges facing the development and management of urban areas require a more integrated multi-level, inclusive systems approach. Most countries' current approach to strategy design and implementation relies on the hierarchical processes and mechanisms of government for delivering public goods and services. What is needed is a shift to nested strategies that support better and more integrated functions of urban governance, are more dynamic, responsive, and efficient, and offer effective delivery of national, regional, and local public goods and services. Developing networking skills, participation, and capabilities will be crucial to meeting these challenges. Future urban governance strategies will need to be designed to be more responsive, dynamic, self-organizing, heterogeneous, and adaptive. Implementation of the urban governance strategy will come to rely on networks of collaboration, cooperation, and exchange of information, ideas, and digital platforms that connect a wide range of public and private sector and community interests. These will become common platforms for sharing ideas and technologies, with the aim of leading to greater mutual understanding, cooperation, and tolerance in bringing people together to make cities more sustainable. In the design and implementation of urban governance strategies, no one should be left behind. Methods of implementation Governance arrangements underpin the successful implementation of many types of urban sector strategies for land use and infrastructure; economic, social, and environmental planning; development; and the delivery of public goods and services. Without the support of urban governance arrangements, implementing urban policies and plans and delivering public goods and services would become sub-optimized and, in some cases, could fail. An urban governance strategy can play a significant role in: ● building vision; developing goals, objectives, and outcomes; and capacity building for planning sustainable development in cities that support the SDGs and ESG accounting ● building resilient, future-prepared, adaptable public administration organizations and governments that can act as system stewards for the future, especially around climate change issues and disaster risk management ● building mechanisms for including a wide range of stakeholders and interest groups in decision-making processes that affect where and how they live—particularly the poor, 16 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance disabled, and refugee groups, which have become marginalized and disenfranchised from involvement in the formal decision-making processes that affect their well-being ● fostering opportunities for resource leveraging, data and knowledge sharing, improved coordination, and collaboration between public agencies, businesses, and civil society groups that made the development of cities more sustainable ● increasing trust and confidence in government and buy-in from special interest groups, communities of practice, and investors excluded from engaging in decision-making processes that affect their interests ● creating opportunities for more self-organizing governance systems53 to mobilize resources through local and international networks to deal with shocks, crises, disasters, and other threats, where public resources and capacities are limited or where there is a systemic failure in formal governance arrangements Urban governance strategy an integrating concept It is impossible to prepare and implement a singular strategy for urban governance because of the diversity and multiplicity of interests, scope, parties, and stakeholders involved. Urban areas are likely to have dozens of thematic interest plans, strategies, and policies (for example, smart cities, equity, and poverty) prepared and managed by various public, private, and community organizations. Most will include strategies or policies devoted to governance arrangements. Conflicts and competing interests will inevitably arise with so many diverse elements of the urban governance strategy operating across urban areas. These conflicts and complementary elements of urban governance between strategies must be continually identified and managed through negotiation. The urban governance strategy is a concept used to harmonize, as much as possible, the myriad governance arrangements used in managing urban areas. It is, perhaps, best conceived as a composite set of integrated urban sectors or thematic strategies which operate heterogeneously within urban areas. The SDGs and New Urban Agenda provide general principles as building blocks for urban governance strategies. These principles create the catalyst for binding various independent sector and thematic elements into a more cohesive strategy. However, strategies and principles need to be contextualized and localized to the activities to which they will be applied. (See next section.) 53 Nederhand, J., Klijn, E. H., Steen, M., & Twist, M. J. W. (2019). The governance of self-organization: Which governance strategy do policy officials and citizens prefer? Policy Sciences, 52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9342-4 17 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Figure 4. Urban governance strategy as composite of multiple urban systems strategies Strategy context The uniqueness of geography and history and economic, social, cultural, religious, and administrative factors give rise to differences in local urban governance systems and strategy arrangements. These differences require a systematic approach to strategy design and implementation. The urban governance strategy for metropolitan-level regional planning requires a high level of formal cooperation and coordination between many different actors, which will change in the transition from preparation to implementation. Local area or neighbourhood urban governance strategies for crime prevention or waste management will call for less formal and more self-organizing systems of implementation. Regardless of the level or context, there is a need for well-developed policies and formalized structures to support strategy design and implementation. However, these may need adjustment when 18 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance strategies depend on higher or lower strategic orders to gain access to or mobilize resources, improve communications or implement and enforce policies and regulations. At a local level, the urban governance strategy is probably more participatory and inclusive, drawing on the community’s social capital, goodwill, and partnerships. Local urban governance strategies may offer opportunities for engaging wider communities of interest in planning, budgeting, and solving local environmental and social problems and better preparedness for emergency management responses. The approach to strategy implementation may create opportunities for self-organizing community arrangements. This may encourage innovation and creativity, especially in mobilizing local resources to match those that local and central governments can provide. There is also a shift to systems delivery of goods and services. While the design and implementation of urban governance strategies have become more integrated and nested, 54 these strategies are also becoming more hybrid with a mix of nested hierarchical and network delivery systems. These hybrid arrangements vary between countries and significantly affect the approach to different urban governance strategy design and implementation applications. Guiding principles to developing an urban governance strategy Good urban governance requires careful attention to strategy design.55 Without a standard model, it is helpful to start developing the urban governance strategy from well-established principles that already have widespread support. A key problem is the increasing uncertainty that the strategy must deal with. Historically, strategy development was guided by a vision and supported by goals, objectives, and targets. However, the need to accommodate constant change and adjustment in an increasingly complex world has demonstrated, especially during COVID-19, the inadequacy of older models. Therefore, fresh thinking on urban governance strategy is needed to focus on outcomes that permit flexible delivery models. Box 3. Building blocks of the urban governance strategy Decentralization and autonomy: Decentralization involves devolving political, fiscal, and decision-making functions from central to lower government and community representation levels.56 It enables decisions affecting planning and the mobilization and use of resources to be assigned to local governments or groups of citizens who can most effectively act on and be accountable for actions to deliver services. Autonomy is related to the quality or state of self- Chenoweth, E., & Clarke, S. E. (2010). All Terrorism Is Local: Resources, Nested Institutions, and Governance for Urban Homeland Security in the American Federal System. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 495-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909334426 55 Baud, I., Jameson, S., Peyroux, E., & Scott, D. (2021). The urban governance configuration: A conceptual framework for understanding complexity and enhancing transitions to greater sustainability in cities. Geography Compass, 15(5), e12562. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12562 56 Isufaj, M. (2014). Decentralization and the Increased Autonomy in Local Governments. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 459-463. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.490 54 19 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance governing arrangements—for example, the extent to which local governments have administrative and fiscal control over functions of urban governance. Transparency and accountability: These involve a governance system committed to maintaining a relationship of accountability to its citizens and openness in financial management involving capital works expenditure for sectors such as transport, housing, solid waste, water, and disaster management. It relates to annual public accounts reporting on expenditure, transparency in public tender processes, public fora for discussion and debate, and participatory budgeting. Responsiveness and flexibility: Responsiveness is related to the capacity and capability of governments, businesses, and civil society groups to respond to citizen needs helpfully and expeditiously. Flexibility relates to the capacity of actors/players involved in carrying out urban governance functions to respond to change or specific needs. It may include agencies ceding some powers to an inter-agency, cross-government body dedicated to tackling climate change’s potential and actual impacts, or a civil emergency. Participation and inclusion: The logic of participatory urban governance is that residents of cities and other affected stakeholders should participate in the management of public affairs financed by their money and located in their space.57 Participation is tied to citizens’ rights to information, as meaningful participation and inclusion are impossible without information disclosure. Inclusion means leaving no one behind,58 a fundamental principle of Agenda 2030 and the New Urban Agenda. Experience and support: These refer to urban governance processes that draw on people’s experiences and good practices, particularly in developing integrated and people-centred systems, resulting in innovative, creative, and more publicly accepted solutions to urban problems and effective mobilization of the resources to solve these. Sustainable and economic growth and development of urban governance for cities can be significantly improved with additional support services and resources, such as smart city initiatives, city deals,59 and new technologies. Cooperation, coordination, and collaboration: In addition to the above, cooperation, coordination, and collaboration are fundamental principles that underpin good urban governance. Collaboration is the most critical of these factors for improved sustainability, as it involves sharing resources, knowledge, and communication to leverage resources, add value, and share resources (people, infrastructure, capital) to create the critical mass of shared assets needed to support the sustainable development of urban regions. Source: Mehta (1998).60 Zientara, P., Zamojska, A., & Cirella, G. T. (2020) Participatory urban governance: Multilevel study. PLoS ONE 15(2): e0229095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229095 58 United Nations. (2016). Leaving no one behind: the imperative of inclusive development: Report on the World Social Situation 2016. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2016/full-report.pdf 59 KPMG. (2014). Introducing UK City Deals: A smart approach to supercharging economic growth and productivity https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2014/10/uk-city-deal-economic-growth-productivity.pdf 60 Mehta, D. (1998) Urban Governance: Lessons from Best Practice in Asia, UMPAsia Occasional Paper 40, Pathumthani, Thailand: UNHABITAT Urban Management Programme 57 20 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Functional and implementational elements of the urban governance strategy The urban governance strategy, as discussed earlier, is an integrating concept of composite sets of multiple urban-systems strategies. These can be developed and implemented for all sorts of sectoral, cross-sectoral, and other thematic activities. There are many guidelines for developing urban area strategies, starting with analysing problems and setting goals, objectives, and performance targets. For simplicity, six strategic functions61 of urban governance strategy are needed to support the management, sustainable development, and delivery of services in urban areas. Many of these functions are undertaken by sectoral agencies and government organizations or partnership arrangements with business, institutional, and civil society groups determined by laws, policies, and other administrative arrangements. Some require multi-sector inputs and coordination at multilateral levels. The magnitude and attention given to actions by different stakeholders and interest groups change over time. For example, the infrastructure and land planning for development is handed over to the construction sector or agencies responsible for operations and maintenance. Stakeholders' arrangements, roles, and responsibilities often change during the transfer of urban governance functions. Planning and strategy Planning and strategy are key elements of the urban governance strategy. They are concerned with visioning, facilitating, supporting, amplifying, and guarding urban governance arrangements for integrated regional development services, emergency management, resource management, infrastructure delivery, and community and social services. Within any urban system, there are an assortment of planning activities and strategies that require coordination, integration, and the identification of resource sharing and leveraging. Development Urban development means “the construction on land of improvements for residential, institutional, commercial, industrial, transportation, public flood control, and recreational and similar uses, in contrast, to use of the land for growing crops, gardening, grazing of farm animals, and other agricultural pursuits. The term also applies to the vacant ground which has been or is being prepared for urban development by such steps as subdivision into lots or plots and blocks, installation of water and sewer lines, construction of access streets, and construction of railroad spur or branch tracks.” 62 Eneqvist, E., & Karvonen, A. (2021). Experimental Governance and Urban Planning Futures: Five Strategic Functions for Municipalities in Local Innovation. Urban Planning, 6(1), 183–194. doi:https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i1.3396 61 62 Law Insider, Urban Development definition, https://www.lawinsider.com/ 21 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Urban governance functions of development are driven strongly by the political economy, especially when it concerns land conversion, development, or use changes.63 Finance All cities require sizeable public investment to improve citizens' quality of life and provide the conditions for long-term economic growth. The problem for many cities is that revenues are insufficient to meet growing public-spending needs. Most local governments rely on a fiscal framework of national grants and special transfers, which are often erratic. In many developing economies local governments are prevented from raising capital on financial markets. Urban policymaking for finance is often hampered by the lack of an authorizing governance environment—that is, a clear structure for decision-making. Institutions often have overlapping and unclear mandates over decisions that affect the city, and in many cities, existing institutional structures fail to address cross-district urban issues adequately.64 The adoption of participatory-based budgeting is a democratic process in which community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget. Residents of urban areas demand greater public scrutiny of public expenditures. Adopting ESG reporting calls for new urban governance policies and procedures for cities' public and business sector financial management, accounting, and transparency requirements. Service delivery The provision and delivery of public goods and services in urban areas is the responsibility of multiple levels of government, institutional, and private providers. The governance arrangements are complicated, often leading to duplication and conflicts between service providers. 65 If waste is to be avoided, cities need well-developed urban governance systems for service delivery that rely on good logistics, communications, technologies, and skilled people.66 A challenge for larger metropolitan regions comprising multiple local governments is to ensure the universal provision of services on a city-wide basis. This remains one of the most significant urban governance challenges for all governments in rapidly urbanizing economies. Assets (resource) management Cities consume most of the world's resources used in construction, manufacturing, food, and energy systems. The ecological footprint of cities (a measure of land required to service an individual) is 2.2 gross hectares. In many cities in developed countries, this figure exceeds 5.67 63 Boex, J., Malik, A. A., Brookins, D., Edwards, B., & Zaidi, H. (2020). The Political Economy of Urban Governance in Asian Cities: Delivering Water, Sanitation and Solid Waste Management Services. In B. Dahiya & A. Das (Eds.), New Urban Agenda in Asia-Pacific: Governance for Sustainable and Inclusive Cities (pp. 301-329). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6709-0_11 64 Rao, M. Govinda and Bird, Richard Miller, Urban Governance and Finance in India (March 11, 2010). Rotman School of Management Working Paper No. 1568858, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1568858 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1568858 65 Muchadenyika, D. (2014). Contestation, confusion and change: urban governance and service delivery in Zimbabwe (2000-2012) University of the Western Cape. South Africa. https://etd.uwc.ac.za/handle/11394/4132 66 Harpham, T., & Boateng, K. A. (1997). Urban governance in relation to the operation of urban services in developing countries. Habitat International, 21(1), 65-77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(96)00046-X 67 Global Footprint Network, https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/ 22 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Increasingly, cities require more complex urban governance resource management systems68 to administer water, land, vegetation, construction materials, energy, and human resources.69 But urban governance also involves managing built assets and facilities, which must be maintained to keep cities functioning. Connectivity The development and management of urban areas are becoming more dependent on connectivity—especially in the access and use of smart information, transport, logistics, and communications systems and technologies. Significant urban governance issues are arising regarding access rights and rapid changes to these systems concerning data security and personal privacy. As good practice, governments should consult and engage communities and interest groups on issues affecting connection, access, and use of e-based services. At the same time, information technology and communication (ITC) opens opportunities for smart urban governance70 and improved access to public services. Good governance Sustainable development requires good urban governance based on transparency, accountability, and inclusion. Good governance promotes subsidiarity, citizenship, and stewardship and ensures public goods and services are delivered efficiently and effectively. These attributes of good governance apply to the government and the public, business, institutions, and civil society sectors. Implementation elements of urban governance Depending on the application scale (single city or metropolitan region) and its nature, these elements will need elaboration and refinement based on the type and system of government, laws, administration, customs, and practices in a region relating to land access. Many urban governance functions and responsibilities are not considered carefully during the urban and regional planning, budget, and operational cycles. These elements are described briefly below: Mandates: Mandates are imposed on public and quasi-public agencies and delegated to authorities and other bodies or organizations. They define the conduct of public business concerning policies, plans, projects, programmes, and other activities related to land management and services. Many mandates are applied to sector agencies and organizations. Increasingly, however, there is a need to integrate mandates applied to planning, development approvals, operations (such as emergencies and delivery of health and education services), and CALFED as a Complex Adaptive Network for Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(3). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26268176 69 Donahue, A. K., Selden, S. C., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Measuring Government Management Capacity: A Comparative Analysis of City Human Resources Management Systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 381-412. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024274 68 70 Jiang, H., Geertman, S., & Witte, P. (2022). Smart urban governance: an alternative to technocratic "smartness". GeoJournal, 87(3), 16391655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10326-w; Relhan, Gaurav, Ionkova, Kremena, and Huque, Rumana. (2012). Good Urban Governance through ICT: Issues, Analysis, and Strategies. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/27158 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO 23 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance budgets. These need identification and careful research as they significantly affect the management and development of urban areas. Organizations: The names, structures, and reporting lines of organizations and agencies (including subsidiary bodies and delegates, both public and private) responsible for the delivery of policies, projects, programmes, public goods, and services need mapping and connections. Many organizations are linked to multiple levels of government and jurisdictions, and service delivery and overlapping functions and responsibilities are not uncommon. Eliminating duplication of urban management functions and responsibilities is crucial to reducing conflict and for more efficient service delivery. Responsibilities: Representatives are elected or appointed to central, state, and territorial parliaments and local councils to represent each level of government. Public agencies and corporations have a role in implementing policies, plans, programmes, and budgets approved by governments. More roles and responsibilities are being devolved to the private and community sectors for which prescribed urban governance powers, responsibilities, and resources are needed. Processes: These cover the procedures for implementing policy (operational and administrative) and interrelated work tasks to deliver products and services for urban areas. Processes may include planning, project, financial and resource management, enforcement of rules and regulations, procurement, monitoring, and evaluation. Many processes operate independently and in silos, which makes concurrent processing of access to land issues difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Capacities: These are the human resources, facilities and equipment, infrastructure, technologies, finance, and information and knowledge available and needed to perform governance functions concerning land to support the design and implementation of transitoriented development (TOD) projects. The shortage of resources by organizations involved with TOD projects to handle land issues is a problem that can be overcome by creating land administration teams or resource-sharing arrangements of staff, information, and technology. Framework for function, sector, and cross-sector elements of urban governance strategy design Figure 5 shows a matrix that acts as a checklist of functional, sectorial, and cross-thematic elements that must be considered carefully in the planning, designing, and implementing of urban governance strategies. Most urban governance strategies focus on specific matters or areas of concern (such as transport, urban neighbourhood renewal, or emergency services management). Cross-thematic factors, such as legal rights, connectivity, and climate change, must also be considered. Good urban governance strategies require the development of strategic architecture and design that bring together many building blocks and processes in a focused way. Designing urban governance strategies has become more an art than a science, but technologies, data, and information are indispensable. 24 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Figure 5. Relationships between functional, cross-thematic and sectoral elements of urban governance strategies Source: Author. At best, urban governance strategies should try to incorporate as many opportunities as possible for engaging multi-sector actors and stakeholders in decision-making. It is important to understand that no sector operates independently of another or has one urban governance strategy. Consequently, there is a need to consider a wide range of multi-sector factors and to develop a holistic and systems approach to urban governance strategy design. The scope and scale of the strategy affect the demand for public and private sector resources and inputs, and it takes time to implement urban governance strategies successfully. Future developments in urban governance The approach to urban governance strategy needs reform to develop models and processes that can better predict and manage uncertainty in the current context of rapid social, economic, political, and technological change. The approaches needed must become more systems driven, flexible, responsive, networked,71 self-organizing,72 and multi-sectoral.73 Formal and informal processes to accommodate these are needed. Urban systems are becoming more dynamic, digitized, and virtual. These trends will have implications for urban governance strategy and development. Urban areas, from the smallest towns and villages to megacities, have become increasingly linked through virtual communication networks, as well as trade, tourism, and other forms of interaction. The internet and social media have moved the processes from face-to-face to virtual, which illustrates the emergence of new hybrid models of urban governance. The changing nature of Parent, Milena M., Rouillard, Christian, and Naraine, Michael L. (2017). “Network Governance of a Multi-Level, Multi-Sectoral Sport Event: Differences in Coordinating Ties and Actors.” Sport management review 20.5: 497–509. 72 Rauws, W., Cozzolino, S., & Moroni, S. (2020). Framework rules for self-organizing cities: Introduction. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 47(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808320905377 73 Xue, Y., Temeljotov-Salaj, A., Engebø, A., & Lohne, J. (2020). Multi-sector partnerships in the urban development context: A scoping review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 268, 122291. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122291 71 25 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance technology and social, economic, and environmental systems and the growing influence of external disruptive events on urban areas will alter future urban governance arrangements and strategies. Monitoring these changes and emerging trends will become increasingly important in shaping every aspect of urban governance. In formulating strategies for urban governance, it is now essential to consider disruptive events, technologies, and external factors and players and how these interests and forces shape the management, governance, and development of cities. The following summarizes the factors most likely to shape future urban governance strategies. The metaverse is a new technological phenomenon tipped to impact urban areas' governance, management, and development. The precise nature of the Metaverse and other technological, social, environmental, and economic-geographic changes on urban governance is unknown. But some predictable effects are noted below for readers to consider and research further. Public leaders, business leaders, and professionals, along with a wide range of interest groups, will need to consider these emerging factors carefully in shaping future urban governance arrangements and strategies to develop sustainable cities. Smart city initiatives will become increasingly important in designing, building, managing, and operating cities. With these initiatives will come the need to develop urban governance strategies, systems, and programmes. How to engage a broad community of interest and effective learning and education measures to make citizens think and act smarter is a challenge for urban governance strategy in the future. Connectivity will play an increasing role in developing new networked systems of cities. Issues like climate change, pollution of air and water catchments and rivers, and controlling the spread of diseases will require the development of new integrated systems of cities' urban governance arrangements. Urban resilience, particularly the need for urban governance systems frameworks, will become more critical to city management and sustainable development. As cities age or the effects of climate change begin to damage infrastructure and urban settlement, urban governance mechanisms will need to be developed to manage a more inclusive and participatory process in the redesign, re-engineering, rehabilitation, and retrofitting of buildings, infrastructure, and land. Participatory urban governance is expected to become more important across all functions and implementation arrangements of urban governance. This will add to the complexity of consultation and stakeholder engagement processes and call for technological developments to categorize, analyse, and synthesize extensive inputs of qualitative and quantitative data and information. Participatory urban governance can be expected to include more artificial intelligence (AI) decision-making. It is essential for human and technological participatory urban governance processes to be balanced and always focus on the sustainable development outcomes of urban areas and not be captured by self-interested groups. 26 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Institutional reform and capacity building to support efficient and well-managed urban governance arrangements and systems are critical to the sustainable development of cities. Institutions will need a more collaborative model of urban governance that aligns with the emerging model of governance in business associated with the sharing society. Urban governance and management strategy should shift from hierarchical decision-making structures in institutional silos to a more networked, integrated, and collaborative systems approach. This is a significant future challenge involving institutional reform. Urban governance finance is a particularly challenging issue for cities. There are 92 countries under the International Monetary Fund's austerity programmes, and there is a need to significantly improve the focus on characterizing, comparing, and assessing essential governance and fiscal mechanisms in intergovernmental finance systems. Reforms to urban governance finance must strategically and pragmatically strengthen urban governments' accountability systems through better and more transparent financial management, workable coordination arrangements with key partners, enhanced citizen feedback channels, and stronger urban autonomy. The CEPA strategy guidance note on strengthening municipal finance and local finance systems contains more detailed information on finance.74 The role of the private sector in urban governance, especially the finance and ITC sectors, will be significant. With national and local governments carrying high levels of debt, many will not be able to raise capital in financial markets, meaning there is more likely to be an expansion of financial and ITC partnerships with the private sector and institutions. New fiscal urban governance arrangements will need to be implemented for these partnerships to develop. Urban governance resource management is a difficult issue for cities and urban areas. Cities are consuming non-renewable resources at an unsustainable rate. This calls for new urban governance arrangements for improved management of energy, water, land, soil, and vegetation resources. New resource urban management governance systems are required to foster industrial ecology, urban metabolism, waste materials, and product recycling. Artificial intelligence will impact urban areas’ economies, social reform, and governance. It will positively influence urban production and lifestyles while at the same time bringing significant challenges. From the perspectives of government, business, community, ethics, industry, employment, experience, philosophy, health, and innovation, the risks and conflicts of AI will shape the future of urban governance, policy, strategy, technology use, and institutional and societal relationships. 74 Available at: LINK 27 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance Case studies Many case studies can be found that demonstrate good practice applications of urban governance strategy and how these are applied in different contexts. Delivering metropolitan-wide business services: Verband-Stuttgart City Region The Verband-Stuttgart City Region of Germany is one of Europe's leading industrial locations. The region developed rapidly in the post-WWII era, but by the late 1980s, it was experiencing significant governance, structural, and economic problems. Local governments had become fractious and unwilling to cooperate and support regional industrial development. There was reluctance to contribute an equitable share of the costs of planning, providing, and maintaining regional services (transportation, hospitals, and education)—especially in the City of Stuttgart. The economic crisis of the early 1990s spurred the Stuttgart Chamber of Commerce and industry groups to press the state government for local government reform and better delivery of metropolitan-wide business and public services to support economic and social development. A provincial law created the Verband-Stuttgart City Region and Assembly in 1994 to strengthen and integrate local government functions and improve regional governance arrangements, planning, and development. The legislation created a municipal authority with the power to undertake many functions, including regional transportation, tourism, business, economic development, and planning. Arising out of Stuttgart's economic resilience was a well-established governance framework to prepare and commit to implementing a regional plan and establishing the Stuttgart Region Economic Development Corporation (WRS). WRS was established in 1995 to spearhead the region's economic development and business support activities. In recent years, it has been reformed and is now the central point of contact for investors and companies in the Verband-Stuttgart Region. Governance arrangements for pooling metropolitan finance: Belo Horizonte, Brazil In 2006, a new institutional arrangement for the management and planning of the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte was approved by Minas Gerais state in Brazil. A Metropolitan Assembly and the Deliberative Council for Metropolitan Development (a stakeholder group including the private sector) were established at that time as governance institutions of the region. A technical support institution, the Agency for the Development of the Metropolitan Region, was also established. The state's municipalities and inter-municipal institutions related to the public functions of common interest are also part of the system of metropolitan management. The system includes two management instruments: one for planning (Main Plan of Integrated Development) and one for finance (the Fund for Metropolitan Development). The state and the municipalities as a group each provide 50 per cent of the resources to the Fund. Each municipality contributes a 50 per cent share in proportion to their net income. The Fund also 28 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance includes budget allocations and transfers from the federal government but can undertake debt financing from national and international institutions and receive grants. The Fund for Metropolitan Development aims to finance the implementation of structuring programmes, projects, and investments related to the metropolitan region per the guidelines established in the Master Plan. The best practice elements of urban governance developed for pooling finance include the establishment of a structure that is independent but under effective state government control; the inclusion of civil society and private sector participants but the use of professionals to control financing; the incorporation of a general-purpose financing mechanism applicable to all sectors; and the use of clear institutional governance arrangements for revenue mobilization and fund pooling for investment. Smart city governance for integrated data management in support of sustainable development: Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan The city of Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, has developed a Sustainable Smart City Profile to strengthen its capacity to implement urban-related SDGs through the country's Urban Development, Housing, and Land Management, and innovative financing mechanisms projects.75 The Nur-Sultan City Profile presents the outcomes of the city evaluation against the key performance indicators for Smart Sustainable Cities. It proposes actions for the city to make progress toward achieving the SDGs. The initiative involves collecting urban data from multiple agencies and developing an integrated data management information system for reporting on indicators. An integration arrangement has been negotiated to secure, store, and share data from multiple agencies. Given that data play a key role in designing efficient and effective urban interventions and improving quality of life, data are being used to measure and address the high noise level in the city that causes hearing loss; the air quality associated with respiratory illnesses; and the negative effects of these issues on children's physical and cognitive development. Improving access to high-quality urban data has required improved methodologies and standards for collecting, managing, and sharing data. The long-term objective is to develop integrated systems for urban planning, development, and environmental impact assessment. Peer-to-peer learning and research Urban governance, because of its many elements, has become the focus of academic and urban development research in many countries and regions. Extensive studies are being conducted UNECE (2020). “Smart Sustainable Cities Profile Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan”, Geneva. Available https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Nur-Sultan%20City%20Profile_compressed_E.pdf 75 29 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance on different elements of urban governance in Africa,76 Southeast Asia,77 Latin America,78 North America,79 and Europe. Universities globally are conducting research into urban management. • • • • • • The Watson Institute at Brown University in the United States, and the Critical Urban Governance Program at RMIT Melbourne, Australia, have research institutes with an active interest in urban management. The China Institute for Urban Governance at Jiaotong University, Shanghai, conducts extensive research on urban governance e-policy and reform in China. The university has also recently launched a new open-access journal called Urban Governance. The Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) is developing a tool for good urban governance. The African Urban Research Initiative (AURI), based at African Centre for Cities in Cape Town, South Africa, is focusing on urban governance themes associated with violence, food for cities, and land governance issues. The Departamento de Urbanismo, at the University of Chile, in Santiago, is researching new governance for Urban Green Infrastructure Management in Latin America. Several countries support urban governance reform programmes through national research institutes and organizations. Australia has begun an extensive policy debate around the metropolitan governance challenge, examining improved policies and arrangements. The National Institute for Housing and Urban Research (AHURI) has a programme focused on metropolitan governance structures in Australian cities. The Government of Singapore's Centre for Liveable Cities and Civil Service College have extensive research and development programmes to guide urban governance reform transformation. The European Union's Urban Agenda—Multi-level Governance in Action—is supporting innovative and good governance initiatives in implementing the New Urban Agenda, as well as a range of actions and achievements so far. In the European Union, there is a trend toward strengthening urban governance, leading to a wide range of new governance bodies and arrangements in cities and metropolitan areas. Global commitments, advocacy, as well as mobilization and socialization through large networks such as Metropolis, C40 cities, the Global Covenant of Mayors, and Cities Alliance are significantly empowering cities and accelerating the evolution of urban governance toward more vertical and horizontal cooperation, knowledge exchange, and a demand for adequate resources for more and more decentralized competences and roles. The C40 cities network is Smit, W. (2018). Urban Governance in Africa: An Overview. International Development Policy | Revue internationale de politique de développement, 55-77. https://journals.openedition.org/poldev/2637?lang=de 77 Sheng, Y. K. (2010). Good Urban Governance in Southeast Asia. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/097542531000100203 78 Nieto, A. T., & Amézquita, J. L. N. (Eds.). (2022). Metropolitan Governance in Latin America. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Metropolitan-Governance-in-Latin-America/Nieto-Amezquita/p/book/9780367615673. 79 Stone, C. N. (2003). Power and governance in American Cities. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483330006.n5 76 30 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance made up of approximately 100 cities focused primarily on city responses to climate change. Metropolis is the Metropolitan chapter of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG), which is a global organization representing the interests of local and regional governments. UCLG's Pact for the Future of Humanity provides guidelines for redefining governance in partnerships between governments, businesses, and civil society. • UN-Habitat’s Urban Governance Index (UGI)80 is an advocacy and capacity-building tool to help cities and countries monitor the quality of urban governance. The UGI uses four key sets of indicators (55 in total) related to effectiveness, equity, participation, and accountability and field tested them in 24 cities worldwide in 2004. Several countries have adapted the UGI to their needs, including Mongolia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe. The Urban governance index: Conceptual foundation and field test report, released in 2004, summarizes the results.81 • In 2002, UN-Habitat82 began a global campaign for good urban governance by establishing principles based on sound intellectual and operational foundations. Based on the Millennium Development Goals, these principles provided a shared vocabulary for discussing the key issues affecting the quality of life in cities. From the outset, the intent was to develop universally relevant norms that were interdependent and mutually reinforcing and could be operationalized and readily translated from principles into practices. The principles of urban governance developed by UNHabitat focus on sustainability, subsidiarity, equity, efficiency, transparency and accountability, civic engagement and citizenship, and security. Although never adopted, they provide a good guide for government officials interested in developing an urban governance strategy. Detailed information, including practical applications, can be found on the UN-Habitat website. The principles were included in the UNDP/World Bank/UN-Habitat Urban Management Program (UMP), which ran from 1986–2006. The UMP was established to promote innovative urban management practices, establish and strengthen municipal networks, and influence local and national urban policies and programmes. As a network with over 40 anchor and partner institutions covering 140 cities in 58 countries, it provided an urban governance platform for partners to engage in work related to emerging urban themes and processes. • The New Leipzig Charter provides a strategic framework for integrated and sustainable urban development for the common good and identifies central and current challenges, such as climate change, social cohesion and digitalization. The charter includes principles, fields of action, and recommendations for goal-oriented UN-HABITAT. (2002). Global Campaign on Urban Governance. Concept Paper. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/downloadmanager-files/Global%20Campaign%20on%20Urban%20Governance.pdf 81 UN-HABITAT. (2004). Urban Governance Index Conceptual Foundation and Field Test Report. https://mirror.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/UGI-Report-Aug04-FINALdoc.doc 82 UN-HABITAT. (2002). The Global Campaign on Urban Governance. Concept Paper, 2nd Edition. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/Global%20Campaign%20on%20Urban%20Governance.pdf 80 31 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance steering of municipal transformation and governance reform. The OECD principles of urban policy sets out 11 principles centred on three key implementation elements of urban governance linked to strategy, scale, and stakeholders. The OECD has developed an implementation toolkit on principles of urban policy and a checklist for public action on principles to guide policymakers at all levels of government to implement a territorial approach to the SDGs. • Since its founding in 2020, the Geneva Cities Hub (GCH) has developed an online directory, the city networks directory, to connect cities and their networks to international organizations and actors. GCH liaises with international and regional city networks to facilitate interaction and publishes information on their missions, mandates, key projects, and contact persons in the City Networks Directory. The GCH aims to better connect all relevant stakeholders in cities and local and regional governments through an urban information ecosystem. It is a platform that pursues three main objectives: o to facilitate the participation of cities and their networks in relevant multilateral processes and bodies o to facilitate partnerships between cities, their networks, and Geneva-based international organizations and other entities o to provide a space through urban mainstreaming to discuss urban issues and enhance the visibility of the urban work of Geneva-based actors. The GCH is a handy resource for connecting urban researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to key urban network organizations. While it does not provide any guidance on the organizations listed and their respective roles, these network organizations provide online access to information, data, knowledge sharing, and research and discussion on a wide range of urban development and sustainability issues, including urban governance. The GCH is an evolving tool that facilitates understanding the activities of networks representing and working with cities and other local and regional governments and enhances their visibility in the international Geneva ecosystem. International development cooperation An extensive body of research and development is being undertaken to improve urban governance. International development agencies (including the United Nations and the International Development Bank), foreign aid agencies and departments, regional organizations such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, international businesses, universities, and non-governmental organizations are showing a growing interest in improving urban governance. 32 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance The UN-Habitat Urban Governance Index (mentioned earlier) was ground-breaking research to develop a tool to assist cities in developing indicators for measuring support needed in improving local governance. The UGI is an advocacy and capacity-building tool to help cities and countries monitor the quality of urban governance. It was envisaged as a measure of good governance and inclusiveness in cities and has been field tested in 24 cities worldwide. Many countries still apply the UGI. United Cities and Local Government Asia Pacific83 with UNDP and the Cities Alliance produce city enabling environment (CEE) ratings: assessments of the countries in Asia and the Pacific, which collates data on 11 CEE indicators for 50 African84 and 28 Asia-Pacific countries. The tool provides broad sets of indicators on urban governance performance in the strength and quality of enabling environments. The Asian Development Bank (ADB)85 has undertaken studies focusing on collaborative governance and the role of local government in increasing city competitiveness through planning, governance, and finance, particularly in small to medium-sized cities in South Asia. Studies undertaken by the ADB seek to initiate more systematic thinking on the role of urban planning, governance, and finance to overcome the challenges of urbanization, improve the investment climate, and provide more opportunities for more people, especially in small to medium-sized cities. The OECD has advanced principles to foster the monitoring, evaluation, and accountability of urban governance and policy outcomes by:  promoting dedicated monitoring and evaluation tools and/or institutions across levels of government endowed with sufficient capacity, independence, and resources throughout the policy-making cycle; and fully involving local and regional governments in these processes;  leveraging the potential of data, including smart, big, open, and geospatial data, to ground urban policy decisions in up-to-date and quality information and evidence while safeguarding the privacy of individuals;  developing a sound system of indicators, including disaggregated data, to assess and benchmark objective and subjective well-being in cities, track progress at the subnational level against national and global commitments and agendas, and foster evidence-based dialogue with stakeholders for policy improvement; and UCLGA City Enabling Environment Rating: Assessment of the Countries in Asia and the Pacific https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/city-enabling-environment-rating-assessment 84 Cities Alliance. (2022). City Enabling Environment Ratings in Africa. https://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/default/files/styles/d03/public/2022-05/CEE%20cover.png.webp?itok=vcvxqWsL 85 Wooldridge, V. C., & Lizon, T. G. (2016). Gearing Up for Competitiveness: The Role of Planning, Governance, and Finance in Small and Medium-sized Cities in South Asia. Asian Development Bank. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=wlh9DQAAQBAJ 83 33 CEPA strategy guidance note Strengthening urban governance  setting up accountability mechanisms that prevent corruption across public and private sectors, promote public scrutiny, and foster integrity in urban policy, including at all stages of public procurement in cities. Acknowledgements This guidance note was prepared by Brian H. Roberts, Emeritus Professor at the University of Canberra, Australia. During its preparation, consultations were carried out with: Aijun Qui, Deputy Director-General and Research Fellow, China Center for Urban Development; Bernadia Andrade, Secretary General of UCLG Asia Pacific; Michael Cohen, Professor of International Affairs and Director of the Doctoral Program in Public and Urban Policy, New School, New York; Michael Lindfield, Director, Urban Infrastructure Services, formerly Lead Specialist, ADB; Rene Hohmann, Senior Economist, Division Cities, OECD; Tatiana Gallego Lizon, Division Chief, Housing and Urban Development, Inter-American Development Bank; and William Cobbett, Former Director of Cities Alliance. 34