Evaluation Report 4/2019

Evaluation of the Strategic Development
Phase for the Global Future
Cities Programme
May 2019

Evaluation Report 4/2019

Evaluation of the Strategic Development
Phase for the Global Future
Cities Programme
May 2019

This report is available from http://www.unhabitat.org/evaluation
First published in Nairobi in July 2019 by UN-Habitat
Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme 2019
Produced by the Evaluation Unit
All rights reserved ©2019
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
P.O. Box 30030 00100 Nairobi GPO KENYA
Tel: +254-020-7623120 (Central Office)www.unhabitat.org

Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning
the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitationof its frontiers of boundaries. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of
the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, other UN agencies, the United Nations, or its
Member States. Excerpts may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source isindicated.

Acknowledgments
Author:Per Kirkemann

Design and Layout:

Lucy Donnelly

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND BOXESABBREVIATIONSvivii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and context
Overview of the Global Future Cities Programme
Evaluation approach and methodology
Findings on performance and achievements
Conclusions
Lessons learned from the evaluation
Recommendations

2

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and context
1.2 Purpose, objectives and scope of the evaluation

10

2. OVERVIEW OF THE GLOBAL FUTURE CITIES PROGRAMME

13

3. EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
3.1 Approach
3.2 Evaluation questions and matrix
3.3 Methodology
3.4 Limitations to the evaluation

20

4. FINDINGS ON PERFORMANCE AND ACHIEVEMENTS
4.1 Achievements of the Strategic Development Phase
4.2 Relevance of proposed city interventions
4.3 Efficiency of the Strategic Development Phase
4.4 Effectiveness in creating the programme strategic framework
4.5 Potential impact of city interventions
4.6 Sustainability prospects for city interventions

26

5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 The Strategic Development Phase
5.2 The Implementation Phase38

6. LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVALUATION

42

7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Strategic Development Phase
7.2 Implementation Phase

44

Annexes
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
ANNEX 2: LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED
ANNEX 3: LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
ANNEX 4: GFCP INTERVENTION BRIEFS
ANNEX 5: RECONSTRUCTED RESULTS CHAIN FOR THE GFCPANNEX 6: EVALUATION MATRIXANNEX 7: QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY AND SYNTHESISANNEX 8: SYNTHESIS OF CASE STUDIESANNEX 9: AFINUA KEY ITEMS REFERRED TO IN GFCP INTERVENTIONSANNEX 10: SUCCESS RATES BY INTERVENTION AND PHASE

46
46
54
56
58
60
64
66
68
73
75

vi

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND BOXES

Table 2.1

Selected SDG 11 targets

13

Table 2.2

NUA paragraphs for selected purposes

13

Table 2.3

Strategic Plan 2014-2019, Focus Area 2 “Urban Planning and Design”

14

Table 2.4

Interrelationship between pillars and clusters

17

Table 2.5

Pillars, clusters and likely overall success rate by intervention

17

Table 2.6

Project cycle assessment of maturity and capacity in the selected cities

19

Table 2.7

Overall rating of market maturity and professional capacity by city

19

Table 2.8

Budget overview for the GFCP Project

19

Table 3.1

Evaluation Questions

25

Table 3.2

Case study sample

25

Table 4.1

GFCP contribution to the SDGs

28

Table 4.2

AFINUA key elements by case study city

28

Table 4.3

Overall success rate by city

35

Table 4.4

Potential risks events

36

Table 6.1

Capacity Development Results Framework

43

Figure 3.1

Outputs’ potential contributions to outcomes21

Figure 3.2

Theory of Change Model for GFCP

22

Box 1.1

GFCP targeted countries and cities

10

Box 2.1

Cross-cutting issues

15

Box 3.1

Built environment definition21

Box 4.1

Ensuring a gender sensitive participatory approach

34

vii

ABBREVIATIONS

AAAA

Addis Ababa Action Agenda

AFINUA

Action Framework for Implementation of the New Urban Agenda

CCPU

Climate Change Planning Unit

CCR

City Context Report

CSO

Civil Society Organisation

DAC

Development Assistance Committee (OECD)

ERG

Evaluation Reference GroupEQ

Evaluation Question

DFID

Department of International Development

DIT

Department of International Trade

GFCP

Global Future Cities Programme

IGC

International Growth Centre

LCS

Local City Specialist

MoU

Memorandum of UnderstandingNGO

Non-Government Organisation

NUA

New Urban Agenda

O&M

Operation and MaintenanceOECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PDIA

Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation

ROAP

Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

ROLAC

Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

ToC

Theory of Change

ToR

Terms of Reference

TVA

Technical Viability Assessment

UPD-LabUrban Planning and Design Lab

UEB

Urban Economy Branch

UK

United Kingdom

UKBEAGUK Built Environment Advisory GroupUK FCOUK Foreign & Commonwealth Office

ULLGB

Urban Legislation, Land and Governance Branch

UMU

Urban Mobility Unit

UNEG

United Nations Evaluation GroupUPD-LabUrban Planning and Design Lab

UPDBUrban Planning and Design Branch

UN-Habitat

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

2

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARYBACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
The evaluation concerns the evaluation of the Strategic
Development Phase for the Global Future Cities
Programme (GFCP). The GFC P forms part of theGovernment of the United Kingdom (UK) Prosperity Fund
programmes. The GFCP comprises two phases: a Strategic
Development Phase (April 2018 – March 2019); and an
Implementation Phase (mid 2019-2021/22). UN-Habitat
was delegated the mandate to execute the Strategic
Development Phase of the GFCP in due coordination with
the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (UK FCO) andthe involved city authorities. The original agreement set
the duration of the assignment from April to November
2018 but was later extended to end of March 2019with additional tasks. The Strategic Development Phase
subsequently had two sub-phases: 1) the Identification
and Validation Phase; and 2) the Transition Phase.
The purpose of UN-Habitat’s assignment – termed the Project– was to translate the findings of the scoping phase conductedby UK FCO into defined and validated interventions which
are relevant and ready for moving into the Implementation
Phase. The GFCP is composed of 30 targeted interventions
within three thematic pillars – urban planning, transport andresilience – in 19 cities across 10 countries.
GFCP targeted countries and cities.
CountryCity

BrazilBelo Horizonte and Recife

TurkeyAnkara, Bursa and Istanbul

Nigeria

Abeokuta and Lagos

South Africa

Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg

Philippines

Cebu and New Clark City

Thailand

Bangkok

Myanmar

YangonVietnamHo Chi Minh City

Malaysia

Iskandar and Melaka

Indonesia

Bandung and Surabaya

The Programme aims at: a) encouraging sustainable
development, increasing prosperity, and alleviatinghigh levels of urban poverty; and b) creating business
opportunities in cities forecasted to be regional growthhubs in growing markets. While pursuing the overall
Programme aims, the Project specifically aims at: a)assessing the viability and ensuring stakeholder ownershipto derive clarity on executing the identified interventions;and b) encouraging a move towards developing sustainably,
avoiding urban sprawl and slum development.
The Project is implemented by UN-Habitat’s Urban
Planning and Design Lab (UPD-Lab) in close collaboration
with other UN-Habitat entities. The UK Foreign andCommonwealth Office (FCO) is the main partner for
UN-Habitat including the FCO posts in the selected
countries. UN-Habitat has associated with two strategic
implementing partners: the International Growth Centre(IGC) and the UK Build Environment Advisory Group(UKBEAG). UN-Habitat has, furthermore, engaged local
city specialists (LCS) – based in the 19 selected cities– to work closely with the city authorities and local
stakeholders; and UK missions in 10 countries.
As part of the transition from the Strategic Development
Phase to the Implementation Phase, it was agreed by
UK FCO and UN-Habitat to conduct an evaluation of
the results achieved during the Strategic Development
Phase. The evaluation was undertaken to: 1) assess
the performance of the Project, the extent to which
it has been relevant, efficient and effective; 2) assess
prospective changes at outcome level, emerging impact
and sustainability during the Implementation Phase; and3) to identify lessons to inform the implementation ofnext phase. The evaluation of the Strategic Development
Phase is to provide UN-Habitat, UK FCO and partners
with an independent and forward-looking appraisalof the Project’s operational experience, achievements,
opportunities and challenges based on its performanceand expected accomplishments. The evaluation
was conducted by an evaluator – selected througha competitive and transparent process – from midDecember 2018 to end of April 2019.
The independent Evaluation Unit of UN-Habitat managed
the evaluation process. The UPD-Lab was responsible forproviding information and documentation as required
for the evaluation; and for coordination with relevantinternal and external partners. The Evaluation ReferenceGroup (ERG) was established at the start of theevaluation. The role of the ERG was to ensure credibility
and quality of the evaluation. The ERG reviewed andendorsed the evaluation outputs including inception
report and drafts of the evaluation report.

OVERVIEW OF THE GLOBAL FUTURE CITIESPROGRAMMEThe GFCP was conceived by UK FCO and presented
in the Scoping Paper that outlined the identified
interventions. The conceptual framework for the GFCPExecutive Summary

was expanded further through the UN-Habitat – UK FCO
partnership as UN-Habitat was appointed the executing
agency for the Strategic Development Phase. The
overall policy development framework is constituted by
the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Addis
Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), the New Urban Agenda(NUA), the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction. In addition to SDG 11 “Makecities and human settlements inclusive, safe resilientand sustainable” the GFCP is will contribute in meetingseveral of the SDGs. The performance of ‘partnerships’
is included as an evaluation criterion – referring to the
UN-Habitat Partnership Strategy stating the importanceof stakeholder participation and partnerships towards
achieving sustainable development as expressed in the
SDG 16 and 17 and in numerous NUA paragraphs.
The GFCP supports the UN-Habitat Strategic Plan 20142019 Focus Area 2 “Urban Planning and Design”. The
Final Draft Strategic Plan 2020-2025 reiterates theimportance of ‘urban planning and design’ as one of
the fundamental drivers for change: “UN-Habitat will
promote well-planned cities and human settlements tooptimize economies of agglomeration, infrastructure
investments, increase densities when necessary,generate mixed land uses, protect the natural andbuilt environment, promote public spaces with vibrantstreets, and encourage social diversity, integration,cohesion and gender equality”.
The Project delivery model as presented in the Project
Document consists of three components: 1) The local
component which comprises the identified interventions atcity level; 2) The global component which synthesises theknowledge accumulated through the formulation of the cityinterventions; and 3: The transition training which will further
develop capabilities and capacities of senior city officials tocontribute to improvements of the ‘built environment’. The
Project objective is to identify strategic interventions in theselected 19 cities. The Project outputs are:
1. Context appropriateness validated, and technicalaccuracy of interventions tested.
2. Stakeholder buy-in documented and confirmed.
3. Capacity and capability of market to engage withand deliver the proposed interventions determined.
4. Confirmation of intervention is likely to deliver
impact to support increased inclusive and equitableprosperity.
5. Global contribution of Future Cities Programme toprosperity, SDGs and NUA assessed.
6. Capacity for implementation improved.
Well-planned and managed urbanisation can drive
prosperity, but poorly planned urbanisation leads toextreme poverty, overcrowding, congestion, pollution,and inadequate and inaccessible basic public services.
Those living in slums are particularly vulnerable, as theyusually work in the informal sectors of the economy andlack accessibility to other forms of employment. The
four UN-Habitat cross-cutting issues of gender, youth,
climate change and human rights are mainstreamed in
the GFCP interventions.
The identification of the resulting 30 interventions/projects has followed a step-wise approach in each of
the 19 cities. The steps were not necessarily undertaken
in a chronological order and some were conductedsimultaneously. The main steps were:a. Inception review and conduct of the identificationand validation tasks within the three pillars with theaim of achieving substantial impact for the cities’
residents;
b. Mapping of the professional capacity and market
maturity in 19 cities;
c. Conduct of planning Charrettes involving high-level
decisionmakers from the public and private sectors
and civil society;d. Conduct of customized training for senior city
officials;
e. Conduct of Validation Workshops to assure
consensus on the proposed projects and document
endorsement by the relevant authorities;
f. Preparation of City Context Reports providing thenecessary insights and situation analyses for the
proposed projects;
g. Preparation of ToR for each of the proposed projects
providing background, context and rationale,
objectives, scope and implementation of services
required for the further planning and detailed
design of the projects;h. Conduct of Technical Viability Assessments of theconditions needed for successful implementationof the projects throughout the three phases of the
project cycle.
Assessments were made of the participating countries
and cities with the aim to map and assess the capacity
and calibre of the built environment professions, as wellas the regulatory, policy and standards context related tothe proposed interventions. The assessment included visit
to each city, meeting with local government authorities/
agencies, professional bodies, academia and NGOs. As
part of the GFCP Knowledge Management Strategy,
the interventions were grouped into seven thematicclusters that were expanded from the urban planningand design, transport and resilience pillars. UN-Habitat
and IGC analysed each cluster and offered evidencebased recommendations to ensure the interventions’
successful implementation and maximized impact.

3

4

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The thrust of the evaluation was on the Strategic
Development Phase (ex-post), but was also to assess
the prospects for outcomes, impact and sustainability
during the Implementation Phase (ex-ante). The
evaluation ToR states that the evaluation will be basedon Theory of Change (ToC) approach, i.e. the sequenceof the pathway: activities > outputs > outcomes > andimpacts; supplemented with drivers and assumptions.
The use of the ToC approach is also a requirement asstated in the UN-Habitat Evaluation Manual (2018). The
Logical Framework as presented in the Project Document
relates specifically to what can be accomplished within
the one-year Strategic Development Phase but does
not envision the longer-term outcomes and impact forelaborating a ToC.
While the ToC establishes a framework for the change
process, changes are driven by stakeholders’ views,
perceptions and ultimately by decisions taken by theproper authorities and policy-makers. Accordingly,
consultations with stakeholders that have been involvedin the identification and validation process played
an important role in the conduct of the evaluation.
Stakeholder consultations have been undertaken througha questionnaire survey, case studies and interviews.
Stakeholders’ views may, however, change over time asa consequence of changed contexts, political priorities,
etc. Except for the Project’s outputs and the ‘expectedaccomplishment’, the Project Document presents limited
information on the results chain.
A reconstructed ‘results chain’ was elaborated which
was based on: a) the objective as stated in UN-Habitat’s
Final Draft Strategic Plan 2020-2025 and the UK FCO’s
aim of the GFCP; and b) the outputs and the expectedaccomplishment as presented in the Project Document.
The revised project objective and outcomes were derived
from the reconstructed results chain. The evaluationof the Strategic Development Phase was based on arevised ‘immediate project objective’ that reflect the
warranted situation at the end of the Project and theensuing outcomes, but which are fully consistent with
the Project’s intent. The immediate project objective
was proposed as follows: “Project concepts andcapacity developed for the transformation of the ‘built
environment’ that will contribute to improved prosperityand quality of life for urban residents in programmecities and globally”.
In connection with assessing the interventions long-term
viability, the Implementation Phase was subdivided into
three sub-phases: a) Planning and Design Phase with aduration of 2-3 years; b) Build Phase with a durationof 3-7 years; and c) and Operation and MaintenancePhase with a duration of 7-15 years. Generally,
operation and maintenance (O&M) – and rehabilitation– would be required throughout the ‘design life’ of
an intervention, the duration of which depends on
the performance of O&M, which would be crucial forthe intervention’s sustainability. The duration for the
specific city intervention/ project varies according to
the nature and complexity of the intervention and theresource availability. The Planning and Design Phase will
be funded by UK FCO, but the funding sources for the
Build Phase have not yet been identified. ToCs for eachof the identified 30 interventions can be reconstructed,
but with much more information as generated during
the Strategic Development Phase. The timeframe for thecity ToCs is 12-25 years where outcomes will start tomaterialise during the Planning and Design Phase andimpacts will emerge at the end of the Build Phase andbeyond. Outcomes and impacts will vary significantly
between the cities as a consequence of varying contexts(incl. barriers and drivers) and resource availability.
The 19 evaluation questions were structured under thebasic five UNEG evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The sequence ofthe criteria was arranged to reflect the Theory of Change(ToC) approach, i.e. output, outcome and impact. An
evaluation matrix was developed with targets and meansof verification for each of the evaluation questions. The
evaluation methodology comprised: i) interviews with
the Project team including Local City Specialists; ii)
interviews with UK FCO HQ and posts; iii) a desk review;iv) a case study of eight selected interventions; and v)
a questionnaire survey targeting the city authorities. A
main limitation of the evaluation was that no visits were
included to any of the selected cities.

FINDINGS ON PERFORMANCE AND
ACHIEVEMENTS
Overall, the six outputs as defined in the Project Document
have been achieved during the Strategic Development
Phase, but the barriers and uncertainties for achieving
the longer-term impact have also been pointed out. The
Project outputs have generated the following outcomes:
Outcome 1, Enhanced understanding of solutions tourban challenges: The cities’ active engagement during theidentification and validation process has clearly demonstrated
an increased understanding of how challenges can beaddressed in relation to the proposed interventions.
Outcome 2, A validated strategic framework for cityinterventions: The strategic framework as outlined in
the Project Document with the three pillars and further
expanded with the cluster concept constitutes the overall

Executive Summary

strategic framework which formed the basis for identifying
and validating the city level interventions. Subsequently, allcities have validated their proposed interventions.
Outcome 3, Capability and capacity developed forparticipating cities: Capability among city staff officials
has been consolidated and some capacity developed
for their future role in implementing the interventions.
There is a great variation in the cities’ existing planning,
management and implementation capacity with somecities having very competent staff and others in need ofsubstantial capacity development.
Outcome 4, Global lessons learned: A first version of
the lessons learned from implementing the Project
were elaborated in December 2018. The intent of thisversion was to carry over the lessons learned to the
Implementation Phase. These lessons mainly relate to
the process and less to the substance of the three pillars.
The policy papers deal with the global perspective, andelements from these papers combined with the practicalexperience from the city interventions could highlightthe global lessons learned in relation to the GFCP – with
due attention to how these could be replicated globallyor inspire similar interventions in country.
Overall, the four outcomes were achieved within the tighttimeframe of the Strategic Development Phase and haveestablished the point of departure for the Implementation
Phase. The strategic framework for the city interventions
will over time be influenced by external factors – all ofwhich cannot be controlled by the city authorities –indicating the need for regular review/ assessment of theevolving context with a view to ensuring the continued
relevance of the interventions through corresponding
amendments. Capacity development is a long-term
endeavour and should be emphasised throughout the
Implementation Phase. Consolidated lessons learned
combining process and substance from the Strategic
Development Phase would be a useful contribution to thefurther implementation process.

CONCLUSIONSThe Strategic Development Phase
The Project was efficiently and effectively executedand has achieved the conceived immediate outcomes,
especially Outcome 1 and Outcome 2. Outcome 3 hasbeen achieved to some extent bearing in mind that theinterventions have not yet been planned and designed,
but nonetheless awareness has been created about theimportance of having and maintaining adequate capacity.
Outcome 4 has been achieved, but the global lessons
learned need to be consolidated. The interventions may
well be replicated at either national, regional or local level

as well as in other middle-income countries, especially so
if drivers are in place to facilitate such initiatives.
Relevance: Overall the Project and its interventions
were found to be relevant relating to the needs of thecities and their residents, although the relevance could
had been further enhanced through a more direct
involvement of the targeted beneficiaries. The relevanceof the interventions is linked to prospects of these being
implementable in terms of an enabling environment,
resource mobilisation, public participation and that the
anticipated impacts are likely to be achieved.
Efficiency: Overall, the Project was implemented
efficiently – especially in light of the challenging
circumstances with regards to the timing and resource
mobilisation. The Project tasks were well phased andwell distributed between international and national
consultants/in-country staff and outputs achieved.
Administrative challenges in relation to recruitment ofstaff and travel arrangements have been overcome –although these continue to exist. The implementationof Project tasks was cost-efficient and completed
reasonably in relation to the work plan.
Effectiveness: The Project has generally been effectiveby achieving the main outcomes and by collaborating
appropriately with city stakeholders and other partners,
whose support and engagement will be essential
in the further implementation process. The project
management has not been confronted with majorchanges in the implementation approach but has
among others recognised that inclusion of vulnerable
groups should be given more attention, and that eachintervention should be dealt with and implemented ineach city’s specific context. More attention should be
paid to the proper integration of cross-cutting issues.
Impact: A major part of the identified interventions
is likely to achieve their expected results. This will inparticular be the case for cities that are assessed to havehigh or medium success rates for implementing theintervention, whereas cities with low success rates arelikely to encounter a number of constraints which may
require additional efforts to overcome. The interventions
are likely to encounter a number of risks during theimplementation process which will require mitigation
efforts to combat – not all risks may be mitigated ifthey are outside the control of the city authorities. The
city authorities are confident that the interventions
will achieve the anticipated effects and that these willmaterialise within the set timeframe.
Sustainability: The cities’ ownership and buy-in were
facilitated through an inclusive and meaningful
cooperation with city stakeholder during the5

6

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

identification and validation process, which if maintained
during the Implementation Phase would be an essential
contributing factor to achieving sustainability. The
degree of sustainability of the interventions depends
among others on how the cities will be able to copewith the various barriers affecting the implementation –the cities’ ability varies from low to high which requires
differentiated approaches to capacity development
and other support. Innovative measures that optimise
outcomes and impact throughout the project-cycle
could contribute to sustainability.

The Implementation Phase
Launch of the Planning and Design Phase: Ideally, theconsultant being invited for the planning and design
assignment for the specific interventions should review
the ToR (both those prepared by the Project team andthe contract-based prepared by UK FCO) and submit atechnical and financial proposal; among others to ensure
consistency with the intervention concept. Importantconditions for launching the Implementation Phasewould be: i) that documentation for initiation of theinterventions is adequately in place; ii) the city authorities
have the capacity to lead/guide the final formulationand implementation of the interventions; iii) consulting
services are available as required for final formulation andimplementation; and iv) M&E mechanisms are in place
to account for drivers, barriers affecting implementationand the actual results achieved.
Theory of Change and results framework: Elaboration of
a ToC and results framework for the GFCP interventions
would be essential for monitoring and evaluating theresults for each of the interventions’ sub-phases bothwith a view to document results attributable to GFCP
and lessons learned, but also to capture the need foramendments due to changing contexts and priorities
or other circumstances. The transformative effects towhich the GFCP have contributed should be reviewed
on a regular basis to assess the extent to which theenvisioned changes of the built environment arematerialising.
Funding: The degree of autonomy and revenue
generation capacity among the cities may have
limitations on the scale and duration of the intervention.
Funding options for: the Build Phase may include
international, national and local sources; and the O&M
Phase may include local revenues and user charges.
These challenges will call for varying implementation
approaches and balancing of the expected achievements
in order to enhance the interventions’ sustainability
aspects. Financing requirements and funding sources
for the Build and O&M phases should be identified
during the Planning and Design Phase and negotiations

undertaken with external and internal funders in orderto tap these opportunities and facilitate uninterrupted
implementation.
Coordination: Steering committees should preferably beestablished with regular sessions in which key stakeholder
representatives can exchange their views and agree on
modifications to the process and substance as deemed
warranted. Consultative fora for wider stakeholder
consultations could be held for general orientation if
major issues need to be debated to reach consensus
on amendments. Civil society organisations could be
invited to interact with the targeted beneficiaries andadvise on options for proper inclusion.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE EVALUATION
Some of the main lessons learned from undertaking
the Project, which would also have a bearing on
the Implementation Phase, are: i) More attention to
the longer-term perspectives through a Theory of
Change approach would be useful for determining
the scope of the interventions and the continued
dialogue with city authorities and city stakeholders; ii)
More attention should be paid to vulnerable groups
from the outset of the identification phase and moreinsight provided through application of community
participatory approaches; iii) Cross-cutting issues should
be better incorporated in the intervention design; iv)
Facilitation of the city authorities’ participation in theconceptualisation and identification process throughan inclusive approach has proved useful for creating
commitment and ownership; v) Context specificidentification of the interventions related to the cities’
current situation and warranted future scenario provides
a more realistic background for workable solutions; vi)
The cities’ enabling environment and resource base –financial and human resources – varies considerably
which call for differentiated development approaches.

RECOMMENDATIONSStrategic Development Phase
The Project could be further accomplished by undertaking
the following recommendations, which would be usefulfor the Implementation Phase and for replication of the
GFCP identification process:1. The City Context Reports should be consolidated byintegrating complementary aspects from the interventions’
ToR as well as from the Technical Viability Assessment
reports. The consolidated City Context Reports would
thus serve as a means of baseline information.

Executive Summary

2. The cluster policy papers should be finalisedby combining IGC and UN-Habitat inputs. The
compendia of pillar and cluster policy papers
should be assembled with an introduction of thepapers’ interlinkages and explain how the cluster
policy papers complement the pillar policy papers.
3. A synthesis of experiences on how the Project’s
approach and methodology evolved compared towhat was planned in the Project Document should be
elaborated in a “Completion Report”. Lessons learnedon how issues related to the three pillars’ substancehave been tackled could be a useful contribution.

The Implementation Phase

8. In cases where more than one intervention will
be implemented in a selected city, potential
synergies should be explored both as regards
substance and sharing of team inputs toenable a holistic approach where feasible.
9. Budgets for the interventions should be prepared
for the Build Phase and O&M Phase respectively.
Internal and external funding sources should
be identified and preliminary negotiations with
development banks and potential development
partners should be initiated – with a view to ensuringthat financing will be available. In cases where
this is not likely to happen fully, the scope of theintervention should be modified to correspond to
the funding that realistically can be made available.

The below recommendations concern the partners
engaged in the Implementation Phase. UK FCO willbe the lead partner and executing agency for the
Implementation Phase; and be the signatory of the
MoUs with city authorities and of consultancy contracts
with consulting consortia:

10. Coordination mechanisms should be put in placethat ensure that the city authorities’ ownership isfully respected, activities are well coordinated by
implementing partners and city stakeholder, andif need be that conflicting views can be resolved.

4. MoUs between UK FCO and city authorities
should ideally be finalised before the launchof the Planning & Design Phase to confirm
the city authorities’ commitment for carrying
the interventions through to the O&M Phase;and for outlining the mutual obligations.

11. The option to include local CSOs and NGOs should
be considered when community participation isessential for finding appropriate solutions thatmeet the need of the targeted beneficiaries
and achieving consensus. Agreements should
be made with the city authorities on the rightprocess to engage with the targeted beneficiaries.

5. The consultants that will be invited to undertakethe intervention assignments for the Planning& Design Phase should ideally before theaward of the contract prepare technical andfinancial proposals that outline approach andmethodology – following a ToC approach.
Preferably, the consultant should liaise with thecity authority in the process of preparing the
proposal and cooperate with national consultants.

12. The complementary role of the strategic partner
should be clearly defined in relation to the
Planning & Design consultant; and similarly,
the mandate vis-à-vis UK FCO HQ and posts,
design consultants/service provider and city
authorities should be clearly spelled out in the
MoU between the strategic partner and UK FCO.

6. The design and planning of the cities’ interventions
should take the varying level of viability into
consideration (i.e. viability assessment factorsof professional capacity, market maturity andpreparedness, spatial context, financial capacity andlegal condition), as the viability will influence what
can realistically be implemented. The factors couldchange over time either positively or negatively.
7. A ToC diagram and results framework for the
Implementation Phase by sub-phase with indicatorsand targets should be developed for monitoring theresults attributable to the GFCP interventions andthe transformative effects – including integration ofvulnerable groups and mainstreaming of the crosscutting issues.

13. Besides the complementary role, the strategic partner
should monitor the change process prompted by
the planning and design of the interventions as well
as changes of the enabling environment and thegeneral context – including capacity development.
14. The strategic partners should facilitate theknowledge management concerning results
and implementation processes as derived from
‘implementing’ the interventions.

7PROPOSEDINTERVENTIONS WITHINTHE GLOBAL FUTURE
CITIES PROGRAMME

10

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXTThis Evaluation Report concerns the evaluation of theStrategic Development Phase for the Global Future
Cities Programme (GFCP). The GFCP forms part of theGovernment of the United Kingdom (UK) Prosperity
Fund1 programmes, which besides GFCP consist of
global programmes dealing with the following themes:
anti-corruption, better health, infrastructure, skills, andtrade. The Prosperity Fund supports the UN Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG) as well as the UK Aid
Strategy. The Prosperity Fund focuses on middle-income
countries that face considerable challenges such as
rapid urbanisation, climate change, high and persistentinequality, and with large numbers of people living inpoverty and where there is a potential for inclusive andsustainable growth. The spending of funds will meetthe eligibility requirements of the Official Development
Assistance ODA (ref. OECD/DAC: aid that promotes
and specifically targets the economic development andwelfare in developing countries).2
The GFCP comprises two phases: a Strategic
Development Phase (April 2018 – March 2019); and an
Implementation Phase (mid 2019-2021/22). UN-Habitat
was delegated the mandate to execute the Strategic
Development Phase of the GFCP in due coordination with
the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (UK FCO) andthe involved city authorities.3 The original agreement set
the duration of the assignment from April to November
2018, but was later extended to end of March 2019with additional tasks. The Strategic Development Phase
subsequently had two sub-phases: 1) the Identification
and Validation Phase; and 2) the Transition Phase.4
UN-Habitat applied the term ‘Project’ to distinctly define
the scope of the Strategic Development Phase andassociated roles and responsibilities of the implementing
1
2
3

4

The Prosperity Fund was announced as part of the UK
Government 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Source: GOV.UK. November 2018. Cross-Government Prosperity
Fund: further information.
On 6 April 2018, FCO and UN-Habitat signed the Contribution
Agreement and the MoU, in which FCO requested UNHabitat to undertake the Strategic Development Phase of theProsperity Fund Global Future Cities Programme. Furthermore,
FCO requested UN-Habitat to collaborate with the UK Built
Environment Advisory Group (UKEAG) and the International
Growth Centre (ICG) a partnership between the London Schoolof Economics (LSE) and Oxford University.
The duration of the Project was initially set to be from April to
November 2018 but was extended to 31 March 2019 toallow for a continued process and smooth transition phase to
the Implementation Phase.

partners as elaborated in UN-Habitat’s Project Proposal.5
The thrust of GFCP will be on SDG 11: “Make cities
and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient andsustainable” while also contributing to other SDGs. The
purpose of the Project was to translate the findings ofthe scoping phase conducted by UK FCO into definedand validated interventions which are relevant andready for moving into the follow-up phase of bidding
and implementation6 – the Implementation Phase.
The Global Future Cities Programme is composed of 30
targeted interventions within three thematic pillars –urban planning, transport and resilience – in 19 cities
across 10 countries, see Box 1.1. The Programme aims
at: a) encouraging sustainable development, increasing
prosperity, and alleviating high levels of urban poverty;
and b) creating business opportunities in cities forecasted
to be regional growth hubs in growing markets.7
Box 1.1: GFCP targeted countries and cities.
CountryCity

BrazilBelo Horizonte (1) and Recife (1)2TurkeyAnkara (2), Bursa (2) and Istanbul (2)6Nigeria

Abeokuta (2) and Lagos (2)4South Africa

Cape Town (1), Durban (2) andJohannesburg (2)5Philippines

Cebu (1) and New Clark City (1)2Thailand

Bangkok (3)3Myanmar

Yangon (1)1VietnamHo Chi Minh City (2)2Malaysia

Iskandar (1) and Melaka (1)2Indonesia

Bandung (1) and Surabaya (2)Total

No. of interventions

330

While pursuing the overall Programme aims, the Project
specifically aims at: a) assessing the viability and ensuring
stakeholder ownership to derive clarity on executing the identified
interventions; and b) encouraging a move towards developing
sustainably, avoiding urban sprawl and slum development.8 The
project team works with partner city governments and wider
stakeholders to confirm the relevance of the interventions.
5

6
7
8

UN-Habitat. March 2018. Prosperity Fund Global Future Cities
Programme: Strategic Development Phase – UN-Habitat Project
Proposal for the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. (NB:
The first version of 1 February 2018 was replaced by an updated version of 21 March 2018). Subsequently, a Project
Document was prepared, “UN-Habitat. March 2018. Strategic
Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme:
Project Document”. Since the Project Proposal is attached to the
UK FCO – UN-Habitat MoU for the execution of the Strategic
Development Phase of the GFCP, it is assumed that the Project
Proposal will override the Project Document if significant differences occur.
UN-Habitat. October 2018. Terms of Reference: Evaluation of
the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities
Programme.
Ibid., footnote 5, Section 1.1.
Terms of Reference: Section 1, Background and Context, 2ndpara.

Introduction

Project management: UN-Habitat is the executing
agency of the Strategic Development Phase – termedthe ‘Project’. The Project is implemented by the Urban
Planning and Design Lab (UPD-Lab) located in the
Urban Planning and Design Branch (UPDB) in close
collaboration with UN-Habitat’s regional and country
Offices, UPDB’s Climate Change Planning Unit (CCPU),
the Urban Mobility Unit (UMU) in the Urban Basic
Services Branch (UBSB), Urban Economy Branch (UEB)
and the Urban Legislation, Land & Governance Branch(ULLGB). The Project team coordinates and cooperates
with the UN-Habitat Headquarters (HQ), regional andcountry offices as pertinent.
The UK FCO is the main partner for UN-Habitat. Liaison
with the FCO posts in the selected countries took place
on a regular basis (where relevant, FCO posts coordinatedwith embassy staff representing the Department forInternational Development (DFID) and the Department
for International Trade (DIT). UN-Habitat has associatedwith two strategic implementing partners: theInternational Growth Centre (IGC) and the UK Build
Environment Advisory Group (UKBEAG). Together
with UN-Habitat the IGC has addressed knowledge
management of the GFCP to create a good foundation
for a ‘strategic partner’ for the Implementation Phase.9
The UKBEAG has collaborated with UN-Habitat on
assessment of professional capacities and market
maturity in the selected cities. The Project has engaged
local city specialists (LCS) – based in the 19 selected
cities – to work closely with the city authorities and local
stakeholders; and UK missions.
The Evaluation process: As part of the transition fromthe Strategic Development Phase to the Implementation
Phase, it was agreed by UK FCO and UN-Habitat toconduct an evaluation of the results achieved during theStrategic Development Phase. UN-Habitat commissioned
the evaluation which is characterised as ‘centralised
evaluation’ managed by UN-Habitat’s Evaluation Unit
to assess the Project’s relevance, performance andthe likely contributions to the identified programmeinterventions.10 The purpose, objectives and scope ofthe evaluation are as stated in the Terms of Reference(ToR) dated October 2018, attached as Annex 1. The
evaluation covers the whole period of the projectfrom April 2018 to March 2019 and is expected toassess achievements, performance, challenges andopportunities of the project through an in-depth
evaluation of results achieved.
The evaluation consultant, Per Kirkemann11 was selected
9

UN-Habitat. March 2018. Project Proposal, ProgrammeManagement Structure, p. 16.
10 Centralized evaluations are independent assessments managed
by the UN-Habitat Evaluation Unit with support of external
evaluators. Source: UN-Habitat Evaluation Manual (2018) p.14.
11 Per Kirkemann, Partner of Nordic Consulting Group, Denmark

through a competitive and transparent process andcommenced the assignment on 10 December 2018.
The launch meeting took place on 20 December withmembers from the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG)and staff from the UN-Habitat Evaluation Unit.
The evaluation’s Inception Report was adopted at the
ERG meeting on 13 February and concluded on 14
February 2019 with submission of the final Inception
Report. The Evaluation Report takes its point of departurefrom the Inception Report. The List of Persons Consulted
is attached as Annex 2 and the List of Documents
Consulted as Annex 3.
Outline of the Evaluation Report: Chapter 1 outlines the
background and context for the evaluation with Section
1.2 presenting the scope and objective. Chapter 2 presents
a brief overview of the GFCP outlining UN-Habitat’s
mandate for executing the Strategic Development Phaseand the implementation approach. Chapter 3 outlines
the evaluation approach and methodology, including
considerations on the application of a Theory of Change(ToC) approach and the elaboration of the Evaluation
Matrix. Chapter 4 presents the findings based on thedesk review, questionnaire survey and interviews withstakeholders. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions onachievements and performance and transition to the
Implementation Phase. Chapter 6 elaborates on thelessons learned for replication and observations for
the Implementation Phase. Finally, Chapter 7 presents
the recommendations for concluding the Strategic
Development Phase and transition to the Implementation
Phase. The Case Study Report is submitted as a separate
volume to Evaluation Report.
The evaluator would like to express his thanks toeveryone met during the assignment for allocating
their valuable time and for sharing their knowledge andexperience. The Evaluation Report presents the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the evaluator andpresents views, which may not necessarily be shared by
UN-Habitat and UK FCO.

1.2 PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE
EVALUATION
Mandate and purpose: The evaluation was undertaken
to: 1) assess the performance of the Project, the extent
to which it has been relevant, efficient and effective; 2)
assess prospective changes at outcome level, emerging
impact and sustainability during the Implementation
Phase12; and 3) to identify lessons to inform the
12 The emerging impact in terms of transforming thecities’ ‘built environment’ will only occur during and after the
Implementation Phase. The GFCP is at the identification/
conceptualisation stage during which the emerging outcomes
and impact are elaborated and thus form the baseline for thechange process.

11

12

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

implementation of next phase. The evaluation will also
use the criteria of partnerships13 as well as assess how
the cross-cutting issues of gender, human rights, youth
and climate change were elements of the project. The
sharing of findings from the evaluation will inform UNHabitat, UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office/ Prosperity
Fund Global Future Cities Programme, International
Growth Centre, UK Built Environment Advisory Groupand other key stakeholders, including governing bodies
and Member States, on what was achieved and learned
from the project.
Objective of the evaluation: The evaluation of theStrategic Development Phase is to provide UN-Habitat,
UK FCO and partners with an independent and forwardlooking appraisal of the Project’s operational experience,achievements, opportunities and challenges basedon its performance and expected accomplishments.
What is learned from the evaluation findings are
expected to be – one of various sources of information– informing UN-Habitat’s future engagement in similar
projects and the next phase of this Project, influencing
strategies, adjusting and correcting as appropriate,
exploiting opportunities, replicating and up-scaling theimplementation approach used, and generating credible
value for targeted beneficiaries and addressing nationalsustainable urbanization priorities. The evaluation results
will also contribute to UN-Habitat’s planning, reporting
and accountability.14
Key objectives of evaluation are:a. To assess the achievement of the expected outcome
and performance of the Project identifying
strategic interventions in 19 cities. This will entail
analysis of delivery of outputs, achievement of theoutcome and viable ‘pro-poor’ projects identified
in the 19 participating cities and this will entail
an assessment of the stakeholder engagement
process through charrettes and workshops.
b. To assess the extent to which the Strategic
Development Phase has created ‘value-for-money’supporting alleviation of poverty and if theparticipatory approach and tools used during theimplementation have worked well or not in guiding
13 Reference is made to the UN-Habitat Partnership Strategy.
March 2017. Promoting Strategic and Effective Partnerships towards the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. The key
category of partnerships in relation to GFCP will be the city authorities.
14 Terms of Reference: Section 3, 1st para. The next phase of the
Project is the Implementation Phase for which UK FCO willbe the executing agency. The evaluation is an ex-post evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase and an ex-ante evaluation of the Implementation Phase – or as stated in the ToR ‘aforward-looking appraisal’. The results of the planning and design of the 30 interventions may call for an in-depth appraisal ofeach intervention.

national planning partners and private sector
to identify viable project/ activities at city level.
c. To make recommendations based on the findingsof the evaluation, on what needs to be done toeffectively plan, implement, promote, monitor andreplicate project activities, including new proposals
for future collaboration.
Management and conduct of the evaluation: The
independent Evaluation Unit of UN-Habitat managed
the evaluation process. The UPD-Lab was responsible forproviding information and documentation as required
for the evaluation; and for coordination with relevantinternal and external partners. The ERG was establishedat the start of the evaluation process with members
representing the Project team, representatives fromthe UK FCO, and staff from the Urban Planning and
Design Branch, Urban Economy Branch, Urban Basic
Services Branch and the Urban Legislation, and Land
and Governance Branch as well as the Evaluation Unit.
The role of the ERG was to ensure credibility and qualityof the evaluation. The ERG reviewed and endorsed theevaluation outputs including inception report and draftsof the evaluation report.

Overview of the Global Future Cities Programme

2. OVERVIEWOF THE GLOBAL
FUTURE CITIESPROGRAMME
Project conception and policy framework: The GFCP
was conceived by UK FCO and presented in the Scoping
Paper.15 The conceptual framework for the GFCP was
expanded further through the UN-Habitat – UK FCO
partnership as UN-Habitat was appointed the executing
agency for the Strategic Development Phase. The
overall policy development framework is constitutedby the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)16, theAddis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA)17, the New Urban
Agenda (NUA)18, the Paris Agreement19 and the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction20. References are
made to specific SDG targets and NUA paragraphs in
the ToR for the evaluation and project documents, see
Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 respectively. The performanceof ‘partnerships’ is included in the ToR as an evaluation
criterion – referring to the UN-Habitat Partnership
Strategy21 stating the importance of stakeholder
participation and partnerships towards achieving
sustainable development as expressed in the SDG 16
and 17 and in numerous NUA paragraphs. In addition
to SDG 11, the GFCP is likely to contribute in meetingseveral of the SDGs.

15 An overview of the proposed interventions identified by UK FCO
as presented in the Scoping Paper is attached as Annex A to theProject Document.
16 United Nations. 2015. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
17 United Nations. 2015. Addis Ababa Action Agenda. The Action
Agenda establishes the foundation to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by providing a new global framework for financing sustainable development.
18 United Nations. October 2016. New Urban Agenda – Habitat III.
19 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
December 2015. Paris Agreement.
20 United Nations. March 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2015-2030.
21 UN-Habitat. April 2017. UN-Habitat Partnership Strategy:
Promoting Strategic and Effective Partnerships towards the
Implementation of the New Urban Agenda.

Table 2.1: Selected SDG 11 targets.
SDG 11Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

SDG 11.2

By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable,
accessible and sustainable transport systems
for all, improving road safety, notably by
expanding pubic transport, with attention to
the needs of those in vulnerable situations,
women, children, persons with disabilities
and older persons.

SDG 11.3

By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainableurbanisation and capacity for participatory,
integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all
countries.

SDG 11.7

By 2030, provide universal access to safe,
inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women andchildren, older persons and persons withdisabilities.

SDG 11.aSupport positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban
and rural areas by strengthening nationaland regional development planning.

SDG 11.bBy 2020, Substantially increase the numberof cities and human settlements adopting
and implementing integrated policies andplans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climatechange, resilience to disasters, and develop
and implement, in line with the Sendai
Framework for disaster risk reduction 20152030, holistic disaster risk management at
all levels.

Table 2.2: NUA paragraphs for selected purposes.
NUA purpose

NUA paragraphs

NUA paragraphs for ‘global
priorities’ referred to in the
Project Document1

13 (a-d), 13 (f-h), 14 (b-c),
15 (c iii-iv), 19, 32, 37, 44,
49-52, 54, 58, 59, 63, 65,
67-71, 77, 88, 95-103, 112114 (a + c), 115, 117, 118,
123-125

NUA paragraphs referred toin the UN-Habitat Partnership Strategy2

1, 4-6, 11, 15, 21, 91, 96,
126, 128, 149, 153, 154,
162, 163, 165, 168, 169,
171 and 172
Notes: 1) Project Document, Section 2.4 Alignment, p.10. 2)
UN-Habitat Partnership Strategy, Introduction, p.5.

The GFCP supports the UN-Habitat Strategic Plan 20142019 Focus Area 2 “Urban Planning and Design”, see
Table 2.3. The Final Draft Strategic Plan 2020-2025
reiterates the importance of ‘urban planning and design’
as one of the fundamental drivers for change: “UNHabitat will promote well-planned cities and human

13

14

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

settlements to optimize economies of agglomeration,
infrastructure investments, increase densities whennecessary, generate mixed land uses, protect thenatural and built environment, promote public spaces
with vibrant streets, and encourage social diversity,
integration, cohesion and gender equality”.22
Table 2.3: Strategic Plan 2014-2019, Focus Area 2“Urban Planning and Design”.
Expected accomplishments

Indicator

EA 2.1: Improved national urban
policies and spatial frameworks
for compact, integrated andconnected cities adopted bypartner metropolitan.

Numberofpartner
metropolitans, regionaland national authorities
that
have
adoptednational urban policies or
spatial frameworks that
support integrated andconnected cities.

EA 2.2: Improved policies, plansand designs for integrated andconnected cities and connectedneighbourhoods adopted bypartner cities.

Numberofpartnercities that have adopted
policies, plans and designfor compact, integrated
and connected cities andneighbourhoods.

EA 2.3: Improved policies, plans
and strategies that contributeto the mitigation of andadaptation to climate change
adopted by partner city, regionaland national authorities.

Number of partner city,
regional and national
authorities that haveadopted policies, plansandstrategies
that
contribute to climatechange mitigation andadaptation.

The Project delivery model: The Project consists ofthree components: 1) The local component which
comprises the identified interventions at city level;2) The global component which synthesises theknowledge accumulated through the formulation of
the city interventions and the associated partnerships,
from which overarching programme recommendations
will be derived and which in turn will inform the M&E
architecture for the implementation phase; and 3)
The transition training which will further develop
capabilities and capacities of senior city officials tocontribute to improvements of the ‘built environment’in relation to the short-term city interventions and thelong-term transformation. The interventions will observe
environmental safeguards, social safeguards, genderequality, youths and human rights.

22 UN-Habitat. 2018. The Strategic Plan 2020-2025: Final Draft(paragraph 150).

A number of risks have been identified mainly related
to the competence of city staff, organisational capacity,
adequacy of policy instruments, adequacy of financial
resources, unintended environmental impacts, andunforeseen political interferences.
Project objective, expected accomplishment andoutputs:23 The Project objective is to identify strategicinterventions in 19 cities as part of the Strategic
Development Phase of the GFCP (the Project objective
indicates an activity as opposed to the situation to beachieved at the end of the Project). These interventions
aim to encourage a move towards developing sustainably,
avoiding urban sprawl and slum developments, andachieve inclusive prosperity whilst alleviating highlevels of city poverty. The programme will contributesignificantly to achieving the Sustainable Development
Goals and implementation of the New Urban Agenda.
The expected accomplishment – generated as a result of
the six outputs is: “Enhanced understanding of solutions
to challenges for congestion, pollution, urban sprawl,
lack of accessible services, poor planning and land
management and inability to respond to the impacts ofgrowth, climate change and natural disasters in selected
cities”.24 The Project outputs are:
1. Context appropriateness validated, and technicalaccuracy of interventions tested.
2. Stakeholder buy-in documented and confirmed.
3. Capacity and capability of market to engage withand deliver the proposed interventions determined.
4. Confirmation of intervention is likely to deliver
impact to support increased inclusive and equitableprosperity.
5. Global contribution of Future Cities Programme toprosperity, SDGs and NUA assessed.
6. Capacity for implementation improved.
Cross-cutting issues:25 Well-planned and managed
urbanisation can drive prosperity, but poorly planned
urbanisation leads to extreme poverty, overcrowding,congestion, pollution, and inadequate and inaccessible
basic public services. Those living in slums are particularly
vulnerable, as they usually work in the informal sectorsof the economy and suffer from lack of access to otherforms of employment. The four cross-cutting issues of
UN-Habitat as mainstreamed in the GFCP are presented
in Box 2.1.

23 As elaborated in the Project Document.
24 UN-Habitat. March 2018. Project Document, Executive
Summery, p. 2; and ToR. Background and Context, p. 1.
25 Excerpts from the Project Document, p. 23-26

Overview of the Global Future Cities Programme

Box 2.1: Cross-cutting issues.
Gender: Gender inequality is a crucial aspect to understand in urban contexts. Urbanisation does not impact genders equally.
Women move to urban areas for a number of different reasons, such as to seek higher income, to flee conflict, to avoid
environmental degradation, or to escape family and discrimination problems. While many of them hope to find economic
stability in cities, a majority ends up in urban slums in which housing and living conditions are especially harsh. Gender neutral
approaches to urban planning often lead to unequal gender outcomes which systematically disadvantage poor people andtherefore, women. Adopting a gender sensitive approach is key to address the systemic constraints that contribute to persistentgaps in women’s economic opportunities. The aim is to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls inorder to fully harness their vital contribution to sustainable development by readdressing the way cities and human settlements
are planned, designed, financed, developed, governed and managed. Urban planning tools that are successfully applied andwhich includes gender mainstreaming can have the transforming power to positively impact the lives of women and girls. It is
crucial to create public spaces that are safe and equal to all. Women and men have different mobility needs and women tend
to have limited access to private motorisation due to cultural, social and economic reasons. Improvements to public transport,
if designed based on gender specification, can bring disproportionate benefits to women.
Youth: It is estimated that by 2030, as many as 60% of all urban dwellers will be under the age of 18. Unfortunately, it is notoften noted that youth are society’s most essential and dynamic human resource. The potential of the youth is a major force forcreating a better urban future. It is noted that youth needs open public spaces (e.g. parks, beaches, squares, plazas, sidewalks,public libraries, streets) where they can access freely and in which they can interact with each other and be active. Reserving
space for open public space, including sport facilities and other public facilities is beneficiary especially for the youth. A goodurban plan can also improve the economic opportunities and build better future for the youth. Moreover, compact, walkablecities with good public transportation system and cycle route network will give more freedom and will empower youth. Youth as
stakeholders/ target group is an important part of the participatory planning process for example in the community workshops
and town hall meetings. The aim is to empower and build capacity of the youth, as well to train local governments on theimportance of engaging youths to implement real change.
Climate change: Some cities lack strategies to address increased flooding due to climate change. The aim is to support Climate
Change resilience policies and plans including flood control. Some cities lack an integrated strategy to address climate change
effects. The aim is to support development of a low carbon strategy roadmap, leading to reduction of traffic congestion,
improvement of air quality, improvement in business environment, and adapted response to climate change events.
Human rights: The challenges of urbanization, such as rising inequality and the prevalence of slums, are symptoms of a larger
deficit to respect human rights in cities, particularly the right to adequate housing and the right to safe drinking water andsanitation. Sustainable urban planning is the base of securing adequate housing for all. Moreover, right to safe water andsanitation can be secured through adequate urban planning. Planned cities and city extensions can reduce the scale of informal
settlements and the lack of urban basic services. Urban planning can also secure land ownership rights and ensure that evictions
or disruption of livelihoods are limited. The aim is to support to ensure participation of vulnerable groups in the planning
process, as well the aim is to analyse the roles, relationships and capacities of rights-holders and duty-bearers.
Source: GFCP Project Documents, p. 23-26.

The Project partners: The two main GFCP partners
were UN-Habitat and UK FCO. Two essential strategic
partners were: 1) The International Growth Centre (IGC)
which is operated by the London School of Economics
and Oxford University. ICG is part of an international
network of researchers and policy experts and has
promoted the ‘Cities that Work’ initiative. IGC developeda policy-oriented ‘knowledge management’ guidethat would facilitate better policy decisions on urban
development issues and assisted with context analysis in
the 19 cities; and 2) The UK Built Environment Advisory
Group (UKBEAG) which is a collaboration between theRoyal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the Royal
Town Planning Institute (RTPI) and the Institution of

Structural Engineers (IStrucE). UKBEAG was created totransfer built environment expertise to professionals indeveloping countries. UKBEAG collaborated with UNHabitat on assessment of professional capacities in theregion/country and assisted with capacity development.
UN-Habitat entered into ‘Agreement of Cooperation’with IGC and UKBEAG respectively which defined theirroles and responsibilities.

15

16

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

City level identification process: The identification of theresulting 30 interventions/projects has followed a stepwise approach in each of the 19 cities. The steps were
not necessarily undertaken in a chronological order andsome were conducted simultaneously. The main steps
were:a. Inception review and conduct of the identificationand validation tasks within the three pillars with theaim of achieving substantial impact for the cities’
residents;
b. Mapping of the professional capacity and market
maturity in 19 cities;
c. Conduct of planning Charrettes involving high-level
decisionmakers from the public and private sectors
and civil society;d. Conduct of customized training for senior city
officials;
e. Conduct of Validation Workshops to assure
consensus on the proposed projects and document
endorsement by the relevant authorities;
f. Preparation of City Context Reports providing thenecessary insights and situation analyses for the
proposed projects;
g. Preparation of ToR for each of the proposed projects
providing background, context and rationale,
objectives, scope and implementation of services
required for the further planning and detailed
design of the projects;h. Conduct of Technical Viability Assessments of theconditions needed for successful implementationof the projects throughout the three phases of the
project cycle.
The technical viability of each intervention was assessedin three phases during the Strategic Development
Phase: i) the UKBEAG city visits that took place between
July and August 2018; ii) the intermediate evaluationof the Programme interventions during the IGC missionin Nairobi in October 2018; and iii) the final TechnicalViability Assessment developed the final Terms ofReference for each city in December 2018.26
The viability assessments relate to five factors: professional
capacity; market maturity and preparedness; spatial context;
financial capacity; and legal conditions. The results of theassessment are ranked into low, medium and high barriers
for implementation by factor and project cycle phase,
which are then converted into a percentage for likelihoodof success. The average of the percentages then indicatesthe ‘overall likelihood of success. A percentage below
55% stands for overall ‘high’ barriers, 55-70% stands for‘medium’ barriers, 71-77% stand for ‘low’ barriers.
26 Ibid., Footnote 24: Section 2.4, p. 11. The likely overall successrate for each intervention is presented in the Technical Viability
Assessments. The assessments are based on the project team’s
professional opinion.

The partnerships with the 19 cities were crucial fordeveloping, implementing and operating the proposedinterventions – not only between GFCP and the cities
but also within the cities. The city authorities will link up
with their respective national and regional governments
as well as cooperate with city level partners, amongst
other the beneficiary communities, civil society, private
sector27, service providers and academia. The Strategic
Development Phase was to be concluded with aMemorandum of Understanding (MoU) or some otherform of agreement for each city/intervention between
UK FCO and the city authority for implementing thePlanning and Design Phase.
Knowledge Management: As part of the GFCP
Knowledge Management Strategy, the interventions
were grouped into seven thematic clusters that wereexpanded from the urban planning and design, transportand resilience pillars.28 The seven clusters are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Public space
Heritage and urban renewal
Urban strategies and plans
Data systems for integrated urban planning
Multi-modal mobility strategies and plans
Data Systems for multi-modal mobility
Flood management plans and systems

UN-Habitat and the Strategic Academic Partner of
IGC analysed each cluster and offered evidence-based
recommendations to ensure the interventions’ successful
implementation and maximized impact.29 Finally, UNHabitat drafted a ‘potential impact framework’ percluster as an internal tool to ensure the interventions
are aligned with the international frameworks and theprogramme objectives. The clusters relate to the GFCP
pillars as shown in Table 2.4.

27 The GFCP’s second objective is concerned with creation of business opportunities.
28 UN-Habitat/ UK FCO. December 2018. Prosperity Fund,
Global Future Cities Programme: Lessons Learned & Key
Recommendations for Phase 2, Section 2.3, p. 9. References tothe clusters are also made in the City Context Reports.
29 ICG. 2018. Policies for prosperity in middle-income cities:
Planning, transportation and resilience. The clusters are presented the Appendix (Section 6) using a slightly different terminology; and includes an eights cluster “Project Procurement(Leveraging private capital for public investment)”.

Overview of the Global Future Cities Programme

Table 2.4: Interrelationship between pillars and clusters.
GFCP Pillar

Clusters

Urban planning and design

1, 2, 3, and 4

Transport

5 and 6

Resilience2, 3 and 7
Source: City Context Reports
Note: Transport planning and urban planning are intertwined,so cluster 5 could also relate to “Urban planning & design”.

Overview of interventions: Table 2.5 presents theinterventions’ pillars, clusters and success rates.
Intervention briefs are attached as Annex 4.
Table 2.5: Pillars, clusters and likely overall success rateby intervention.
CountryCity

Pillar1

Cluster1

Success
Rate2

Intervention Title

Planning

469%

Supporting the Implementation of the City of Cape
Town’s Data Strategy

Johannesburg

Transport

577%

A review of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) trends
and effects on urban mobility in Johannesburg

Johannesburg

Planning

366

Strategic Area Framework and Associated Implementation Tools for Soweto “Triangle” in Johannesburg

DurbanPlanning

474

Improved data integration, collection and analysis tofacilitate collaborative informal settlement action

DurbanPlanning/
Transport

3&5

66

Enhanced institutional and governance coordination forsupporting alignment of stakeholder plans working on
Transit-Oriented Development

RecifePlanning

471

Data Ecosystem for Urban Governance for Recife

Belo Horizonte

Transport

671Intelligent mobility in Expresso Amazonas

Cebu

Planning

447

Data and Strategic Foundations for Long Term Planningin Cebu City

New Clark City
(NCC)

Planning

1&3

37

Integrated sustainability plan for New Clark City

Myanmar

YangonResilience

2&7

42

Revitalising Streetscapes: unlocking the potential of
Yangon City’s assets

VietnamHo Chi Minh

Transport

653Development of Smart Ticketing System for Public Transportation Network in Ho Chi Minh City

Ho Chi Minh

Resilience742

Development of Geographical Information System for
Drainage System in Ho Chi Minh City

Bangkok3

Planning

4-

Data Hub Roadmap for Integrated Planning

Bangkok3

Transport

5-

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan for the Khlong
Bang Luang area

Bangkok3

Resilience

7-

Decision Support System (DSS) for Flood Management

South Africa Cape Town

BrazilPhilippines

Thailand17

18

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

TurkeyNigeria

Indonesia

Malaysia

Istanbul

Planning

3

63

Urban Planning Training and Capacity Development
Programme for Resilient Istanbul

Istanbul

Transport

666

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan for Istanbul

Bursa

Transport

674

Sustainable Urban Transformation Approach for Bursa

Bursa

Planning

2&4

66

Transforming Bursa into a Smart City

AnkaraPlanning

171

Increasing Quality and Accessibility of Streets in Çankaya
Neighborhoods in Ankara

AnkaraTransport

571

Bicycle Strategy, Master Plan and Pilot Implementation
for Integrated Non-motorized Multimodal Transport in
AnkaraAbeokuta

Transport

534Development of Transport Policy and Capacity Building in
Abeokuta

Abeokuta

Planning

2&3

39

Abeokuta Master Plan and Guidelines for Urban Renewal

Lagos

Transport

539

Feasibility Study for the development of water transportin Lagos

Lagos

Planning245

Development of Guidelines for Urban Renewal Programmes in Lagos

Surabaya

Planning

3

63

Urban Transformation Plan for Putat Jaya in Surabaya

Surabaya

Resilience

1&3

61

Earthquake Preparedness Strategy for Surabaya

Bandung

Transport

558

Development of an Integrated Public Transport System in
BandungIskandarTransport

5&6

63

Implementation Strategy for Iskandar Malaysia’s Smart
Integrated Mobility Management System

MelakaTransport

555

Green Transport Corridor Implementation Plan Heritage
Area Integrated Mobility Plan for Melaka

Source: City Context Reports and Technical Viability Assessments.
Notes:
1: City Context Reports, Introduction.
2: Technical Viability Assessments. Barriers for the project cycle implementation related to: Spatial context, Financial, Legal,
Capacity and Market Maturity.

Market Maturity and Professional Capacity: Assessments
were made of the participating countries and cities withthe aim to map and assess the capacity and calibreof the built environment professions, as well as theregulatory, policy and standards context related to the
proposed interventions. The assessment included visit
to each city, meeting with local government authorities/
agencies, professional bodies, academia and NGOs.
The assessments were undertaken with following
aims: 1) Understand the context in which the proposedinterventions were to be delivered; 2 Understand the key
factors which may help enable and/or obstruct delivery;3) Help to assess the technical professional capacity

available and the maturity to deliver the proposedinterventions; and 4) Work with the city leaders toestablish training needs from the topics available. The
assessment provided inputs for the ‘Transition Training& Dialogue’ week organised by UKBEAG in September
2018 in London, gathering representatives from key
stakeholders from each city.30
Assessments were made for each city for each of the
project cycle’s phases, see the example in Table 2.6.
Each city was given an overall rating combining market
maturity and professional capacity, see Table 2.7.
30 UK FCO/ UN-Habitat/ UKBEAG. December 2018. Assessment ofMarket Maturity and Professional Capacity, Volume 1 & 2.

Overview of the Global Future Cities Programme

Table 2.6: Project cycle assessment of maturity and capacity in the selected cities

Maturity

Planning

DesignImplementation Operation

Maintenance

High

High

Low

Low

Low

Capacity
MediumMediumLow
Low
Low
Source: Assessment of Market Maturity and Professional Capacity Report, Volume 2.
Rating scale: ‘Low’, significant challenges appear to exist in one or more of the areas considered. ‘Medium’, issues may exist in
one or more areas. ‘High’, no significant issues appear to exist that cannot be managed by an appropriately experienced client
team.

Table 2.7: Overall rating of market maturity andprofessional capacity by city

Project budget: The breakdown of the Project budget isshown in Table 2.8.

CountryCity

RatingBrazilBelo Horizonte

MediumTable 2.8: Budget overview for the GFCP Project

RecifeHigh

Budget item

BandungMediumProject staff: personnel and consultants

1,714,128

SurabayaMedium230,000

IskandarMediumOperations costs: meetings, workshops, etc.

MelakaMediumMyanmar

YangonNigeria

Indonesia

Malaysia

Philippines

Equipment and supplies

25,000660,000

Low

Transfers to implementing partners(UKBEAG & IGC)

AbeokutaMediumStaff travel

150,000

Lagos

MediumSubtotal

2,779,128

Cebu

Low to Medium

New Clark City

MediumCape Town

High

DurbanHigh

Johannesburg

High

Thailand

BangkokMedium to HighTurkeyAnkaraMediumBursa

MediumIstanbul

MediumSouth Africa

USD

VietnamHo Chi Minh City Medium to High
Source: Assessment of Market Maturity and Professional
Capacity Report, Volume 2.
Rating scale as in Table 2.6.

Support services 13%
Total budget
Addendum: travel to 9 extra cities*

415,272
3,194,400
116,501

Total
3,310,901
Note: *Include travel, personnel costs and support services.
Source: UN-Habitat Project Document and UN-Habitat, Request for Contribution Agreement.

19

20

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

3. EVALUATIONAPPROACH AND
METHODOLOGY
3.1 APPROACH
General evaluation approach: The United Nations
Evaluation Group’s (UNEG) Norms and Standards for
Evaluation31 was applied. The evaluation approachand process related to the five UNEG evaluation
criteria: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact andsustainability (which are compatible with the OECD/
DAC criteria32; UN-Habitat Evaluation Policy (2013)33; theRevised UN-Habitat Evaluation Framework (2016)34; andthe UN-Habitat Evaluation Manual (2018)35. The thrustof the evaluation was on the Strategic Development
Phase (ex-post), but was also to assess the prospects
for outcomes, impact and sustainability during the
Implementation Phase (ex-ante).
The evaluation was conducted in four consecutive
phases: 1) the inception phase; 2) the desk and fieldvisit phase; 3) the analysis and synthesis phase – which
included the findings, conclusions, recommendations
and overall lessons learned; and 4) dissemination of theevaluation results to potential users. The desk phaseincluded a visit to UN-Habitat to have interviews andconsultations with the UN-Habitat management, project
management, and to meet with Evaluation Unit staff(14-18 January 2019). Moreover, a visit was made to
UK FCO, UKBEAG and IGC in London (4-5 March 2019)
to have further interviews and consultations on theStrategic Development Phase and the transition to the
Implementation Phase.
Theory of Change approach: The evaluation ToR statesthat the evaluation will be based on Theory of Change(ToC) approach, i.e. the sequence of the pathway:
activities > outputs > outcomes > and impacts;
supplemented with drivers and assumptions. The useof the ToC approach is also a requirement as stated in
the UN-Habitat Evaluation Manual (2018). The Logical
Framework as presented in the Project Document relates
specifically to what can be accomplished within the oneyear Strategic Development Phase but does not envision
31 UNEG. June 2016. Norms and Standards for Evaluation
32 The OECD/DAC criteria have specific definitions for each criterion.
33 UN-Habitat. January 2013. Evaluation Policy.
34 UN-Habitat. September 2015. Revised UN-Habitat Evaluation
Framework.
35 UN-Habitat. 2018. Evaluation Manual.

the longer-term outcomes and impact for elaborating a
ToC. The Project is meant to produce all the necessary
documentation and city level capacity for launching the
Implementation Phase.
While the ToC establishes a framework for the change
process, changes are driven by stakeholders’ views,
perceptions and ultimately by decisions taken by theproper authorities and policy-makers. Accordingly,
consultations with stakeholders that have been involvedin the identification and validation process played
an important role in the conduct of the evaluation.
Stakeholder consultations have been undertaken througha questionnaire survey, case studies and interviews,
see Section 3.3 on methodology. Stakeholders’ views
may, however, change over time as a consequence ofchanged contexts, political priorities, etc.
Except for the Project’s outputs and the ‘expectedaccomplishment’, the Project Proposal/ Document
presents limited information on the results chain. A
reconstructed ‘results chain’ is presented in Annex 5,
which was based on: a) the objective as stated in UNHabitat’s Final Draft Strategic Plan 2020-2025 and the
UK FCO’s aim of the GFCP; and b) the outputs and the
expected accomplishment as presented in the Project
Document (ref. Chapter 2). The remaining text in the
results chain was prepared by the evaluator and isinspired by the expressed intents in various documents
and will be subject to further refinements.
Revised project objective and outcomes: The revised
project objective and outcomes were derived from thereconstructed results chain presented in Annex 5. The
evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase wasbased on a revised immediate project objective thatreflect the warranted situation at the end of the Project
and the ensuing outcomes, but which are fully consistent
with the Project’s intent. The immediate project
objective was proposed as follows: “Project concepts
and capacity developed for the transformation of the‘built environment’ (see Box 3.1) that will contribute toimproved prosperity and quality of life for urban residents
in programme cities and globally”. The project outputs
as elaborated in the Project Document (ref. Chapter 2)
are likely to generate other outcomes in addition to the
Expected Accomplishment (see Figure 3.1). Outcome 1
is identical to the expected accomplishment.

Evaluation approach and methodology

Box 3.1: Built environment definition.
The term ‘built environment’ refers to the humanmade surroundings that provide the setting forhuman activity, ranging in scale from buildings andparks or green space to neighborhoods and cities
that can often include their supporting infrastructure,such as water supply, or energy networks. The built
environment is a material, spatial and cultural productof human labor that combines physical elements
and energy in forms for living, working and playing.
It has been defined as “the human-made space inwhich people live, work, and recreate on a day-to-day
basis”. The “built environment encompasses places
and spaces created or modified by people including
buildings, parks, and transportation systems”. In
recent years, public health research has expanded thedefinition of “built environment” to include healthy
food access, community gardens, “walkabilty”, and“bikability”.
Source: Definitions & Translations.

Objectives are generally not indicated in the presentationof the ToC, which focuses on the results (outputs,
outcomes and impacts). The objectives are, however,essential for describing the warranted development
scenario which provide the framework for the results
chain. It is thus important that the hierarchy of objectives(immediate and intermediate objectives for the Strategic
Development Phase and the Implementation Phase
respectively as well as the global development objective)

Figure 3.1: Outputs’ potential contributions to outcomes.

correspond well to what can realistically be achieved
with the given resources applied in the given context.
For each set of outcomes there are a corresponding setof explicit outputs that are normally not shown in the
ToC diagram.
Like the Global Future Cities Programme itself, theToC has a global dimension and local dimensions. The
timeframe for the global ToC is long-term where impacts
are anticipated to gradually evolve over the next 10-15
years as consequences of the SDGs (2030), the Addis
Ababa Action Agenda, the Paris Agreement, the Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030),
and the New Urban Agenda (Habitat III 2016-2036). The
global component of GFCP will contribute to the longterm process with the accumulated experience from the
support to the 19 cities, which will be complemented
with other global experiences.
The Implementation Phase for the selected interventions/projects was subdivided into three sub-phases: a)Planning and Design Phase with a duration of 2-3 years;b) Build Phase with a duration of 3-7 years; and c) andOperation and Maintenance Phase with a duration of
7-15 years. Generally, operation and maintenance (O&M)– and rehabilitation – would be required throughout the‘design life’ of an intervention, the duration of which
depends on the performance of O&M, which would be
crucial for the intervention’s sustainability. The duration
for the specific city intervention varies according to
the nature and complexity of the intervention and theresource availability. The Planning and Design Phase will

21

22

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

be funded by UK FCO, but the funding sources for the
Build Phase have not yet been identified. Ideally, funding
sources for the Build Phase should be identified during
the Planning and Design Phase. It is anticipated that
following the Build Phase, a formal handover of thecompleted intervention will be made to the proper city
authority, which will then be responsible for operationand maintenance including the recurrent costs. The
anticipated impact will begin to materialise after
completion of the intervention. ToCs for each of theidentified 30 interventions/project can correspondingly– like the global ToC – be reconstructed, but with much
more information as generated during the Strategic
Development Phase. A model for developing ToCs for theinterventions is presented in Annex 5, which to a large
extent can be prepared based on existing information in
the CCR, ToR and TVA.
A simplified diagram for a ToC model for GFCP ispresented in Figure 3.2. The GFCP is a complex
programme that will be planned and implemented indifferent contexts, institutional set-ups and systems withdiverse stakeholders and broad objectives not yet clearly
defined. Each intervention will have its own causal
pathway that will mainly consist circular feedback loops.
The causal pathway of a ToC process may not necessarily
occur automatically as the process can be affected of anumber of external factors that could be either positiveor negative. The change process could be driven by

a number a supportive activities – ‘drivers’ – thatfacilitate the intended changes, such as support fromand awareness of the targeted beneficiaries, a positive
development of the national and/or the local enabling
environments, and development partners’ support
to achieving the SDG targets as incorporated in theintervention. The change process may also be affectedby barriers beyond the control of the intervention
implementers, some of which may be counteracted. The
barriers could be deficiencies related to capacity, finance,
legal, etc. aspects. As part of the Logical Framework
Analysis (LFA) the attainment of results are adjusted witha view to minimising risks from external factors to an
acceptable level, and assumptions are correspondingly
made, which are subsequently monitored for risk
mitigation.
The timeframe for the city ToCs is 12-25 years where
outcomes will start to materialise during the Planningand Design Phase and impacts will emerge at the end of
the Build Phase and beyond. Outcomes and impacts willvary significantly between the cities as a consequence ofvarying contexts (incl. barriers and drivers) and resource
availability. The city ToCs should ideally be seen as acontinuum of the Strategic Development Phase andthe Implementation Phase. Real changes of the built
environment and citizens livelihood will mainly occur
after the Build Phase. The Strategic Development Phase
was important for mobilising the cities’ engagement inand their commitment to the proposed interventions.

Figure 3.2: Theory of Change Model for GFCP
GFCP THEORY OF CHANGE MODEL
UN-Habitat and UK FCO facilitation of the pathway
Facilitation related to: i) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ii) the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), iii)
the New Urban Agenda (NUA), iv) the Paris Agreement, and v) the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction

Inputs

Outputs

Activities relatedto:• Urban planningand design• Transport• Resilience

Context validated
Stakeholder buy-in
ToR prepared
Capacity developed
Projects Validated

Imm. Outcomes

Imm. Outcomes

Int. Outcomes

Strategic Dev Phase:
Understanding ofsolutions tochallenges;
Validated framework;
Capacity developed;
Global lessons learned.

Design Phase:
Plans and design
completed;
Funding sources
identified;
Capacity developed;
Global lessons learned.

Build Phase:
Built environment
improved;
Accessibility improved;
Increased resilience;
Capacity developed;
Global lessons learned.

Assumptions related to: i.) Spatial context; ii) Professional capacity; iii)
Market maturity and preparedness; iv) Financial capacity; and v) Legal conditions.
Assumptions related to success factors.

ASSUMPTIONS (external factors)

Note: Immediate (Imm.); Intermediate (Int.)

Sustainability measures:
institutional anchoring andcapacity development

Emerging impact
O&M
Better planned and managed cities;
Increased local prosperity;
Reduced level of poverty;
Enhanced gender equality.

Enhanced economic activity and
trade

Cities allocate and maintainadequate financial and humanresources to relevant public sector
entities of importance for socioeconomic development.

Evaluation approach and methodology

Impact projections: A paper on “Assessment framework
for measuring economic success” was drafted toenable a wider set of policymakers to learn from the
GFCP experiences and to guide the further preparationof identified city interventions in order to optimise
the potential impacts expected to be achieved fromthe investments. The paper seeks to highlight ‘key
impact evaluation’ best practices and key gaps of cities
research and to provide a framework for strengthening
the evidence base for policy change in middle-income
countries. Building an assessment framework formeasuring economic success prior to the interventions
taking place is an essential first step in understanding
which potential benefits the cities may receive from theinterventions under the GFCP.36

3.2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND MATRIXThe evaluation questions were structured underthe basic five UNEG evaluation criteria: relevance,
efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The
sequence of the criteria was arranged to reflect theTheory of Change (ToC) approach, i.e. output, outcome
and impact. The ToR presented 22 evaluation questions(EQs). Some of the EQs were found to be overlapping
and the number was subsequently reduced to 19 EQs(see notes to the Evaluation Questions below) – with
the intent of not changing the scope of the ToR EQs.
The EQs were arranged in an ‘evaluation matrix’ withindicators and means of verification, see Annex 6.37

3.3 METHODOLOGY
The potential target groups for discussions, interviews
and questionnaire surveys were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Evaluation Reference Group
UN-Habitat HQ management
UN-Habitat GFCP project management
UN-Habitat regional and country offices
UK FCO HQ and focal posts
IGC staff
UKBEAG staff
Local City Specialists
City authorities (and local stakeholders)

The methodology was composed of tasks that facilitatedthe validation of findings through a triangulation
36 IGC. November 2018. Assessment framework for measuring
economic success in transport, land-use planning and resilienceinterventions.
37 Judgement criteria by question have not been developed as thequestions are already quite detailed.

process. Based on the findings from the document
review, the triangulation comprised findings frominterviews/ questionnaire survey targeting stakeholders
who drew the identification and validation process. The
main features of these tasks were:•Desk

reviewofrelevant

GFCP

documents;•

Semi structured interviews with UN-Habitat
management,
Projectmanagement,
UK
FCO, IGC and UKBEAG staff.
Questionnaire
surveystargetingcity
authorities;•

Focus group meetings with the Project staff tovalidate the evaluator’s preliminary findings and toassess the degree of consensus on strategic issues;•

Discussions with the ERG concerning the draft
Inception Report and the draft Evaluation Report toensure the relevance of conclusions, lessons learned
and recommendations for the Strategic Development
Phase and the subsequent Implementation Phase;•

Questionnaire
surveytargetingthecityauthorities.
Asummaryofthequestionnaire survey is attached as Annex 7;•

Eight case studies selected among the 30
interventions, which included interviews with FCO
posts and Local City Specialists. A synthesis of the eightcase studies and interviews is attached as Annex 8.

A sample of eight interventions was selected for indepth assessments. The criteria for the selection of thesample intervention relate to country/region, pillars,
success rates, and market maturity and professional
capacity, see Table 3.2.

3.4 LIMITATIONS TO THE EVALUATIONThe evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase wascharacterised as a “Rapid Evaluation”, suggesting atimewise limitation.38 Except for the visit to UN-Habitatin Nairobi and to UK FCO, IGC and UKBEAG in London,
the evaluation assignment did not include visits to anyof the cities, which posed a limitation to acquisition ofadequate evidence on outputs and outcomes at the citylevel stemming from the Strategic Development Phase,and the city authorities’ expectations as regards benefits
and impact. Except for group meetings with the ERG
and the GFCP Project team, no other group meetings
were held, which may limit the validation of findings.
38 UN-Habitat Project Document, Section 3.9, p. 29; where it is also indicated that “The results will be used to design the muchlarger and long-term second phase of the Programme, which
will be evaluated per UN-Habitat policy”.

23

24

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

The lack of opportunity to meet with the primarytarget group – due to time and travel constraints39 –was compensated by interviews on Skype/phone and aquestionnaire survey – supported by information fromthe desk review – and thus helped generate useful
circumstantial evidence. The desk study was based ondraft versions of the documentation dated October andNovember 2018 or before.

39 The evaluation has been allocated 40 workdays for one
evaluator.

Evaluation approach and methodology

Table 3.1: Evaluation Questions
Evaluation Questions
Relevance
1.

To what extent are the objectives of the project consistent with national goals, policies and strategies, and urban development plans?

2.

To what extent is the project implementation strategy responsive to SDGs, New Urban Agenda and strategies of UN-Habitat?

3.

To what extent are the project’s intended outputs and outcome relevant to the needs of cities, local authorities and citizens?

4.

To what extent were vulnerable groups included in the project design and implementation?

Efficiency/ Outputs
5.

How well was the project designed and implemented, and were resources efficiently utilized?
NB: “Project” refers to UN-Habitat’s assignment as opposed to the GFCP projects/interventions.

6.
7.

To what extent were the institutional arrangements adequate for achieving the project’s expected outputs and outcome?
To what extent have internal and external obstacles (administrative, financial and managerial) affected project delivery of outputs andachievement of the expected outcomes?

1

8.2

To what extent was the project delivered in a cost-effective manner?

9.3

To what extent has monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the project been timely, meaningful and adequate?

Effectiveness/ Outcomes10.

Did the project achieve the intended outcomes during the Strategic Development Phase as per the project design?

11.

4

To what extent have city level stakeholders been involved in the identification of and reporting on the interventions?

12.

How has the project been able to partner and collaborate with other stakeholders to achieve the project objectives?

13.

How well did the project management adapt to changes during the implementation and what were the main lessons learned?

14.

To what extent were cross-cutting issues of gender, youth, climate change, and human rights integrated into the identification andvalidation process and in the reporting and monitoring of the project?

5

Impact/ impact outlook
15.6

To what extent are the identified interventions likely to attain or not their objectives and expected results – or even negative effects
due to non-contained risks (short, medium and long-term) related to partners and targeted beneficiaries, whether citizens, participating cities and local authorities?

Sustainability and sustainability of approach16.

To what extent and in what ways has the ownership by city level stakeholders enhanced the project’s sustainability?

17.

To what extent will the city-level activities be replicable or scaled up at national, regional or local levels or encourage further collaboration and exchange between stakeholders?

18.

Are the systems and capacities in place to ensure the project results are sustained?

19.7

Is the project seen as being innovative and would the project be replicable in other middle-income countries with support from development partners?

Comments to the evaluation questions in the Evaluation’s ToR, Section 5:
1. The second question in bullet 2 (Efficiency) has been formulated as a separate question. EQ7 above was found to cover the bullet 2 question (Effectiveness) which is therefore not included.
2. EQ8 above was found to cover the bullet 3 question (Effectiveness) which is therefore not included.
3. The bullet 4 question (Efficiency) has been replaced by bullet 7 question in (Effectiveness).
4. EQ11 above was found to cover the bullet 1 question (Sustainability) which is therefore not included.
5. EQ13 above covers the bullet 6 question (Efficiency) but has been reformulated.
6. EQ15 above was found to cover the bullet 5 question (Effectiveness) which is therefore not included.
7. New EQ added related to the evaluation objectives (ref. ToR Section 3).

Table 3.2: Case study sample
City

Country

RegionPillarSuccess Rate

Maturity/capacity

Belo Horizonte

BrazilLatin America

Transport

71%

MediumDurbanSouth Africa

AfricaPlanning

74%

High

Abeokuta

Nigeria

AfricaTransport

34%

MediumAnkaraTurkeyAsia

Planning

71%

MediumYangonMyanmar

Asia

Resilience

42%

Low

BandungIndonesia

Asia

Transport

58%

MediumNew Clark City

Philippines

Asia

Planning

47%

Medium

Ho Chi Minh

Vietnam

Asia

Resilience

42%

Medium to High

25

26

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

4. FINDINGS ON
PERFORMANCEAND
ACHIEVEMENTS
This Chapter is informed by the desk review of documents
consulted, the questionnaire survey, the case studies
and interviews. In order to distinguish between the UNHabitat Project and the city level projects/interventions
the term ‘intervention’ is consistently applied for thecity level. Section 4.1 summarise the achievements of
outputs and outcomes and Sections 4.2 – 4.6 relate to
the evaluation questions.

4.1 ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE STRATEGICDEVELOPMENT PHASE
Outputs
The GFCP’s outputs as defined in the Project Document(ref. Chapter 2) are: 1) Context appropriatenessvalidated, and technical accuracy of interventions tested;
2) Stakeholder buy-in documented and confirmed;
3) Capacity and capability of market to engage withand deliver the proposed interventions determined; 4)
Confirmation of intervention is likely to deliver impact
to support increased inclusive and equitable prosperity;
5) Global contribution of Future Cities Programme toprosperity, SDGs and NUA assessed; and 6) Capacity
for implementation improved. An overview of theachievements by output is presented below:

Re. 3: The capacity and capability of the market havebeen determined, which was one of the factors of thetechnical viability assessment. Like the other factors,
there is great variation indicating varying capacity from
low to high. Low market capacity will in particular be achallenge during the Build and O&M phases.
Re. 4: A large majority of city authorities anticipate thatthe interventions will have the intended impact andthus contribute to increased inclusive and equitableprosperity. The level of impact will depend on the
degree to which the low and partly medium barriers canbe overcome through complementary measures, while
also bearing in mind that population growth demands
additional resources.
Re. 5: The GFCP contributions to prosperity, the SDGs
and NUA have been assessed as elaborated in the CCRs
and ToRs. The prospects for significant contributions willin all likelihood exist, especially for resourceful cities,
which nonetheless could encounter unforeseen andnegative external factors that may radically change thecontext and the impact.
Re. 6: The cities’ awareness of the crucial importance of
having adequate capacity and of maintaining this has
been fully recognised through the dialogue with the
UN-Habitat team (including the training week in London
in September 2018). Capacity development will be an
important component of the Planning and Design Phasefor promoting the cities’ active participation in planningand design and for the further implementation.
Overall, the six outputs have been achieved during
the Strategic Development Phase, but the barriers anduncertainties for achieving the longer-term impact havealso been pointed out.

Outcomes

Re. 1: The elaboration of the interventions’ context in the
CCRs and ToRs has been validated by key city stakeholders
through a consultative process. Correspondingly, the city
stakeholders have validated the scope and substanceof the interventions. The technical viability of theinterventions has been assessed related to the conceived
barriers for implementation – showing a large variation insuccess rates from low to high.

In Chapter 3 it was argued that the Project has four
immediate outcomes/ expected accomplishments:
1) Enhanced understanding of solutions to urban
challenges; 2) A validated strategic framework for cityinterventions; 3) Capability and capacity developed forparticipating cities to enable their active participation
during implementation; and 4) Global lessons learned.
An overview of the achievements by outcome ispresented below:

Re. 2: Stakeholder buy-in for the identified interventions ishigh among the city authorities and key city stakeholders
as confirmed through the questionnaire survey and thevalidation process. The targeted beneficiaries have only
been indirectly involved in the consultations.

Re. 1: The cities’ active engagement during theidentification and validation process has clearly
demonstrated an increased understanding of how
challenges can be addressed in relation to the proposedinterventions.

Findings on performance and achievements

Re. 2: The strategic framework as outlined in the Project
Document with the three pillars and further expandedwith the cluster concept constitutes the overall strategic
framework which formed the basis for identifying andvalidating the city level interventions. Subsequently,
all cities have since then validated their proposedinterventions.
Re. 3: Capability among city staff officials has been
consolidated and some capacity developed for their
future role in implementing the interventions. Thereis a great variation in the cities’ existing planning,
management and implementation capacity with somecities having very competent staff and others in need ofsubstantial capacity development. The extent to whichadequate capacity is in place needs to be assessed in thefurther implementation process – and should be further
augmented if need be. The dialogue with city authorities
on capacity development has created awareness of theimportance of this matter.
Re. 4: A first version of the lessons learned from
implementing the Project were elaborated in December
2018.40 The intent of this version was to carry over thelessons learned to the Implementation Phase. Theselessons mainly relate to the process and less to thesubstance of the three pillars. The IGC policy papers deal
with the global perspective, and elements from these
papers combined with the practical experience fromthe city interventions could highlight the global lessons
learned in relation to the GFCP – with due attention to
how these could be replicated globally or inspire similarinterventions in country.
Overall, the four outcomes were achieved within thetight timeframe of the Strategic Development Phaseand have established the point of departure for the
Implementation Phase. The strategic framework forthe city interventions will over time be influenced byexternal factors – all of which cannot be controlled by
the city authorities – indicating the need for regularreview/ assessment of the evolving context with a viewto ensuring the continued relevance of the interventions
throughcorresponding
amendments.
Capacity
development is a long-term endeavour and should beemphasised throughout the Implementation Phase.
Consolidated lessons learned combining process andsubstance from the Strategic Development Phase would
be a useful contribution to the further implementation
process.

40 UN-Habitat. December 2018. Lessons Learned & Key
Recommendations for Phase 2.

4.2 RELEVANCE OF PROPOSED CITY
INTERVENTIONS
Relevance to national and local policies,
strategies and plans
The Project objective as stated in the Project Document
is “to identify strategic interventions in 19 cities as partof the Strategic Development Phase of The Prosperity
Fund Global Future Cities Programme”. Expressed inthis way there is no direct explicit reference to national
and local policies, strategies and plans. The proposedinterventions are, however, generally consistent withnational and local policies, strategies and plans to theextent that such exist, are applicable to the interventions
and are deemed appropriate.
The case study sample indicates that the interventions– to the extent possible – aim at being aligned withnational, regional and local policies, strategies and plans.
However, the governance contexts for the interventions
are very diverse. Some cities have limited autonomy
and are subject to the authority of national or regional
bodies and have limited decision-making powers of
their own, a situation which is further exacerbatedwhen neither masterplans nor sector plans have beendeveloped. In contrast, other cities have a high degreeof autonomy and have masterplans and sector plans inplace that provides the development framework for theinterventions. In one case, a comprehensive sector plan
has been developed and approved, but implementation
suffers from complex coordination mechanisms and lackof funding.
All questionnaire respondents strongly agree (20/69%)
or agree (9/31%) that the proposed interventions are
consistent. So implicitly, the Project is overall consistent
with national and local goals, policies and strategies. One
respondent expressed that the intervention reflected
what was most needed and had yielded the need fora cohesive, long-term and strategic approach. Another
respondent expressed that economic and systematic
solutions must be found to address the challenges of
rapid urban growth.

Responsiveness to SDGs, the New Urban
Agenda and strategies of UN-Habitat
The Project Document refers specifically to SDG 11 andselected targets (ref. Table 2.1). The Case Study Sample(eight interventions, ref. Table 3.2) presents many
combinations of the SDGs with the implication that all
SDGs are referred to at least once and up to eight times,
see Table 4.1. The SDGs most frequently referred to are
SDG 3, SDG 5, SDG 8, SDG 9, SDG 11, SDG 16 andSDG 17.

27

28

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

Table 4.1: GFCP contribution to the SDGs.
SDGs

Goal

No*

SDG 1

End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

4

SDG 2

End hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.

1

SDG 3

Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.

7

SDG 4

Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

2

SDG 5

Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls.

6

SDG 6

Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

2

SDG 7

Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy.

2

SDG 8

Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment anddecent work for all.

8

SDG 9

Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.

8

SDG 10

Reduce inequality within and among countries.

4

SDG 11Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.

8

SDG 12

Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.

2

SDG 13

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.

5

SDG 14Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.

1

SDG 15

Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests,
combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.

2

SDG 16

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all
and build effective and accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.

6

SDG 17

Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable develop8
ment.
Note: *Number of times a reference has been made to the SDG in the CCRs and ToRs in the Case Study Sample, ref. Table 3.2.

The CCRs and ToRs relate to the “Action Framework for
Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (AFINUA)
rather than to the specific NUA paragraphs. The purposeof the AFINUA is to outline the basic ingredients for the
implementation of NUA. The 35 AFINUA key elements
are divided into five major groups: 1) National urban
policies; 2) Urban legislation, rules and regulation; 3)
Urban planning and design; 4) Urban economy andmunicipal finance; and 5) Local Implementation. The
principles of participation and governance cut across all
key elements. Virtually all key elements require politicalbuy-in to be activated, without which they would only
exist hypothetically. Transparency must serve as theguiding principle if they are to avoid the undermining
influences of corruption.’’ Each key element refers to aset of NUA paragraphs.41
The key element referred to in the CCRs and ToRs forthe case study cities are listed in Table 4.2. The NUA
paragraphs of the mentioned key elements covers more
widely than those stated in the Project Document. It ismainly the key elements (3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6) of the
AFINUA ‘Urban planning and design group’ that link
up to the NUA paragraphs mentioned in the Project
Document. (see Table A9.1 in Annex 9).
41 UN-Habitat. April 2017. Action Framework for Implementationof the New Urban Agenda.

Table 4.2: AFINUA key elements by case study city.

City

Pillar

AFINUA key elements

Belo Horizonte

Transport

3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 4.4, 4.5,
5.4 and 5.5

DurbanPlanning

1.4, 1.6, 3.1, 4.2, 4.4,
4.5, and 5.4

Abeokuta

Transport

4.1, 4.2 and 4.4

AnkaraPlanning

1.4, 1.6, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 4.5, and 5.6

YangonResilience

2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.5,
3.6 and 5.2

Bandung

Transport

2.3, 3.4, 4.2, 4.5 and 5.4

New Clark City

Planning

2.2, 2.3, 2.6 2.7, 3.1 3.3,
3.4, 3.5, 3.7 and 4.1.

Ho Chi Minh

Resilience

2.2, 2.9, 3.2 and 5.4

The ToR for the evaluation state that the criteria ofpartnerships will also be applied. The partnership criterion
is indirectly mentioned in the Project Document: “Agenda
2030 and the New Urban Agenda provide a strong
framework for ensuring sustainable development. The
transition from formulation to implementation requires
bold action which in turn requires coordinating policy
on multiple fronts and forming of new partnerships

Findings on performance and achievements…” (ref. Project Document, Section 2.5, p.11). The UNHabitat Partnership Strategy is not mentioned in the
Project Document. The Partnership Strategy aims to:serve both as a vehicle for strategic pollical engagementwith member states and the UN System; mobilise
stakeholder engagement at various levels; be adopted
as a tool for effective implementation; and scale-up UNHabitat programmes and resource mobilisation among
existing and prospective donors.42 The NUA paragraphs
mentioned in the Partnership Strategy are only partly
covered by the chosen AFINUA key elements (see Table
A9.1 in Annex 9).
The case study sample indicates that the responsivenessto SDGs and AFINUA key items is reflected differently in
the CCRs and ToRs. Generally, the CCRs have a wider
coverage of SDGs and AFINUA key items than in the
ToRs. In some cases, the AFINUA key items are notmentioned in the ToRs. In one case reference is made to
all 17 SDGs in the ToR. The CCRs have a quite deliberate
overview of “Potential Impact and Programme
Objectives Alignment” indicating potential benefits by
sub-phase – that could be achieved hypothetically –with due reference to SDG targets, AFINUA key items,
and Programme objectives and cross-cutting issues.
Generally, the 30 city interventions relate more broadly
to the SDGs and the NUA – by being ‘referred’ to in
the CCRs and ToRs – than described in the Project
Document.

Relevance of outputs and outcomes to theneeds of cities, local authorities and citizens
The desk review of the intervention documents
denotes that the interventions have been conceived
based on a thorough analysis of the local contexts andconsultations with city stakeholders confirming therelevance of the interventions in meeting local needs.
The case study sample indicates that the identified
interventions generally are relevant to the needs of thecities and its residents and the local authority. Someinterventions have city-wide relevance, whereas others
are area specific. The area specific interventions may
be replicated in other parts of the city. The degree of
relevance is relatively higher for low-income groups as
their needs are greater. The continued relevance of theinterventions will eventually be determined by the extent
to which they are implemented, and potential benefits
achieved, as all barriers may not be fully overcome –which in particular may be the case for cities having ahigh level of barriers.
The questionnaire respondents either strongly agree(22/76%) or agree (7/24%) that the interventions are
relevant. So implicitly, the Project is overall relevant
42 UN-Habitat. March 2017. UN-Habitat Partnership Strategy.

provided that resources can be adequately mobilised
for implementation, which for some of the cities will
be a challenge. One respondent expressed that theintervention will benefit a large proportion of thecity’s and the metropolitan region’s citizens; anotherexpressed that the intervention reflects the voice of thecity stakeholders.

Inclusion of vulnerable groups in the project
design and implementation
The vulnerable groups are included through due
reference to SDGs, NUA paragraphs and the crosscutting issues. The impression, however, is that thevulnerable groups have not participated directly in
the identification process, which given the limitationof time during the identification process might beunderstandable. A further complication is that insome countries, the central government and local
governments are hesitant about direct engagement of
the target beneficiaries, unless procedures for doing sohave been clarified and agreed in advance. Nonetheless,if the ultimate objective of sustainable urbanisation
is to be met, a higher degree of beneficiary analysis
and participation would be warranted throughout theinterventions’ lifecycle.
The case study sample confirms the inclusion ofvulnerable groups in the intervention design, but this has
been expressed to varying degrees in the intervention
documents – from being very explicit to being somewhat
implicit by referring to the relevant SDGs and AFINUA
key items. It appears that limited direct consultations
have been conducted with vulnerable citizens, so theirneeds and interests have mostly been expressed by thecity key stakeholders and NGOs. The composition of
the interventions’ consulting teams for the Planningand Design Phase includes few social scientists and in
three cases none, which may hamper a more optimal
inclusion of the vulnerable groups.

4.3 EFFICIENCY OF THE STRATEGICDEVELOPMENT PHASE
Project design, implementation andutilization of resources
The overall framework for the Project was determinedby the UK FCO Scoping Study. Initially, 40 interventions
were identified, which were narrowed down to 30
interventions in 19 cities in 10 countries. UN-Habitat
made an initial review of the 40 indicative interventionsin 2017 with the result that some were changed,
amended, merged, replaced, etc. reducing the number
to 30. The timeframe was initially 8 months (April to

29

30

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

November 2018), which has been extended to 12
months ending in March 2019 by adding the Transition
Phase. The magnitude of the Project within the given
timeframe has been quite a challenge for the Projectteam.
The phasing of the interactions between the Project
team and city authorities – in mainly three batches –enabled the core team at UN-Habitat HQ to spread its
inputs. The in-country staff could devote their inputs in aconcentrated manner. The identification and validation
process by city was planned to take four months, but
due to the limited timeframe it was only planned to haveone month of space before commencing the next batch– implying that the batches of cities were attended to inparallel for a major part of the Project duration. At thepeak – mid-year 2018 – interactions with all cities took
place simultaneously.
There were some variations in how the perspectivesof the UK FCO scoping studies were contained in thesubsequent identification process: in some cases, there
were a continuation of the considerations, whereas inothers the interventions deviated significantly from theinitial scope. The charrettes were important for inviting
stakeholders’ views and establishing the interventions’framework and substance. Correspondingly, thevalidation workshop was important for the cities’
acceptance and subsequent approval of the ToR. Somecases involved several categories of stakeholders withvarying perceptions making the identification andvalidation more complex. In most cases the interaction
with the city authority was constructive. However, ina few cases the city authority was hesitant and not
immediately forthcoming – one reason being that they
expected more tangible results than what was being
proposed. In some cases, it took some time before theintervention concept was in place, leaving limited time
for the preparation of the CCR and the ToR within atimeframe that was already tight.
The FCO posts were instrumental in contacting seniorcity officials, resolving critical issues in relation to thecity authority and for facilitating the identification
process. The local city specialists (LCSs) were essential
for conducting the identification and concluding theintervention framework. The LCSs were mainly recruitedin country/city with substantial knowledge of the local
context, good professional networks and previous
experience from assignments in the city. Understandingof the local political context was found to be essential
for conceptualisation of the intervention and achieving
consensus among political and administrative leaders.
The Project team’s tasks were intended to follow a
structured sequence, but in some cases, this was notalways achieved due to time constraints – creating some

confusion about the respective roles of UN-Habitat,
UKBEAG, IGC and the LCSs. More information on the
set-up, division of tasks and required flexibility for theidentification process early on might have provided
the city authority with a better understanding of the
adopted approach.
The general sentiment was that the identification andvalidation process was well conceived.
The identification and validation process applied a stepby-step approach enabling the city authorities to takeownership and contribute to the proposed intervention.
Overall, the Project was satisfactorily designed andimplemented, and resources were efficiently utilized.

Adequacy of the institutional arrangements
for achieving the Project’s outputs andoutcomes
As a ‘neutral agency’, UN-Habitat’s role for providing
technical assistance was regarded as being objectivity
based. In countries where UN-Habitat did not havecountry office it was seen as a disadvantage not being
able to draw on national and institutional experience.
In countries where UN-Habitat had offices, logistic
support was provided to assist the Project core team,but in some cases more professional support within thethematic pillars was warranted. The GFCP Project teamwas composed of a core team at UN-Habitat HQ, UNHabitat regional and country team members, local city
specialists, UKBEAG professionals and IGC academics.
The consortium partners were assigned specific tasks
but attempted to complement one another when
specific need for technical expertise was required. The
cities had in some cases expressed that more IGC inputs
on certain disciplines would have been desirable.
The conduct of the charrette and the validation
workshop was considered a beneficial approach forachieving city stakeholders’ buy-in. Buy-in from higher
level officials was in some cases difficult to obtain as
the handling of matters relating to the intervention
was delegated to middle-level management, whereasdelegation to the city level managers in a few othercases was limited. The cities generally assigned atechnical department as the focal point for interaction
with the Project team; however, some cities had initiallydifficulties in mobilising the right staff to be in chargeof communicating the city’s interest and in providing
adequate technical back-up. The feedback to the Project
team on the CCR and ToR was mainly provided by thetechnical departments – in some cases, the technicaldepartments contributed significantly to the elaborationof the ToR. The interventions’ CCR and ToR were mainly
finalised by end of 2018. Some ToRs were refined during
the Transition Phase.

Findings on performance and achievements

The ToRs were approved by the ‘proper authority’,
which could either be a state or regional government, adevelopment authority, the local government authority
or a technical department.
The Strategic Development Phase was intended
to be concluded by facilitating a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MoU) between the city authority and
UK FCO concerning the mutual responsibilities andobligations when the intervention progresses into the
Implementation Phase. MoUs were prepared in someforms and with some level of detail. Some of the
MoUs are likely to be reviewed and updated during the
Implementation Phase reflecting the level of progressof the intervention. The consent from the central
government in some form may be required in addition
to the MoU/agreement made with the city authorities.
The composition of the Project team has enabled thatthe international experience has been combined withlocal experience and that an appropriate dialogue withcity authorities has taken place to fine-tune the scopeof the interventions. Having in-country personnel –FCO posts, UN-Habitat country officers and local city
specialists in place has been a great advantage. The
institutional arrangements have appropriately exploited
the availability of local staff resources and promoted
constructive interactions with the city authorities. The
institutional set-up with a core team and in-country
teams has been an efficient arrangement for delivering
the Project outputs and achieving outcomes.

Effect of internal and external obstacles
on delivery of outputs and achievement ofoutcomes
The nature of the Project required recruitmentof a number of Project staff and frequent travel
arrangements. The internal UN-Habitat procedures forrecruitment and travel arrangements are not conducive
for swift and flexible action for large and complex
projects. The UN-Habitat procedures have a detailed
approval system to ensure that funds are appropriately
allocated and spent, but at the cost of flexibility
for urgent and large-scale actions. The Project staff
nonetheless coped with the bureaucratic challenges andcompensated the challenges with their dedication andmotivation for successful implementation of the Project.
However, internal obstacles concerning contracts andtravel arrangements have led to substantial frustrations
among the Project team. Other internal barriers weremainly concerned with the tight time schedule and in
mobilising the right type of expertise at the right time,
which as mentioned above caused some confusion.

External barriers were in some cities mainly concernedwith some initial hesitance on the intervention’s scope,difficulties moving from abstract concepts to concreteinterventions, and lack of adequate capacity to enter
into a cooperating partnership. In cases with many
stakeholders having different commercial and politicalinterest it was a challenge to reconcile the differences
pertaining to the intervention. In one case elections were
held during the identification phase which disrupted thework that had to be taken up again. In other cases, thecities encountered communication problems among
their various departments.
The delivery of outputs and achievement of outcomes
have not to any large extent been affected by internaland external obstacles. The consistency of the evidence
gathered on drivers and barriers for the intervention
cycles has suffered somewhat from the limited time
available for more in-depth analysis. Evidence-basedplanning and design remains essential for achieving
sustainable impact. Despite the various shortcomings all
ToRs were finalised and approved.

Cost-effectiveness of Project execution
The breakdown of the Project budget is shown in Table
2.8. The personnel costs are USD 2,374,128 if thetransfer to implementing partners (UKBEAG and IGC) is
included. The personnel cost is 71.7% of total budget,the operational costs USD 15.8%, and support services
cost 12.5%.43 The ratio of operational costs (operations,equipment and travel) is relatively low – one possible
reason being the low travel costs in consequence of ahigh share in in-country staff. The average personnel
costs per intervention is USD 79,138 and the average
operational costs USD 17,383. The Project is found to
be delivered in a cost-effective manner.

Adequacy of Project monitoring andreportingMonthly Brief Narrative Reports have been submitted to
UK FCO since May 2018. The Monthly Narrative Reports
provide an overview of the main events including the
conduct of charrettes, validation workshop reports,
CCRs, ToRs and technical viability reports. All of thesehave been prepared and submitted. Monitoring ofProject’s progress relates to submission of city level
reports. Global policy papers for the pillars and cluster
have been prepared - although some of the cluster
papers are incomplete. One cluster paper has recently
been updated, basically the same text but with an
improved and more readable layout.44 The cluster papers
43 Since the addendum has not been broken down to staff, traveland support services the percentages are slightly distorted.
44 IGC. January 2019. Key considerations for integrated
multi-modal transport planning.

31

32

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

are not formal deliveries but were prepared to form
part of the knowledge generated during the Strategic
Development Phase.
The charrettes and validation workshops were very
important in moving the identification process forward.
Whereas the charrette was attended by a wider
group of stakeholders, the validation workshops weregenerally attended by smaller audiences of mainly key
city stakeholders. Coordination sessions between UK
FCO and the Project management took place on a
weekly basis. The FCO posts and the LCSs had frequentsessions to resolve occurring issues. The LCSs had weekly
conversations with core team members at UN-Habitat
HQ; and FCO posts had monthly meetings with UK FCO
HQ. Besides the regular meetings, ad-hoc meetings
were held when urgent issues needed to be resolved.
The reporting mechanisms were generally found to beappropriate; and monitoring and reporting were foundto be satisfactorily conducted and meaningful.

4.4 EFFECTIVENESS IN CREATING THE
PROGRAMME STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
Achievement of the intended outcomes as
per the Project design
As elaborated in Chapter 3, three more outcomes
were added to the expected accomplishment due tothe Project’s output composition (ref. Figure 3.1). The
achievement of outcomes is dealt with in Section 4.1.
Overall, the Project has achieved the main outcomesof ‘enhanced understanding’ and a validated strategic
framework. The extent to which adequate capacity isdeveloped is for good reasons somewhat uncertain
as the interventions still have to be finally formulated
during the Planning and Design Phase. The case study
sample indicates that the outcomes related to the cities
have generally been achieved as follows: 1) Enhanced
understanding of the challenges and solutions
addressed by the intervention have been achieved; 2)
Validated frameworks for the intervention have beendeveloped; and 3) Awareness on the capabilities andcapacity required to implement the intervention has
been created. The prospects for further developmentof capacity depends among others on the cities’
governance structure and degree of autonomy. In
cases with a hierarchy of decision-makers and complex
approval procedures, it may prove difficult to mobilise
adequate capacity.
The ‘Transition Training and Dialogue Week’ in
London was well appreciated – 20 of the respondents
participated in the training week, 13 (65%) of whomstrongly agree and 7 (35%) agree that the training

proved valuable for sharing of experiences and exposing
good practices (9 of the respondents did not participate
in the training week in London and did thus not offer
an opinion). The respondents expressed that newideas were conceptualised and added to the proposedinterventions; and that the training week was a valuable
experience getting to know how challenges andsolutions in one of the most diverse cities in the world.
The fourth outcome “Global lessons learned” has been
largely achieved. The global lessons learned consist of:1) what could be extracted from the Project specificlessons learned of global relevance; 2) the thematic
policy papers; and 3) the cluster policy papers, some ofwhich still needs to be finalised. The fourth outcome
relates to the Global Component of the Project’s delivery
model which is intended to synthesise the knowledge
accumulated during the Strategic Development Phase.
As the Strategic Development Phase has come to an end
it would be opportune to conclude this outcome.

City level stakeholders’ involvement in thedesign of and reporting on the interventions
The city authorities have been fully involved in theidentification process and in determining the scopeof the interventions. All questionnaire respondents
either strongly agree (17/59%) or agree (12/41%)
that this has been the case. The city authorities havebeen substantially involved in the formulation of thedraft ToR for their respective interventions. A numberof respondents expressed that they in their respective
interventions worked closely with city stakeholders aswell as with key national and city stakeholder entities.
The case study sample indicates that in cities with ahigh degree of autonomy it has mainly been the city
stakeholders that have been involved in the identification
process, but frequently in due coordination with
regional or national level administrations as appropriate.
In cases where the regional administration has thejurisdiction over city affairs, the city stakeholders havebeen involved to a lesser extent. City sector managers
and service providers have generally been involved torepresent their respective areas of responsibility and toadvise on the scope of the interventions.

The ability of the Project team to partnerand collaborate with other stakeholders toachieve the Project objective
In the Project Document it is stated “The Project
objective is to identify strategic interventions in 19
cities as part of the Strategic Development Phase of the
GFCP”. Using a results chain terminology, the Project
immediate objective for the Strategic Development
Phase has been reformulated to add some qualitativeFindings on performance and achievements

substance as “Project concepts and capacity developed
for the transformation of the ‘built environment’ thatwill contribute to improved prosperity and quality of life
for urban residents in programme cities and globally”(ref. Section 3.1). Achievement of this objective requires
multi-stakeholder consultations.
Other city level stakeholders (city service operators,
the private sector, CSOs, NGOs and academia) wereinvited to the charrette and validation workshop
sessions providing an opportunity for them to influence
the scope of the interventions. Development partners
were in some cases also invited if they had previously
been involved in the intervention theme or shown
an interest and could potentially have a role when it
comes to funding of the interventions. The low-income
and vulnerable beneficiaries have only been involved
indirectly. Involvement of community leaders, CSOs,
NGOs, academia and the private sector in the further
implementation process could add value to reaching theoverall objective.
The case study sample indicates that the charrette andvalidation workshop sessions have been an opportunity
to include other city-level stakeholders (city service
operators, the private sector, CSOs and academia) andin number of cases also central and regional government
officials from which some cities are depending on theiractive involvement for implementing the proposedinterventions. Interaction with other city stakeholders
has also taken place in connection with the elaborationof CCRs and ToRs for the interventions. The questionnaire
respondents either strongly agree (14/48%) or agree(12/41%) that the charrette session and the validation
workshop were essential for the participatory process toachieve consensus among city stakeholders as regardsintervention scope and substance (one respondent
neither agreed nor disagreed, one disagreed, and one
did not know). A number of respondents expressedthat the discussions during the charrettes and validation
workshops resulted in a common understanding andconsensus among the participants. One respondent
expressed that the validation workshop would havebenefitted from more direct citizen participation.
Correspondingly, questionnaire respondents either
strongly agree (10/34%) or agree (9/31%) that thecharrette session and the validation workshop were
essential for achieving national level support to the
proposed project (five neither agreed nor disagreed,
three disagreed, and one did not know). The degreeof the cities’ autonomy varies significantly from a highto low dependency on central/regional government
support. The cities with a low dependency on the national
government for implementing their interventions
would not render their consent to the questionnaire’s
statement. Some respondents expressed that national

level organisations should participate in the charretteand validation workshops when their backing andsupport were needed – national level support may also
facilitate local council approval and may also promote
replication in the country. Some respondents expressedthat national stakeholders were not involved as they
were not deemed relevant for the intervention. The
Project has been able to partner and collaborate withother stakeholders has largely achieved the reformulated
Project objective.

Project management’s ability to adapt tochanges during the implementation andmain lessons learned
No major changes have occurred in relation to what
was conceived in the Project Document. The case study
sample indicates that the interventions were subject
to some adjustments in the course of the validation
process, but the interventions’ overall scope remained
unchanged. Most of the milestones as outlined in the
Project Document were achieved by end of 2018. A nocost extension of the Project period was signed on 24
October 2018 to conclude the Strategic Development
Phase by end of March 2019. The four-months
extension period (December 2018 to March 2019) was
termed the Transition Phase focusing on three key roles
that are anticipated for the Implementation Phase: 1)
Programme Management including a review of the
ToC and Logical Framework for the GFCP; 2) Strategic
and Knowledge Management including support toeconomic impact assessments; and 3) Capacity Building,Legacy and Normative Outputs including an outline of
capacity building for partners and cities throughout theProgramme’s lifecycle.45
Key lessons learned include the following themes:46
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Ensuring a gender sensitive approach;Overcoming language barriers;
Avoiding general discussions on political sensitive
issues in larger fora;
Identifying a specific methodology for eachintervention context;
Political awareness and sensitivity;
Finding synergies; andLearning by doing.

The lesson learned concerning vulnerable groups andgender equality is captured in Box 4.1.

45 UN-Habitat. November 2018. Proposal Transition Phase.
46 UN-Habitat. December 2018. Lessons Learned & Key
Recommendations for Phase 2.

33

34

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

Box 4.1: Ensuring a gender sensitive participatory approach.
The basic principle of the participatory process is to include
all the concerned parties. However, experiences show thatusually ‘silent’ members of a community remain excluded
from the process. These are often the most vulnerable
groups (e.g. youth and women), who have different opinions, concerns, needs and priorities. Though emphasis wasmade to ensure a gender parity in the key events of the
GFCP, it was only achieved
during the charrette in Belo Horizonte.
For the Implementation Phase, a gender perspective should
be more substantially integrated in the participatory tools,
and specific workshops and events. For example, someevents could be limited to women and other vulnerable
groups. It is recommended to conduct a gender analysis
and to understand the gender roles and power relations
in each of the selected cities. This would provide a moreequal opportunity for women to participate in the process.
Source: UN-Habitat. December 2018. Lessons Learned & Key
Recommendations for Phase 2.

The project management was not confronted withmajor challenges concerning implementation. Two
major lessons learned, however, relate to the inclusion ofvulnerable groups (see Box 1 above); and the need to becontext specific. The participatory process was designed
to be similar in each city, but it quickly proved that thesame approach does not work globally. For example,
some of the interventions were political sensitive so themulti-stakeholder workshops needed to be plannedcarefully to ensure a constructive dialogue.

Integration of cross-cutting issues into thedesign, planning and implementation of the
Project
The four cross-cutting issues are appropriately presented
in the Project Document. Correspondingly, proper
references to SDG targets and AFINUA key items are
made in the city context reports and terms of reference toindicate the intent to promote the proper mainstreamingof the cross-cutting issues. However, analysis of crosscutting issues and consultations with the respective
target groups seems not to have taken place adequately
during the identification and validation process. Time
constraints could be one explanation for this.
The cross-cutting issues and the corresponding SDG targets
are generally embedded in the interventions. The crosscutting issues were considered to varying degrees: somecities were observant of these and that development should
be linked to the SDGs, whereas others were constrained bylack of accessibility to key informants and thus unable tocollect adequate evidence – with the implication that thetrust of the identification was mainly on technical aspects.
The three GFCP pillars have the potential to incorporate

all four cross-cutting issues but the relative emphasisof mainstreaming these depends on the interventions’specific context. Some of the cross-cutting issues referred
to in relation to the three pillars were:•

Urban planning and design interventions promotebetter integration of low-income areas andimprovement of public spaces which will implicitly
benefit women and youth. Urban planningshould take the risk of climate change hazards
into account, especially flooding by avoiding
development in flood-prone areas. Urban planningalso contains human rights aspects by ensuring
access to low-income housing and land rights whenresettlement of residents is part of the intervention.

•

Transport interventions improve mobility and accessto employment, education and social services andenhance safety and thus address gender and youth.
Transport infrastructure should be developed, andservices delivered to mitigate climate change risks.
Access to appropriate and affordable transport
services is an essential human rights issue.

•

Resilience interventions provides protection against
flooding which is partly caused by climate change
but also the absence of storm-water drainage
systems and thus address: climate change, genderand youth. Proper protect against flooding andclimate change health hazards is an essential
human rights issue.

Urban planning and transport planning could be
integrated processes – which would also facilitate abetter mainstreaming of the cross-cutting issues. NGOs
have in a number of cases been invited to take part in theidentification and validation process to, among others,
facilitate adequate mainstreaming of the cross-cutting
issues. In some cases, it was stated that more inputs
on the cross-cutting issues would have been useful.
Mainstreaming of the cross-cutting issue were seen asa process that should continue into the Implementation
Phase.
The case study sample indicates that gender equality
is the most frequently mentioned cross-cutting issue inthe intervention descriptions, whereas there is limited
reference to youth, climate change and human rights.
This is contrary to the intent of shaping the interventions
under the mainstreaming of environmental safeguards,
youth, gender equality and human rights. The UNHabitat Safeguards Screening Report, Section 3 on theStrategic Development Phase states as follows:47
47 UN-Habitat. March 2018. UN-Habitat Safeguards Screening
Report (Working Copy – Not Approved for Public Disclosure),
Section 3. Environmental and Social Benefits. NB: The youth
cross-cutting issue is not directly mentioned in Section 3.

Findings on performance and achievements•

Human Rights: The project adopts human rightsbased approach and promotes no lower than
the international human rights standards ineach intervention. Therefore, it will set the basis
for the longer-term implementation phase;•

Gender Equality: The Global Future Cities
Programme has a strong gender perspective,
focus improving the resilience of the cities andto provide access to inclusive public transport;•

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: The
project aims to provide technical assistance todevelop strategies to build resilience to climatechange (e.g. flooding) and ensure that development
is sustainable”.

4.5 POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CITY
INTERVENTIONS
Attainment of expected results or nonintended negative effects
A project-cycle approach has been applied for theinterventions in order to relate results and their viability
to a timeline. Following the completion of the Strategic
Development Phase – in which the identification andvalidation of the interventions have been completed
and consolidated – the Implementation Phase will belaunched. The Implementation Phase for the GFCP
interventions has been broken down to three subphases: 1) Planning and Design Phase refers to a shortterm period of 2-3 years; 2) the Build Phase refers to a
medium-term period of 3-7 years; and 3) the Operationand Maintenance (O&M) Phase refers to the long-term
period of 7-15 years. The lifecycle for the interventions
may thus vary from 12-25 years indicating that there
may be a significant variation in the interventions’timeline.
The identification of interventions is the first phase of
the lifecycle, so it is with a degree of uncertainty that
result forecasts can be made. The contexts in which theinterventions have been identified are likely to evolve
significantly over time – either gradually or abruptly
depending on the nature of the external factors. The
initial results will mainly concern capacity development,
whereas results concerning the built environment will
only occur during or after the Build Phase. The intended
impact will materialise during the O&M Phase. Potential
short and medium-term outcomes and long-term
impact are presented in the City Context Reports. These
are well elaborated in the case study sample’s CCRs andpresent the ideal development scenario. However, theachievement of outcomes and impacts is subject to how
the identified barriers can be resolved. The viability byintervention varies significantly in the case study sample
as is also the case for the entire portfolio. The viability
assessment by intervention and implementation subphase is presented in the Technical Viability Reports. The
viability assessments relate to five factors: professional
capacity; market maturity and preparedness; spatial
context; financial capacity; and legal conditions. An
overview of the viability assessments by intervention andphase is presented in Annex 10, and by city in Table 4.3.
The cities with low success rates have declining rates inthe succeeding phases.
Table 4.3: Overall success rate by city.
Category of success rates

Intervention Cities

Cities with low success rates
below 55%

Cebu, New Clark City,
Yangon, Ho Chi Minh,
Abeokuta, Lagos

Cities with medium success rates Cape Town, Istanbul,
56-70%
Surabaya, Bandung,
Iskandar, Melaka
Cities with high success rates
71-77%

Johannesburg, Durban,
Recife, Belo Horizonte,
Bursa, Ankara
Source: Technical Viability Assessment Reports.
Note: Johannesburg and Durban have the second intervention at 66%; and Melaka is at 55%.

It is evident that the cities with low success rates havea lesser likelihood of achieving the expected result,unless specific measures are undertaken to improve theconditions of the five viability factors. Alternatively, thescope of the results should be reduced to correspondwith viability assessment. The UK Government will
provide funding for the Planning and Design Phase,but funding for the Build Phase is not yet secured.
Although the ‘development additionality’ will be higher
for the interventions with low success rates, it would
correspondingly be more difficult to present bankableprojects to development partners.
The interventions are subject to potential risks someof which could be foreseen and others not. The
Project Document lists possible risk events and their:consequences, likelihood, implication, risk factor andmitigation strategy; an overview of the risk events isshown in Table 4.4. The ToR for the city interventions
list specific potential risk that may affect intervention
implementation. The CCRs list a number of successfactors that are based on international best practices,
the considerations of which should increase therobustness and quality of the interventions. There are
no direct links between the risk events in the ToRs andthe success factors in the CCRs.

35

36

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

Table 4.4: Potential risks events
Category

Risk events

Operational

•

•
•
•
Technical•••

Political•••

Financial••

The intervention may be insufficiently
implemented in the target countries,
due to lack of political support orchanges in the political situation;
Lack of administrative capacity andfunding at the city level;
Lack of capacity to develop/implement plans further;
Delays in the estimated interventions
timeline.
Lack of planning and design capacity;
Lack of operation and management
capacity;
The intervention is not adequately
adapted to the evolving context.
Changes in the local and/or national
governments;
Strikes/elections;
Armed conflict/security.
Currency exchange losses are significant;Corruption.

Environmental •Natural disasters: earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding, etc.
Source: UN-Habitat Project Document, Section 3.4, Risk Register.
Note: The Risk register is slightly modified to be forward looking.

In the event that risks materialise it would certainly havecorresponding negative consequences, which could
limit the development results either seriously or lessseriously. Some negative effects may occur even though
the intervention is successfully implemented. One suchnegative effect could be displacement of people due tochanges of the built environment. Generally, indirect
negative effects are not mentioned specifically in the
project documentation.
The questionnaire respondents either strongly agree (19/66%) or agree (9/ 31%) that the proposed interventions
will have the anticipated effects on targeted beneficiaries
when implemented (one respondent neither agreed
nor disagreed). Some respondents expressed that theinterventions include all citizens in the influence area, but
the target group needs to be well defined; the proposedintervention will improve service delivery, budget
allocation and project prioritization, which ultimately will
impact on city residents; and that other derived effects
of higher land value, rent rates, and home values sales
will affect the existing residents. The project will becomea benchmark for other municipalities and authorities.
Furthermore, the questionnaire respondents either
strongly agree (15/ 52%) or agree (13/ 45%) that theintended effects from the proposed interventions andpositive changes on their cities are likely to materialisein the short, medium or long-term (one respondent
neither agreed nor disagreed). Some respondents
expressed that the interventions will have lasting effects
and that effects from some interventions will already befelt in the short-term; and that a strategy needs to be
put in place to achieve the envisioned changes as eachphase requires different efforts. Other cities will be able
to draw on the experiences.

4.6 SUSTAINABILITY PROSPECTS FOR CITY
INTERVENTIONS
Influence of city level stakeholders’ownership on sustainability
The cities’ ownership has been facilitated throughan inclusive and meaningful cooperation with city
stakeholder during the identification and validation
process. The case study sample indicates that the city
authorities generally have taken ownership of theinterventions, which is likely to facilitate the interventions’sustainability, especially so for cities enjoying a highdegree of autonomy and technical viability. There wassome variation in the way community participation
was sought: in some cases, an extensive process of
consultations with NGOs, CSOs, academia and theprivate sector was applied providing a strong foundation
for the implementation of the intervention; whereas inother cases community participation was constrained
due to protocol issues and generally being problematic.
Some interventions were not location specific and thus
more targeted community participation was not an
option.
The questionnaire respondents either strongly agree(16/ 55%) or agree (11/ 38%) that the ownershipand engagement by city level stakeholders haveenhanced the proposed interventions’ sustainability(two respondents neither agreed nor disagreed).
Some respondents expressed that the engagementof local stakeholders, including local NGOs, academia
and community representatives mitigates the risk ofgovernment turn-over during elections, which ensuresproject sustainability by placing project ownership on abroad group of stakeholders; stakeholder participationin the identification and implementation processes
will facilitate sustainability; and involvement of publicauthorities will ensure prioritisation and commitment.
Furthermore, the questionnaire respondents either
strongly agree (19/ 66%) or agree (7/ 24%) that the
UN-Habitat team48 has played an important facilitationrole in the formulation of the proposed interventions
48 The UN-Habitat team consists of members from: UN-Habitat HQ,
UN-Habitat Regional and Country Offices, Local City Specialist,
UKBEAG and IGC.

Findings on performance and achievements(one respondent neither agreed nor disagreed,
one disagreed, and one disagreed strongly). Some
respondents expressed that UN-Habitat had provided
the needed guidance in developing the intervention
concept and in drafting the ToR – their experience andperspective in working with various cities were valuable
in articulating their needs. Two respondents expressedthat the division roles and responsibilities among the
UN-Habitat team members were not made clear upfront,
which made the city authorities to lead the discussions.

partners supporting similar initiatives. The degreeof replicability will to a large extent depend on theinterventions’ positive outcomes during the Planning& Design and Build phases. The longer-term impact
may be too many years away to inspire replicability,
as contexts and challenges may well have evolved indifferent directions.

The wider engagement of stakeholders and affected
communities would require more time than what
was allocated within the tight time schedule andthus community participation was mainly consideredindirectly through stakeholders’ views. A wider
engagement of stakeholders and affected communities
would, nonetheless, be a way of mainstreaming
the cross-cutting issues into the interventions – thecharrettes were one such means of inviting a broader
group of city stakeholders and community groups.

The case study sample indicates that while the policy andplanning environment is adequate, they can be highly
centralised, which may limit the capacity for executing
the plans and programmes and enforcement of these.
This is further accentuated when the city administration
rests with an external body to the city and be evenworse if the mandated body itself has limited capacity.
Cities can have a good professional capacity, butplanners may be rooted in traditional siloed fields and/or
encounter systemic barriers making integrated planninga challenge.

It is evident from the questionnaire response thatcity stakeholders consider that the prospect of theinterventions’ sustainability has been positively
influenced through their sense of ownership, as
their further commitment will both contribute to theachievement of results and sustainability. The resultsmaterialise gradually during the implementation process,some of which will be some years away.

Replicability of city-level activities atnational, regional or local levels
The case study sample indicates that there isconsiderable scope for collaboration within thecity authorities themselves, but also with central
government and development partners with a view toaddress overall policy and legal issues as well as funding
issues. Furthermore, there is also substantial scope forcollaboration with affected community groups – inparticular the vulnerable groups, possibly through civilsociety organisations. In some cases, the interventions
are city-wide, and can as such not be replicated in
the city. In other cases, the interventions are related
to specific communities and may thus be replicated inother communities having similar needs.
Similar city level concepts and associated activities may
well be replicated at either national, regional or local
level, especially so if drivers are in place to facilitatesuch initiatives – which could either be within the GFCP
three pillars or other pillars. The intervention approach
may have good prospects of being replicable in theselected cities if good results are demonstrated. Drivers
could either be in the form of national or local interestin pursuing similar approaches and/or by development

Adequacy of systems and capacity to ensuresustainability of achieved results

Project results are – as mentioned – generated gradually
as a chain of results, of which systems and capacities
are integrated elements which should be developed
simultaneously with the achievement of the results.
As key results have yet to be generated it would bepremature to forecast whether systems and capacities
are in place to sustain the results. The cities which areassessed to have ‘high success rates’, there is a reasonableprobability that systems and capacities will be developed
to correspond to the sustainability requirements. The
same may be the case for cities which are assessed tohave ‘medium success rates’, but more emphasis on
capacity development should be emphasised. Capacity
and systems development will be crucial for cities thatare assessed to have ‘low success rates’.

Innovation and replicability in other middleincome countries
The Project is seen to be innovative in the sense that it
addresses identified needs within a selected group ofpillars simultaneously in a large number of cities while
recognising the specific context for each individualintervention and pursuing the same overall global
goals. The cooperation with academic institutions
and professional associations also represents aninnovative approach by drawing on multiple sources ofknowledge and experiences. Innovative measures could
correspondingly be adopted for the Implementation
Phase to optimise outcomes and impact. As the Projectis universal in its approach it could well be replicablein other middle-income countries provided appropriate
drivers could be mobilised.

37

38

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 THE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PHASE
Achievements and performance
The Strategic Development Phase/Project was efficiently
and effectively executed and has achieved the conceived
immediate outcomes, especially: Outcome 1: Enhanced
understanding of solutions to urban challenges –among the city authorities; and Outcome 2: A validated
framework for the identified city interventions – by key
city stakeholders. Outcome 3: Capability and capacity
developed for participating cities to enable their active
participation during implementation – have beenachieved to some extent bearing in mind that theinterventions have not yet been planned and designed,
but nonetheless awareness has been created about
the importance of having and maintaining adequate
capacity. Outcome 4: Global lessons learned – havebeen achieved, but these need to be consolidated.
Relevance: Overall the Project and its interventions
were found to be relevant relating to the needs of thecities and their residents, although the relevance could
had been further enhanced through a more direct
involvement of the targeted beneficiaries. The relevanceof the interventions is linked to prospects of these being
implementable in terms of an enabling environment,
resource mobilisation, public participation and that the
anticipated impacts are likely to be achieved.
Efficiency: Overall, the Project was implemented
efficiently – especially in light of the challenging
circumstances with regards to the timing and resource
mobilisation. The Project tasks were well phased andwell distributed between international and national
consultants/in-country staff and outputs achieved.
Administrative challenges in relation to recruitment ofstaff and travel arrangements have been overcome –although these continue to exist. The implementationof Project tasks was cost-efficient and completed
reasonably in relation to the work plan.
Effectiveness: The Project has generally been effectiveby achieving the main outcomes and by collaborating
appropriately with city stakeholders and other partners,
whose support and engagement will be essential
in the further implementation process. The project

management has not been confronted with majorchanges in the implementation approach but has
among others recognised that inclusion of vulnerable
groups should be given more attention, and that eachintervention should be dealt with and implemented ineach city’s specific context. More attention should be
paid to the proper integration of cross-cutting issues.
Impact: A major part of the identified interventions
is likely to achieve their expected results. This will inparticular be the case for cities having high or medium
success rates, whereas cities with low success rates arelikely to encounter a number of constraints which may
require additional efforts to overcome. The interventions
are likely to encounter a number of risks during theimplementation process which will require mitigation
efforts to combat – not all risks may be mitigated ifthey are outside the control of the city authorities. The
city authorities are confident that the interventions
will achieve the anticipated effects and that these willmaterialise within the set timeframe.
Sustainability: The cities’ ownership and buy-in were
facilitated through an inclusive and meaningful
cooperation with city stakeholder during theidentification and validation process, which if maintained
during the Implementation Phase would be an essential
contributing factor to achieving sustainability. The
degree of sustainability of the interventions depends
among others on how the cities will be able to copewith the various barriers affecting the implementation –the cities’ ability varies from low to high which requires
differentiated approaches to capacity development
and other support. Innovative measures that optimise
outcomes and impact throughout the project-cycle
could contribute to sustainability.
The interventions may well be replicated at either
national, regional or local level as well as in othermiddle-income countries, especially so if drivers are inplace to facilitate such initiatives.

Theory of Change
The thrust in the Project Document has for obvious
reasons been on the Strategic Development Phase,but the longer-term perspective of achieving the
expected impact and transformative change would add
value to the identification process. The GFCP is a very
complex Programme, but the ToC approach overall
and by intervention could help diluting the complexityand provide better oversight of the perceived change
process. Elaboration of a ToC for each intervention
would enhance the understanding of the intended
long-term change process among city policymakers,planners and technical staff – as well as being a

Conclusions

means of conveying and debating the intervention’s
aim and purpose to the affected target population.
The ToC diagram and the underlying details should
gradually be expanded as more evidence, informationand knowledge is gathered, including the details ofpotential drivers, identified barriers, assumptions andrisk mitigation measures.
As the emerging impact in terms of transforming thecities’ ‘built environment’ will only occur gradually during
and after the Build Phase, the scope of the interventions
may be adjusted and amended a number of times in theinitial phases of identification and formulation (planningand design) either due to a growing level of evidence,change in context, or change of priorities as all needs
cannot be accommodated and changed politicalinterests (change in composition of local governments
due to elections, etc.). The targets and principles as
contained in the SDGs, AFINUA key items and crosscutting issues should continue to guide the directionof the interventions. More concise references to SDGs,
AFINUA key items and cross-cutting issues would help
sharpen the focus, as just making the reference may
not guarantee that the intention is properly integrated
in the intervention. The AFINUA has been instrumental
in operationalising the use of the NUA paragraphs
by assembling groups of these into ‘key items’. As
reduction of poverty, prosperity and gender equality are
the overriding themes, the involvement of the targeted
beneficiaries through participatory processes remains
essential.
Although the implementation of the Strategic Development
Phase was well outlined in the Project Proposal/Project
Document, certain aspects of the implementation process
as it evolved could deserve some conclusive observations
as regards the Logical Framework, Theory of Change,
recurrent economic impact assessment, and long-term
Knowledge Management.

GFCP documentation
The GFCP is at the identification/ conceptualisation
stage during which the context, emerging outcomes
and impact are elaborated and thus form the ‘baseline’for the change process. The ambition and scope of thedeliverables expanded during the course of the Strategic
Development Phase.
Two sets of documents have been prepared: a)Intervention specific documents; and b) generic policy
documents.
•

The City Context Reports and the Terms of Referencecontain important information on the general city
context as well as the intervention specific context.

The ToRs is likely to be replaced by more ‘contractual
like terms’ with the risk of losing useful information
contained in the ToRs. In order to preservebaseline information – which are of enduring
value – the context and development perspectives
could be assembled in one volume including
elements from the Technical Viability Reports.
•

Policy papers provide evidence and global
experience to inform policy decisions related
to the three pillars and associated clusters. The
policy and cluster papers were only finalised at
the end of the Strategic Development Phase but
have like the context papers enduring value for
the Implementation Phase and replications in theselected countries and elsewhere. The policy papers
can enable the cities to make better informed
decisions, FCO counterparts to provide betteradvice, and consultants to draw on the global
experience.

Transition to the Planning and Design Phase
It is important that the cities’ commitment to the
proposed intervention(s) is confirmed and has thebacking of the local government authority, as well as
the national authorities to the extent this is required.
Furthermore, that the financing arrangements andimplications are clearly outlined including possible
O&M costs where needed. Finally, that draft MoUs
between UK FCO and the city authorities are in place
indicating the way forward for each intervention andtheir respective obligations.
The MoU between UK FCO and city authorities should
ideally be signed prior to launching the Planning and
Design Phase, which clearly outlines the parties’
respective obligations in making human and financial
resources available, which also outlines the further
financial consequences for the city during the Build andO&M phases. The MoUs may also require the consent
of national or state/regional authorities which in thatcase could co-sign the MoU or vice versa. A further
cooperation agreement may be required in cases
where funds will be channelled to the city authority
for supporting their activities during the Planning and
Design Phase.

39

40

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

UN-Habitat’s potential involvement in the
Implementation Phase
UN-Habitat is currently in the process of preparing a
proposal for its potential involvement in the Planningand Design Phase as the ‘strategic partner’. Key themesof UN-Habitat’s continued engagement could among
others be: i) conduct of regular reviews related to thechange process (ToC) concerning the trend of external
factors and the promotion of the SDGs and NUA/
crosscutting issues; ii) conduct of ‘rapid economic
assessments’ to see how the economic and social
context evolves and what the consequences for theinterventions may be; iii) identification of project specificand wider urban management capacity development
needs for city stakeholders; and iv) accumulation oflessons learned for urban policy and managementtranslated into ‘good practices’.

In such cases synergies may be exploited both in termsof technical solutions and sharing of team members.
In the event that the consultant should not submit a
proposal, aspects of approaches, methodology andteam composition should be dealt with in great detailduring the consultant’s inception phase.
Important conditions for launching the Implementation
Phase would be: i) that documentation for initiationof the interventions is adequately in place; ii) the city
authorities have the capacity to lead/guide the final
formulation and implementation of the interventions;iii) consulting services are available as required forfinal formulation and implementation; and iv) M&E
mechanisms are in place to account for drivers, barriers
affecting implementation and the actual results
achieved.

Theory of Change and results framework

5.2 THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
Launch of the Planning and Design Phase
UK FCO intends to procure international consulting
consortia for the Planning and Design Phase whichraises some cooperation issues: i) the interaction
with the city authorities; ii) cooperation with local
consultants; iii) interface with a possible M&E
consultant/strategic partner; and oversight by UK FCO
posts. Preferable, the international consulting consortia
should associate with local professional firms in order
to expand their experiences and capability, which
would as well be useful for the succeeding project
cycle phases – the “Assessment of Market Maturity
and Professional Capacity” reports have outlined theavailability and capacity of the local consulting industry.
Cooperation with local professional firms will also be
an advantage for the international consulting firms as
they have in-depth knowledge of the local context.
Ideally, the consultant being invited for the planning anddesign assignment for the specific interventions should
review the ToR (both those prepared by the Project
team and the contract-based prepared by UK FCO) andsubmit a technical and financial proposal; among others
to ensure consistency with the intervention concept. The
composition of the consultant’s team (qualifications andcompetence of team members) is an important aspect toensure the resources are used effectively and correspondto the assignment at hand. The ‘Project ToR’ include alist of professional disciplines and team members – thenumber of team members is generally high, but few if
any social scientists are included. In some cases, the cities
have more than one intervention that are interrelated.

Elaboration of a ToC and results framework for the
GFCP interventions would be essential for monitoringand evaluating the results for each of the interventions’sub-phases both with a view to document results
attributable to GFCP and lessons learned, but also tocapture the need for amendments due to changing
contexts and priorities or other circumstances. The
transformative effects to which the GFCP havecontributed should be reviewed on a regular basis toassess the extent to which the envisioned changes ofthe built environment are materialising.

Funding
The degree of autonomy and revenue generation
capacity among the cities may have limitations on thescale and duration of the intervention. Funding options
for: the Build Phase may include national, local andforeign sources; and the O&M Phase may include local
revenues and user charges. These challenges will callfor varying implementation approaches and balancingof the expected achievements in order to enhance
the interventions’ sustainability aspects. Financing
requirements and funding sources for the Build and O&M
phases should be identified during the Planning and
Design Phase and negotiations undertaken with external
and internal funders in order to tap these opportunities
and facilitate uninterrupted implementation.

Coordination
Steering committees should preferably be establishedwith regular sessions in which key stakeholder
representatives can exchange their views and agree on
modifications to the process and substance as deemedConclusions

warranted. Consultative fora for wider stakeholder
consultations could be held for general orientation if
major issues need to be debated to reach consensus
on amendments. Civil society organisations could be
invited to interact with the targeted beneficiaries andadvise on options for proper inclusion.
In the event of a ‘strategic partner’ is assigned for the
Implementation Phase, the MoU should clearly spell out
the strategic partner’s mandate vis-à-vis UK FCO HQ andposts, design consultants, and city authorities. The roleof the strategic partner should be complementary to theplanning & design consultants and deal with generalurban management issues. A Knowledge Management
system should be in place that collect and accumulate
experiences and lessons learned across the 19 cities,
which can be shared among the selected cities andglobally.

41

42

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

6. LESSONSLEARNED FROMTHE EVALUATION
The main key aspects of the evaluation were that: 1)
the outcomes of the Strategic Development Phase
appropriately reflect the cities’ warranted development
scenario and the evolving context; 2) the transition to
the Implementation Phase is well planned to enable
well-coordinated mobilisation; and 3) assuring the
Implementation Phase’s development path withoutcomes, impact and sustainability is well conceived.
Some of the lessons learned from undertaking the
Project, which would also have a bearing on the
Implementation Phase, are:•Mobilisation of large UN-Habitat teams for complex
assignments with short response time require flexible
recruitment procedures and travel arrangements.

•

Teamingupwithacademic
institutions
andprofessional
associations
providesabroader
professional
resourcebase
andcompetence
increasing
thequalityof
inputsforcomplexassignments.

•

More attention to the longer-term perspectives
through a Theory of Change approach would
be useful for determining the scope of theinterventions and the continued dialogue
with city authorities and city stakeholders.

•

Assessment
of
the
local
authorities’
governance structure, degree of autonomy
and urban management capacity are essential
entry
pointsforscoping
interventions.

•

More attention should be paid to vulnerable
groups from the outset of the identification phaseand more insight provided through applicationofcommunity
participatory
approaches.

•

Cross-cutting issues should be better incorporated
in the intervention design; and the significance andrelative importance of each of the four issues forthe intervention should be stressed.
More focussed and better argued references to
SDGs and AFINUA key items would provide better
policy and strategic development directions.
Overall policy considerations for thematic
pillars should be made early on to facilitate
the conceptualisation of the interventions.

••

Facilitation of the city authorities’ participation in
the conceptualisation and identification process
through an inclusive approach has proved
useful for creating commitment and ownership.

•

Context specific identification of the interventions
related to the cities’ current situation andwarranted future scenario provides a more
realistic background for workable solutions.

•

The cities’ enabling environment and resourcebase – financial and human resources – varies
considerably which call for differentiateddevelopment approaches.

The OECD/DAC Guidelines “The Challenge of
Capacity Development: Working Towards Good
Practice (2006)” sum up what has been learned aboutcapacity development (CD) over the past decades. Theinternational CD praxis has for some time involved
three levels of intervention: the enabling environment(national/sector framework), the organisational level,
and the individual level – the levels are interdependent.
Appreciating the interactions between the three levelsof CD means recognising the important role of systemic
factors in enabling or blocking change. This approachentails a concern with the wider political economy ofchange but continues to treat CD as a distinct challenge
at entry point. The table below illustrates capacity
development levels, elements and approaches.
The change process is not always linear but rather cyclicwith a number of circular feedback loops (ref. Section
3.1). The Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA),
for example advocates for changes to happen throughincremental steps, especially when operating in uncertain
and complex contexts where reformers are unsure what
the problems and solutions actually are. Such process
is termed ‘muddling through’, which implies taking a
gradual approach to addressing particular problems.49

49 Source: Matt Andrews et al. 2012. Escaping Capability Traps
through Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation.

Lessons learned from the evaluation

Table 6.1 Capacity Development Results Framework.
CD level

Some elements that define capacity

Main CD approaches

Enabling environment

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Socio-political interests and linkages
Social and economic factors
Policy frameworks
Strategies and plans
Laws and regulatory mechanisms
Institutional landscapes
Resource allocation among public sector functions

Reform processes

Organisational level

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Mandate, legitimacy, credibility
Values, political autonomy
Organisational structure and processes
Planning and approval procedures
Systems and tools including M&E
Knowledge management
Staff levels, qualifications and delegated authority

Organisational development

Individual level

•
•
•
•

Skills and knowledge
Experience
AttitudeCompetences

Human resources development

43

44

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT PHASE
It well recognised that the Strategic Development
Phase/ Project has come to an end and thus further
improvements of the identification and validation
process are no longer possible. The lessons learned as
elaborated in Chapter 6 could be incorporated if similarinterventions were to be replicated. However, theProject could be further accomplished by undertaking
the following recommendations, which would be usefulfor the Implementation Phase and for replication of the
GFCP identification process:1. The City Context Reports should be consolidated
by integrating complementary aspects fromthe interventions’ ToR as well as from theTechnical Viability Assessment reports. The
consolidated City Context Reports would thus
serve as a means of baseline information.
2. The cluster policy papers should be finalisedby combining IGC and UN-Habitat inputs. The
compendia of pillar and cluster policy papers
should be assembled with an introduction of thepapers’ interlinkages and explain how the cluster
policy papers complement the pillar policy papers.
3. A synthesis of experiences on how the Project’s
approach and methodology evolved compared towhat was planned in the Project Document shouldbe elaborated in a “Completion Report”. Thissynthesis could be merged with the lessons learnedon the process as presented in the “Lessons Learned& Key Recommendation” document that touches
upon some of these issues. Lessons learned on how
issues related to the three pillars’ substance havebeen tackled could be a useful contribution.

7.2 IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
The below recommendations concern the partners
engaged in the Implementation Phase. UK FCO willbe the lead partner and executing agency for the
Implementation Phase; and be the signatory of the
MoUs with city authorities and of consultancy contracts
with consulting consortia. UN-Habitat has submitted a
proposal to UK FCO for its continued role as a ‘strategic
partner’ with some likelihood of being accepted. The

recommendations for the Implementation Phase remain
valid independently of the selection of the strategic
partner. The recommendations are:
4. MoUs between UK FCO and city authorities
should ideally be finalised before the launchof the Planning & Design Phase to confirm
the city authorities’ commitment for carrying
the interventions through to the O&M Phase;and for outlining the mutual obligations.
5. The consultants that will be invited to undertakethe intervention assignments for the Planning &Design Phase should ideally before the award of thecontract prepare technical and financial proposals
that outline approach and methodology (following a
ToC approach) and team composition to ensure thatthe consulting services are well aligned to the GFCP
objectives, including poverty aspects, inclusion ofvulnerable groups, cross-cutting issues and capacity
development needs. Preferably, the consultant
should liaise with the city authority in the processof preparing the proposal. Ideally the international
consultants should associate with national
consultants in order to draw on the local expertise
as well as contributing to its further development.
6. The design and planning of the cities’ interventions
should take the varying level of viability into
consideration (i.e. viability assessment factorsof professional capacity, market maturity andpreparedness, spatial context, financial capacity
and legal condition), as the viability will influence
what can realistically be implemented. The
factors could change over time either positively
or negatively. Local governance, degree of
autonomy and capacity are important aspects
for ensuring ownership and sustainability. Theinterventions could include elements that could
have positive effects on the viability factors.
7. A ToC diagram and results framework for
the Implementation Phase by sub-phase withindicators and targets should be developed formonitoring the results attributable to the GFCP
interventions and the transformative effects– including integration of vulnerable groups
and mainstreaming of the cross-cutting issues.
8. In cases where more than one intervention will
be implemented in a selected city, potential
synergies should be explored both as regards
substance and sharing of team inputs toenable a holistic approach where feasible.

Recommendations

9. Budgets for the interventions should be prepared
for the Build Phase and O&M Phase respectively.
Internal and external funding sources should
be identified and preliminary negotiations with
development banks and potential development
partners should be initiated – with a view to ensuringthat financing will be available. In cases where
this is not likely to happen fully, the scope of theintervention should be modified to correspond to
the funding that realistically can be made available.
10. Coordination mechanisms should be put in placethat ensure that the city authorities’ ownership isfully respected, activities are well coordinated by
implementing partners and city stakeholder, andif need be that conflicting views can be resolved.
11. The option to include local CSOs and NGOs should
be considered when community participation isessential for finding appropriate solutions that meetthe need of the targeted beneficiaries and achieving
consensus. Agreements should be made with the city
authorities on the right process to engage with thetargeted beneficiaries in relation to the intervention’s
specific context and for achieving its objectives.
12. The complementary role of the strategic partner
should be clearly defined in relation to the
Planning & Design consultant; and similarly,
the mandate vis-à-vis UK FCO HQ and posts,
design consultants/service provider and city
authorities should be clearly spelled out in the
MoU between the strategic partner and UK FCO.
13. Besides the complementary role, the strategic partner
should monitor the change process prompted by
the planning and design of the interventions as well
as changes of the enabling environment and thegeneral context – including capacity development.
The monitoring of the change process could among
others be conducted through ‘rapid’ strategic
economic and social impact assessments withregular intervals, the result of which should feed
into the ToC analysis and subsequent considerations
on the need for adjusting the interventions’ scope.
14. The strategic partners should facilitate theknowledge management concerning results
and implementation processes as derived from
‘implementing’ the interventions.

45

46

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

ANNEXESANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the
Global Future Cities Programme
Terms of Reference

October 2018
1. Background and Context
The United Nations Human Settlements Programme, UN-Habitat, is mandated by the UN General Assembly topromote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities. It is the focal point for all urbanization and humansettlement matters within the UN system. The agency is to support national and local governments in laying thefoundation for sustainable urban development.
The United Kingdom Prosperity Fund the “Global Future Cities Programme” has two phases; a strategic development
phase (2018), followed by an implementation phase (2019-2021). The strategic phase of the programme aims toassess the viability and ensure stakeholder ownership to derive clarity on carrying out a coherent series of strategic andtargeted interventions in 19 cities in 10 countries. The interventions to be identified aim to encourage a move towards
developing sustainability, avoiding urban sprawl and slum developments, and to achieve inclusive prosperity whilst
alleviating high levels of city poverty. The programme contributes to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals
and implementation of the New Urban Agenda, in particular target 11.2, 11.A and 11.B, the Sendai Framework for
DRR and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. UN-Habitat supports implementation of the strategic development
phase to ensure that sustainable urban development is safeguarded and to shape conditions for a possible strategic
partnership in the second implementation phase.
The Global Future Cities Programme supports the Strategic Plan 2014-2015 sub-programme 2: EA 2.2 Improved policies, plansand designs for compact, integrated and connected, socially inclusive cities and neighbourhoods adapted by partner cities,
EA 2.1: Improved national urban policies or spatial frameworks for compact, integrated, connected and socially inclusive cities
adopted by partner metropolitan, regional and national authorities, and EA 2.3 Improved policies, plans and strategies that
contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change adopted by partner city, regional and national authorities.
1.1 The Project
The project pertains the strategic development phase of the Global Future Cities Programme, which is a specificcomponent of the larger Prosperity Fund and aims to carry out targeted interventions to encourage sustainable
development, increase prosperity whilst alleviating high levels of urban poverty. As a secondary objective, theprogramme will also create significant short and long-term business opportunities in growing markets forecast to beregional growth hubs, including for UK exporters in the field of future cities.

47

The project document specifies that strategic development phase focuses on 42 projects/activities in19 cities:
Brazil: Belo Horizonte, Recife
Indonesia: Bandung, Surabaya
Malaysia: Iskandar, Melaka
Myanmar: Yangon
Nigeria: Abeokuta, Lagos
Philippines: Cebu, New Clark City
South Africa: Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg
Thailand: Bangkok
Turkey: Ankara, Bursa, Istanbul
Vietnam: Ho Chi Minh City
The programme aims to develop the 42 projects/activities in 3 thematic pillars: urban planning, transport, resilience
with a strong component on data and smart technologies.
The project has one expected accomplishment: Enhanced understanding of solutions to challenges for congestion,
pollution, urban sprawl, lack of accessible services, poor planning and land management and inability to respond to
the impacts of growth, climate change and natural disasters in selected cities.
The purpose of this project is to translate the findings of the scoping phase conducted by the UK FCO into definedand validated interventions which are relevant and ready for moving into the follow-up phase of bidding andimplementation. Specifically, the aim of the project is to work with partner city governments and wider stakeholders
to confirm proposed programme interventions are the right ones and with the local strategic context and needs;
engage with stakeholders from all relevant segments of the economy and wider society; future refine and document
details of the individual interventions.
The project was planned for a nine-month period starting in April 2018 and ending in December 2018. The project
has a budget of USD3,194,220.
1.2 Project Management
The project is implemented by The Urban Planning and Design Lab located in the Urban Planning and Design Branch
in close collaboration with UN-Habitat’s Regional and Country Office, Urban Planning and Design Branch’s Climate
Change Unit, the Urban Mobility Unit of the Urban Basic Services Branch, Urban Economy Branch and the Urban
Legislation, Land & Governance Branch.
The main external partner is UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office/ Prosperity Fund Global Future Cities Programmewith implementing partners the International Growth Centre and the UK Built Environment Advisory Group(UKBEAG). The International Growth Centre’s Cities that Work imitative works alongside UN-Habitat’s knowledge
management team, as a knowledge partner in the project. The role of the UK Built Environment Advisory Group is toassess, as professional partner, the professional capacity and market maturity in respective countries for a successful
implementation of the proposed projects.
2. Mandate and Purpose of the Evaluation
This evaluation is undertaken in accordance with the project agreement with the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office/Prosperity Fund Global Future Cities Programme, and the UN-Habitat Evaluation Policy (2013) and the Revised UNHabitat Evaluation Framework (2016) requiring for programmes and projects over USD 1million should be evaluatedby external evaluation consultant by the end of the intervention.
UN-Habitat is undertaking this evaluation of the project to assess the performance of the project, to what extent it
has been relevant, efficient and effective, and sustainable, as well as assess changes at outcome level and emerging
impact to identify lessons to inform the implementation of next phase and future projects. The evaluation will also
use the criteria of partnerships as well as assess how gender, human rights, youth and climate change were elementsof the project.

48

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

The evaluation is included in the 2018 UN-Habitat Evaluation Plan and will synthesize achievements, results andlessons learned from the project. The sharing of findings from this evaluation will inform UN-Habitat, UK Foreign& Commonwealth Office/ Prosperity Fund Global Future Cities Programme, International Growth Centre, UK Built
Environment Advisory Group and other key stakeholders, including governing bodies and Member States, on what
was achieved and learned from the project.
3. Objectives of the Evaluation
The evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for Global Future Cities Programme is to provide UN-Habitat andpartners with an independent and forward-looking appraisal of the project’s operational experience, achievements,
opportunities and challenges based on its performance and expected accomplishments. What will be learned fromthe evaluation findings are expected to be—one of various sources of information—informing UN-Habitat’s future
engagement in similar projects and the next phase of this project, influencing strategies, adjusting and correcting as
appropriate, exploiting opportunities, replicating and up-scaling the implementation approach used, and generating
credible value for targeted beneficiaries and addressing national sustainable urbanization priorities. The evaluation
results will also contribute to UN-Habitat’s planning, reporting and accountability.
Key objectives of evaluation are:a. To assess the achievement of the expected outcome and performance of the project identifying strategicinterventions in 19 cities. This will entail analysis of delivery of outputs, achievement of the outcome and viable‘pro-poor’ projects identified in the 19 participating cities and this will entail an assessment of the stakeholder
engagement process through charrettes and workshops.
b. To assess the extent to which the strategic phase has created ‘value-for-money’ supporting alleviation of poverty
and if the participatory approach and tools used during the implementation have worked well or not in guiding
national planning partners and private sector to identify viable project/ activities at city level.
c. To make recommendations based on the findings of the evaluation, on what needs to be done to effectively plan,
implement, promote, monitor and replicate project activities, including new proposals for future collaboration.
4. Evaluation Scope and Focus
The evaluation will cover the whole period of the project from April to December 2018 and is expected to assessachievements, performance, challenges and opportunities of the project through an in-depth evaluation of results achieved.
The evaluation will take place in the latter part of 2018 at a time when most of the project’s activities have been
completed or are near completion.
5. Evaluation Questions Based on Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation is based on criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact outlook and sustainability andsatisfactoriness of criteria. It is in line with standards and norms of evaluation in the United Nations system. Delivery
towards the expected outcome will be rated.
The evaluator should develop an evaluation matrix with evaluation questions, key stakeholders and data collection
sources. They may expound on the following issues, as necessary, to carry out the objectives of the evaluation.
Relevance••••

To what extent are the objectives of the project consistent with national goals, policies and strategies, and urban
development plans?
To what extent is the implementation strategy responsive to SDGs, New Urban Agenda and strategies of UNHabitat?
To what extent are the project’s intended outputs and outcome relevant to the needs of cities, local authorities
and citizens?

To what extent were vulnerable groups included in the project design and implementation?

49

Efficiency••••

How well was the project designed and implemented, and were resources efficiently utilized?
To what extent were the institutional arrangements adequate for achieving the expected outcome? What type of(administrative, financial and managerial) internal and external obstacles did the project face and to what extent
has this affected project delivery of outputs and achievement of the expected outcome?
To what extent was the project delivered in a cost-effective manner?
What mechanisms for monitoring and reporting have been built into the project?

Effectiveness
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Did the project achieve what it was intended to during the strategic development phase as per the project
design?
What were the major factors that influenced the achievement of the expected outcome?
To what extent were the resources used to implement the project justified in terms of delivering on the expected
outcome?
To what extent have city level stakeholders and UK implementing partners been involved in the design andimplementation of the project?
What types of products and services did the project provide to beneficiaries through activities implemented?
To assess how well the Management of the project has learned from and adjusted to changes during
implementation?
To what extent monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the project has been timely, meaningful andadequate?
To what extent were cross-cutting issues of gender, youth, climate change, and human rights integrated into thedesign, planning and implementation, reporting and monitoring of the project?
How as the project able to partner and collaborate with other stakeholders to achieve the project objectives?

Impact Outlook•

To what extent has the project attained or not (or is expected to attain) its objective and expected outcome(short, medium and long-term) to partners and targeted beneficiaries, whether citizens, participating cities andlocal authorities?

Sustainability••••

To what extent did the project engage the participation of city level stakeholders in design, implementation,
monitoring and reporting?
To what extent and in what ways has the ownership by city level stakeholders impacted sustainability of the
project?
To what extent will the city-level activities be replicable or scaled up at national, regional or local levels or
encourage further collaboration and exchange between stakeholders?
Are the systems and capacities in place to ensure the project results are sustained?

6. Stakeholder involvement
It is expected that this evaluation will be participatory and involving key stakeholders. Stakeholders will be kept
informed of the evaluation processes including design, information collection, and evaluation reporting and results
dissemination to create a positive attitude for the evaluation and enhance its utilization. Relevant entities from UNHabitat, UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office/ Prosperity Fund Global Future Cities Programme, International GrowthCentre, UK Built Environment Advisory Group, local authorities, and citizens may participate through a questionnaire,interviews or focus group discussions.

50

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

7. Evaluation methods
The evaluation shall be independent and carried out following the evaluation norms and standards of UN-Habitat andthe United Nations System.
The evaluation analysis will be based on the Theory of Change of the project and its logical framework and will
outline the results chain and pathways as well as risks and assumptions.
A variety of methods will be applied to collect information during evaluation. These methods include the following
elements:
a. Review of documents relevant to the project. Documents to be provided by relevant UN-Habitat entities
and partners, and documentation available with stakeholders and beneficiaries (such documentation shall beidentified and obtained by the evaluator). The evaluator is expected to review all relevant information sources,
including but not limited to the following documents:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Project document, results framework and implementation plans;
Monitoring and Mission Reports;
Publications;Tools;
Training and workshop reports;
Reviews;
Strategic plans, as deemed relevant, such as UN-Habitat’s Strategic Plan (2014-2019), relevant nationaland city development plans, and other relevant policy documents;
Outreach and communication material.

b. Key informant interviews and consultations, including focus group discussions will be conducted with
implementing partners, key national stakeholders and others, including project staff of UN-Habitat. The principles
for selection of stakeholders to be interviewed as well as evaluation of their performance shall be clarified inadvance (or at the beginning of the evaluation). The informant interviews will be conducted to obtain qualitative
information on the evaluation issues, allowing the evaluators to assess relevance, efficiency and effectiveness.

c. Surveys, if deemed feasible, to obtain quantitative information on stakeholders’ views and perceptions.
The evaluator will describe expected data analysis and instruments to be used in the inception report. Presentationof the evaluation findings should follow the standard format of UN-Habitat Evaluation Reports (evaluation purposeand objectives, evaluation methodology and approach, findings (achievements and performance rating assessments),
conclusions, lessons learned, recommendations).
8. Accountability and Responsibilities
UN-Habitat will commission the evaluation. It will be managed as a centralized evaluation by the Evaluation Unit.
The project team located in the Urban Planning and Design Lab will provide logistical support on day-to-day basis.
The Evaluation Unit will guide the recruitment and ensure that the evaluation is contracted to suitable candidates. The
Evaluation Unit will advise on the code of conduct of evaluation, provide guidance and technical support throughout
the evaluation process. The Evaluation Unit will have overall responsibility of ensure that contractual requirements are
met and approve all deliverables (Inception Report with work plan, Draft and Final Evaluation Reports).
An evaluation reference group will be established at the start of the evaluation process with members representing
the project team, representatives from the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office/ Prosperity Fund Global Future
Cities Programme, International Growth Centre, UK Built Environment Advisory Group and from the Urban Planningand Design Branch, Urban Economy Branch, Urban Basic Services Branch and the Urban Legislation, and Land andGovernance Branch as well as the Evaluation Unit. The role of the reference group is to ensure credibility and qualityof the evaluation. It will review and endorse all the evaluation outputs including TORs, inception report and draftsof the evaluation report.

51

The evaluation will be conducted by one evaluator. The consultant should have both substantive and evaluation
expertise. The evaluator is responsible for meeting professional and ethical standards in planning and conducting theevaluation and producing the expected deliverables in accordance with UN-Habitat evaluation policy and norms andstandards for evaluation in the UN system.
The evaluator will receive overall guidance from the reference group, technical support from the Evaluation Unit, andthe project team is responsible for providing logistical support.
9. Qualifications and Experience of the Evaluators
The evaluation shall be carried out by one international consultant. The consultant is expected to have:a. Extensive evaluation experience. The consultant should have ability to present credible findings derived fromevidence and putting conclusions and recommendations supported by the findings.
b. Specific knowledge and understanding in the field of Urban Planning, Transport and Resilience and UN-Habitatand its mandate.
c. 8-10 years of programme management experience in results-based management working with projects/
programmes in the field of urban planning, urban legislation, governance and capacity building.
d. Advanced academic degree in political sciences, social economy, public administration, or similar relevant fields.
e. Recent and relevant experience working in developing countries.
f. It is envisaged that the consultant would have a useful mix of experience and familiarity with public administrationin various parts of the world.
g. Fluent in English (understanding, reading and writing) required.
10. Work Schedule
The evaluation will be conducted over the period of three months, from December 2018 to February 2019 with eightweeks paid for the consultant. The evaluator is expected to prepare an inception report with a work plan that will
operationalize the evaluation. In the inception report, Theory of Change, understanding of the evaluation questions,evaluation matrix, methods to be used, limitations or constraints to the evaluation as well as schedule and delivery dates
to guide the execution of the evaluation, should be detailed. The provisional timetable is as follows in section 13.
11. Deliverables
The three primary deliverables for this evaluation are:a. Inception Report with evaluation work plan. Once approved, it will become the key management document
for the evaluation, guiding evaluation delivery in accordance with UN-Habitat’s expectations throughout theperformance of contract. The draft inception report is reviewed and approved by the evaluation reference group.
b. Draft Evaluation Reports. The evaluation team will prepare evaluation report draft(s) to be reviewed by UNHabitat. The draft should follow UN-Habitat’s standard format for evaluation reports. The draft report is sharedwith the evaluation reference group for review and comments. The evaluation reference group will review andprovide comments on draft reports.
c. Final Evaluation Report (including Executive Summary and Appendices) will be prepared in English and follow
the UN-Habitat’s standard format of an evaluation report. The report should not exceed 45 pages (excluding
Executive Summary and Appendices). The report should be technically easy to comprehend for non-specialists.
The final report is approved by the reference group.
12. Resources
The funds for the evaluation of the project are made available from the project’s budget. The remuneration rate of theconsultant will be determined by functions performed, qualifications, and experience of the consultant.
The consultancy is output based and payments will be based on deliverables over the consultancy period. The fees
will be paid upon satisfactory delivery of outputs as per agreement.

52

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

Where applicable, travel costs of the consultants (airplane ticket economy class), transfers, and daily allowance as per
the UN rate is payable in addition to the daily fee. Daily subsistence allowance will be paid only when working outside
the official duty station (home-based) of consultants.
13. Provisional Time Frame
Oct 18

Nov 18Dec 18

Jan 19Feb 19

1

2 3 4

1 2

X

X

X

X X

#

Task Description

1

2 3

1

Development of TOR for the Evaluation X

X X

2Call for expression of interest andrecruitment of consultant

3

Review of background documents

X X

4

Preparation
andapprovalofinception report with work plan andmethodology of work

X X X

5

Data collection including document
reviews, interviews, consultations,group meetings and field visits

6

Analysis of evaluation findings,
commence draft report writing andbriefings to UN-Habitat

7

Presentation of preliminary Findings to
UN-Habitat and Evaluation Reference
Group

8

Draft Evaluation ReportX

9

Review of Evaluation Report

X X X

10

Delivery of Final Evaluation Report

4 1

2

3 4 1 2 3 4

X X

X

X X

X X X

3

X X

X

53

ANNEX 2: LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED

UN-Habitat HQ
Dr Martin Barugahare, Chief Evaluation Unit
Ms Susanne Bech, Evaluation Officer, Evaluation Unit
Mr Raf Tuts, Director Programme Division
Mr Joerg Weich, Director Management & Operations Division
GFCP TeamMr Rogier van den Berg, Team Leader, Head of Urban Lab
Mr Klas Groth, Deputy Team Leader, Urban Lab, Focal Point for Myanmar, Turkey and support to South Africa
Ms Niina Rinne, Support Management, Focal Point for South Africa, Indonesia, Support to Vietnam and thePhilippines
Ms Charlotte Mohn, Mobility and Focal Point for Malaysia and partially Nigeria
Ms Sara Thabit, Urban Planner SDGs and NUA Alignment, Focal Point for Turkey
Ms Gabriela Aguinaga, Urban Economy & Municipal Finance, Technical Viability Assessment, Focal Point for thePhilippines and Thailand
Mr Riccardo Maroso, Urban Planner, Focal Point for Brazil and support to Nigeria
Local City Specialists
Mr Mark de Castro, New Clark City
Mr Sinan Ozden, Ankara
Mr Sola Adepoju, Abeokuta
Ms Magdala Satt Arioli, Belo Horizonte
Mr Sandile Mbatha, Durban
Mr Pham Thai Son, Ho Chi Minh CityMr Jean-Paul Hitipeuw, Yangon
Mr Yoga Adiwinarto, Bandung
Ms Shipra Narang-Suri, Branch Coordinator UPDB
Ms Laura Petralla, Leader City Planning, Extension and Design Unit (UPDB)Mr Robert Lewis-Lettington, Unit Head Urban Legislation Unit (ULLGB)Mr Marcus Mayr, Associate Human Settlements Officer, Climate Change Planning Unit (UPDB)
Ms Stephanie Holzwarth, JPO, Urban Mobility Unit (UPDB)
Ms Angela Mwai, Unit Leader, Gender Coordination and Support Unit, Programme Division
Mr David Thomas, Consultant Programme Division
Mr Marco Kamiya, Branch Coordinator Urban Economy Branch
UN-Habitat Regional Offices
Mr Alain Grimard, Senior Human Settlements Officer, ROLAC Rio de Janeiro (Skype)
Mr Christopher Rollo, Habitat Programme Manager, ROAP, Located in the Philippines (Skype)
Mr Bruno Dercon, Senior Human Settlements Officer, ROAP Fukuoka (Skype)
Mr Bernard Barth, Human Settlement Officer, ROAP Fukuoka (Skype)
Mr Sri Popuri, Senior Human Settlements Officer, ROAP Fukuoka (Skype)
Mr Tam Hoang, Sustainable Urbanisation Specialist, ROAP, Located in Bangkok (Skype)54

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

UKBEAGMr Peter Oborn, Chartered Architect
Mr Adrian Malleson, Head of Research, Analysis and Forecasting at NBS

IGC
Mr Oliver Harman, Economist
Mr Shahrukh Wani, Economist
UK FCODr Elizabeth Milsom, GFCP Programme Lead, London
Ms Camille Soriano, GFCP Programme Manager, British Embassy Manila
Mr Zeynep Karamanli, GFCP Programme Manager, British Embassy Ankara
Mr Fuloso Aboderin, GFCP Programme Manager, British Embassy Lagos
Mr Jonathan Daniel, GFCP Programme Manager, British Embassy Pretoria
Ms Shwe Yi Myo Hein, GFCP Programme Manager, British Embassy Yangon
Ms Maria Herdanti, GFCP Programme Manager, British Embassy Jakarta
Mr Le Minh Than, GFCP Programme Manager, British Embassy Hanoi

55

ANNEX 3: LIST OF DOCUMENTS CONSULTED

Compendia of GFCP City Documents:• City Context Report• Terms of Reference• Charrette Report• Validation Workshop Report•

Technical Viability Assessment

GFCP Cluster Papers:
Cluster 1: Public Space
Success factors: The planning & design, legal and financial enabling conditions for quality public space.
Cluster 2: Heritage and urban renewal
Integrated public transit: Urban renewal key points
Success factors for heritage and urban renewal.
Cluster 3: Urban strategies and plans
IGC. 2018. Development of urban strategies and master plans.
Key Messages: Urban planning success factors and other benefits.
Cluster 4: Data systems for integrated urban planning
UN-Habitat. 2018. Data Systems for Urban Planning and Land Management.
Cluster 5: Multi-modal mobility strategies and plans
IGC. 2018. Key considerations for integrated multimodal transport planning.
Cluster 6: Data systems for multi-modal mobility
IGC. 2018. Data-oriented urban transport reform in middle-income and developing countries.
Key Messages: Data-oriented urban transport reform in middle-income and developing countries – Success factors
and other benefits
Cluster 7: Flood management plans and systems
IGC. 2019. How can cities become more resilient? Improving flood management through better governance, private
sector partnerships and open data.
Key Messages: Resilience & Flood Management Success Factor and Other Benefits.
Procurement
IGC. 2018. Strategies for effective procurement and public-private partnerships in the transport sector.
Key Messages: Strategies for effective procurement and public-private partnerships in the transport sector – Successfactors and potential benefits.
GFCP Policy Papers:
IGC. November 2018. Assessment framework for measuring economic success in transport, land-use planning andresilience interventions.
IGC. November 2018. Urban planning for productive and liveable cities.

56

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

IGC. November 2018. Access to opportunity: Urban mobility for prosperous cities.
IGC. November 2018. Embedding resilience: City responses to acute shocks and chronic stresses.
ICG. 2018. Policies for prosperity in middle-income cities: Planning, transportation and resilience.
Other documents:
UK FCO/ UN-Habitat/ UKBEAG. December 2018. Assessment of Market Maturity and Professional Capacity, Volume
1 & 2.
UN-Habitat. December 2018. Prosperity Fund, Global Future Cities Programme: Transition Training and Dialogue.
UN-Habitat/ UK FCO. December 2018. Prosperity Fund, Global Future Cities Programme: Lessons Learned & Key
Recommendations for Phase 2.
GOV.UK. November 2018. Cross-Government Prosperity Fund: Further information.
UN-Habitat. November 2018. Prosperity Fund, Global Future Cities Programme: Proposal Transition Phase for the UK
Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
UN-Habitat. October 2018. Terms of Reference: Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future
Cities Programme.
UN-Habitat. March 2018. Prosperity Fund Global Future Cities Programme: Strategic Development Phase – UNHabitat Project Proposal for the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
UN-Habitat. March 2018. Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme: Project Document.
UN-Habitat. 2018. The Strategic Plan 2020-2025: Final Draft.
UN-Habitat. 2018. Evaluation Manual.
UN-Habitat. April 2017. Action Framework for Implementation of the New Urban Agenda.
UN-Habitat. March 2017. UN-Habitat Partnership Strategy: Promoting Strategic and Effective Partnerships towards
the implementation of the New Urban Agenda.
UNEG. 2016. Norms and Standards for Evaluation.
United Nations. October 2016. New Urban Agenda – Habitat III.
United Nations. 2015. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
United Nations. 2015. Addis Ababa Action Agenda.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. December 2015. Paris Agreement.
United Nations. 2015. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
UN-Habitat. 2013. Evaluation Policy.

57

ANNEX 4: GFCP INTERVENTION BRIEFSIntervention briefs by country and city
CountryCity

PillarIntervention Description

Planning

Supporting the implementation of the City’s Big Data Strategy: provide technicalsupport to the City of Cape Town to give effect to the City of Cape Town’s Data
Strategy through data use and application case studies related to transport, economic
analysis, resilience, and human settlements.

Johannesburg

Transport

Review the fourth industrial revolution trends and effects on urban mobility in
Johannesburg: Provide technical assistance to the City’s Transport Department toreview the existing Strategic Integrated Transport Plan Framework (SITPF) of the cityof Johannesburg.

Johannesburg

Planning

Strategic Area Framework and Associated Implementation Tools: Provide technicalassistance to the Johannesburg Planning Department for the development of aStrategic Area Planning Framework and Implementation Tools for Soweto area.

DurbanPlanning

Data integration, collection and analysis for informal settlement planning andmanagement: Provide technical support to Durban’s Chief Resilience Office Team todevelop an integrated data system for the city.

DurbanPlanning

Enhance institutional and government coordination for supporting the alignmentof stakeholder plans on Transit-Oriented Development: Technical support to theeThekwini Transport Authority in the development of a coordination tool andchange management process with the focus on urban regeneration and transport
corridor development.

RecifePlanning

Data Eco-system for Urban Governance in Recife: Provide technical assistance andcapacity building to: i) Develop a Municipality Data Governance Framework with theMunicipality ICT Company (EMPREL); ii) Set-up an Urban Information Hub with theStrategy and Innovation Recife Agency (ARIES); iii) Prepare a Society Engagement
Action Plan with the group of main stakeholders led by Porto Digital.

Belo Horizonte

Transport

Intelligent Mobility in Expresso Amazonas: Provide technical assistance to BH-TRANS(the Public Transport Agency) to develop a strategy and implementation plan foradding smart technology and analytics to the Expresso Amazonas bus corridor

Cebu

Planning

City Roadmap for the SDGs’ Implementation and Evidence-based Planning in
Cebu: Provide technical assistance and capacity building to the Office of the City
Administrator of Cebu to develop a city-wide strategy, a data center roadmap, andthe identification of catalytic projects for Cebu.

New Clark City Planning(NCC)

Comprehensive Sustainability Plan for New Clark City (CSP-NCC): Provide technicalassistance and capacity building to BCDA (Bases Conversion and Development
Authority) to develop: i) A participatory design for NCC Central Park; ii) A
Sustainable Integrated Housing and Livelihood Strategy; iii) A strategy for setting up
a Sustainability Unit within BCDA

Myanmar

YangonResilience

Revitalizing Streetscapes-unlocking the potential for Yangon’s city assets: Provide
technical assistance to the Yangon City Development Committee (YCDC) for thedevelopment and implementation of pilot projects in the downtown area of Yangon,
based on participatory processes.

VietnamHo Chi Minh

Transport

Establish a Smart-Ticketing System for the public transport network and provide
technical assistance and capacity building to the Management Centre of Public
Transport (MCPT).

S o u t h Cape Town
AfricaBrazilPhilippines

58

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

ThailandTurkeyNigeria

Ho Chi Minh

Resilience

Developing a Digitalised Inventory of the Drainage System in Ho Chi Minh City:
Provide technical assistance and capacity building for the Urban Flood Control
Centre to develop a digitalised inventory of the drainage system.

BangkokPlanning

Data Hub Roadmap for Integrated Planning: Provide technical assistance to the
Bangkok Metropolitan Administration to develop a strategy for a data Hub thatenhances integrated solutions for urban development

BangkokTransport

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan for the Khlong Bang Luang area:
Development of an integrated Site Plan for the Khlong Bang Luang area for the
Traffic and Transportation Department, thereby enhancing the socio-economic
benefits of the upgrading of transport infrastructure in the area.

Bangkok

Resilience

Decision Support System (DSS) for Flood Management: Technical assistance to the
Drainage and Sewerage Department for the set-up of a DSS to improve Bangkok
Metropolitan Administration’s ability to identify solutions for flood adaptation andmitigation and facilitate evidence-based decision-making

Istanbul

Planning

Training and Capacity Development Programme: Implement a capacity development
programme for the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality civil servants, and provide
technical assistance to prepare plans and strategies on transport management,
urban resilience, and urban transformation

Istanbul

Transport

Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning for Istanbul: Provide technical assistance andcapacity building for developing a city-wide Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan for the
Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality

Bursa

Transport

Bursa Smart City Strategy: Provide technical assistance and capacity building to the
Bursa Metropolitan Municipality to develop a city-wide Strategy for transforming
Bursa into a Smart City, and preparing the implementation of a pilot project intransport management

Bursa

Planning

Sustainable Urban Transformation Approach for Bursa: Provide technical assistanceto the Bursa Metropolitan Municipality to prepare a comprehensive urban renewal
plan in a central neighborhood in Bursa

AnkaraPlanning

Increasing Quality and Accessibility of Streets in Çankaya Neighborhoods: Provide
technical assistance and capacity building to develop urban designs, implementationplans, and replicable methodologies for Çankaya District Municipality.

AnkaraTransport

Multimodal Transport and Bicycle Strategy for Ankara: Provide technical assistance toAnkara Metropolitan Municipality for the preparation of a city-wide Bicycle Strategy
and Master Plan and a pilot implementation in a prioritized neighborhood.

Abeokuta

Transport

Transport Policy for the City of Abeokuta: Capacity building and technical assistanceto the Ogun State Bureau of Transportation for the development of a Transport
Policy for the City of Abeokuta, with potential for
expansion to the state-level.

Abeokuta

Planning

Urban Masterplan for the City of Abeokuta: Technical assistance to Ogun State
Ministry of Urban and Physical Planning (MUPP) for the development of an Urban
Masterplan for the City of Abeokuta and the preparation of an urban renewal pilot
schemeLagos

Transport

Water Transport Feasibility Study: Technical assistance to the Lagos State Waterways
Authority (LASWA) in the form of a Water Transport Feasibility Study for Lagos State

Lagos

Planning

Urban Renewal Guidelines for Lagos: Technical assistance to the Lagos State Urban
and Renewal Authority (LASURA) and the Ministry of Physical Planning and Urban
Development (MPPUD) to develop state-wide Urban Renewal Guidelines

59

Indonesia

Malaysia

Surabaya

Planning

Urban Transformation Plan for Putat Jaya: Provide technical assistance to the
Surabaya Planning Department to develop Urban Planning and Design Guidelines
for the neighbourhood of Putat Jaya.

Surabaya

Resilience

Earthquake Preparedness Strategy: Provide technical assistance to Surabaya
Planning Department to create an Earthquake Preparedness Strategy including animplementation plan, an awareness campaign, and capacity building of departments
and institutions

Bandung

Transport

Development of an Integrated Public Transport system in Bandung: Provide technicalassistance and capacity building to Bandung City Transport Agency to develop a citywide Integrated Transport Plan including planning and design, legal and financial
models and an implementation roadmap

IskandarTransport

Iskandar Malaysia Smart Integrated Mobility Management System (IMSIMMS):
Provide technical assistance to the Iskandar Regional Development Authority for thedesign of the IMSIMMS (management system; operational management centre andpilot project) and capacity building for using data in urban and transport planning

MelakaTransport

Heritage Area Mobility Plan and Green Transport Corridor Feasibility Study: Provide
technical assistance to the Malaysia Industry Government Group for High Technology(MIGHT) and the Melaka Green Tech Corporation in the form of the developmentof a Heritage Area Mobility Plan for the UNESCO heritage area in Melaka and afeasibility study of a green transport corridor connecting the city center to thestrategic road network

Source: GFCP - Interventions Description in the Dropbox’s Folder 7 (draft 16 November 2018).

60

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

ANNEX 5: RECONSTRUCTED RESULTS CHAINFOR THE GFCP

Preliminary outline of the reconstructed Results Chain for the GFCP
Global Development Objective

The objective for the UN-Habitat Final Draft Strategic Plan 2020-2025 is: “to advance sustainable urbanisation as adriver of development and peace to improve living conditions for all”.
The aim of the Global Future Cities Prosperity Fund programme is to work with a selected number of cities in middle
income countries. Over a three-year period to improve the way their cities are planned and managed, resulting
in increased local prosperity and quality of life, including a reduction in levels of poverty and gender inequality,
together with creating mutually beneficial trade opportunities.1
Emerging impact during the Operation and Maintenance Phase
1. Improved prosperity for the urban resident with spill over effects to the peri-urban and rural areas;
2. Reduced poverty and enhanced gender equality;
3. Reduced susceptibly to natural disasters;
4. Improved economic activity and trade.
Programme intermediate objective end of the Build Phase
Programme interventions implemented according to plans and capacity developed and have contributed to improved prosperityand quality of life for urban residents in programme cities and globally - while also providing the foundation for furthertransformation of the ‘built environment’ (see Box 2) to achieve the SDGs, NUA, etc.
Intermediate outcomes end of the Build Phase
5. The urban planning and design interventions have resulted in significantly improvements of the built environment andmade the foundation for further improvements;
6. The transport interventions have improved accessability and reduced travelling time, costs and GHGs and have the potential
to be replicated in other parts of the cities;
1. Disaster risk reduction measures and climate mitigation and adaptation interventions have significantly enhanced the cities’
resilience towards natural disasters and the preparedness for effective response;
2. Capability and capacity development interventions within the programme’s three thematic pillars have significantly
improved the cities’ planning and management capacity;
3. Global lessons learned; and tools and methodologies refined accordingly.
Programme immediate objective end of the Design Phase
Interventions/projects have been planned and designed and are ready for implementation in accordance with the conceived
development scenario for the ‘built environment’; and local authorities and entities have acquired to monitor and supervise theimplementation and to make adjustments if need be.
Immediate outcomes end of the Design Phase
1. Regulatory aspects clarified, plans for and design of selected interventions/projects completed.
2. Further technical assistance for the Build Phase identified as required.
3. National, local and external funding sources identified for implementation and O&M.
4. Capability and capacity developed for implementation and O&M.
5. Global lessons learned; and tools and methodologies refined accordingly.
Project immediate objective end of the Strategic Development Phase2
Project concepts and capacity developed for the transformation of the ‘built environment that will contribute to improved
prosperity and quality of life for urban residents in programme cities and globally.

61

Immediate outcomes end of the Strategic Development Phase3
1. Enhanced understanding of solutions to challenges for congestion, pollution, urban sprawl, lack of accessible services,poor planning and land management and inability to respond to the impacts of growth, climate change and natural
disasters in selected cities.4
2. A validated strategic framework for city interventions compatible with the anticipated impacts.
3. Capability and capacity developed for participating cities through targeted training and institutional development insupport of the cities’ active participation during implementation.
4. Global lessons learned; and tools and methodologies refined accordingly.
Outputs
1. Context appropriateness validated and technical accuracy of interventions tested.
2. Stakeholder buy-in documented and confirmed.
3. Capacity and capability of market to engage with and deliver the proposed interventions determined.
4. Confirmation of intervention is likely to deliver impact to support increased inclusive and equitable prosperity.
5. Global contribution of Future Cities Programme to prosperity, SDGs and recommendations paper.
6. Capacity for implementation improved.
Notes:
1. UK FCO Policy paper. November 2018. Prosperity Fund FCO programme summaries: global.
2. No project objective has neither been defined in the Project Proposal nor in the Project Document.
3. No outcomes have been formulated except the ‘expected accomplishment’ in the Project Document. The outcomes stated in
the Project Proposal are identical to the outputs formulated in the Project Document, and as such they are not outcomes.
4. This outcome is identical to the ‘Expected Accomplishment’ stated in the Project Document.

Model for the reconstructed Results Chain and ToC for interventions/projects
Objectives and results

SourceGlobal development objective

Same as global programme

Emerging impact during the Operation and Maintenance Phase

ToR, Section 3.4
City Context Report, Potential Impact: Long-term
OutcomeIntervention/project immediate objective - end of the Build Phase

To be conceived

Intermediate outcomes end of the Build Phase

City Context Report, Potential Impact: Mid-term
OutcomeIntervention/project immediate objective – end of the Design Phase

To be conceived

Immediate outcomes end of the Design Phase

City Context Report, Potential Impact: Short-term
OutcomeIntervention/project immediate objective - end of the Strategic ToR, Section 3.1
Development Phase
Immediate outcomes end of the Strategic Development Phase

Technical
Viability
Transformative potential

Outputs

ToR, Section 3.2

Assessment,

Chapter2:

62

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

ToC Diagram Durban case: Enhanced institutional and governance coordination for supporting alignmentof stakeholder plans working with Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

Facilitation of the pathway
Facilitation related to: i) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ii) the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), iii) the New
Urban Agenda (NUA), iv) the Paris Agreement, and v) the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

Outputs

Outcomes Design Phase• Development of a baseline:
analysis of the existing
mobility situation andtrends;• Stakeholder engagement
and consultation plan;• Change management
framework;• Strategy and policy
statements for TOD• Organisational structure forsupporting TOD;
• TOD operational policies;• Management framework for
improved corridor
efficiency;• Transit oriented strategies
and plans.

Sustainability measures: institutionalanchoring and capacity development
and financial resources

Outcomes Build Phase

Emerging impact O&M Phase• Mechanisms and tools for
operationalisation of the
TOD strategy;• Strategies for promotion ofcompact and mixed-use
development along rapidtransport corridors;• Approach for urban
regeneration, densificationand transport corridor
development.

• Improved mobility within themetropolitan area;• Improved quality and reliability of of
public infrastructure;• Strengthened municipal finance due toland value capture;• Accelerated spatial integration;• Increased investment flows along thecorridors and nodes;• Increased connection between
township modes and CDB:
• Higher rates of sustainable andinclusive economic growth

Assumptions related to: i.) Spatial context; ii) Professional capacity; iii)
Market maturity and preparedness; iv) Financial capacity; and v) Legal conditions.
Assumptions related to success factors.

Theory of Change explanation
Theory of Change is essentially a comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desired change is
expected to happen in a particular context. It is focused in particular on mapping out or “filling in” what has been
described as the “missing middle” between what a program or change initiative does (its activities or interventions)and how these lead to desired goals being achieved. It does this by first identifying the desired long-term goals andthen works back from these to identify all the conditions (outcomes) that must be in place (and how these related
to one another causally) for the goals to occur. These are all mapped out in an Outcomes Framework.
The Outcomes Framework then provides the basis for identifying what type of activity or intervention will leadto the outcomes identified as preconditions for achieving the long-term goal. Through this approach the precise
link between activities and the achievement of the long-term goals are more fully understood. This leads to better
planning, in that activities are linked to a detailed understanding of how change actually happens. It also leads tobetter evaluation, as it is possible to measure progress towards the achievement of longer-term goals that goesbeyond the identification of program outputs.
Source: Center for Theory of Change, The Center has been established by ActKnowledge, a leader in the developmentof Theory of Change, based in New York City.

63

Results framework explanation
A results framework is an explicit articulation (graphic display, matrix, or summary) of the different levels, or chains,of results expected from a particular intervention—project, program, or development strategy. The results specified
typically comprise the longer-term objectives (often referred to as “outcomes” or “impact”) and the intermediateoutcomes and outputs that precede, and lead to, those desired longer-term objectives. Although the World Bank
has used the term “results framework” over the last decade, similar conceptual tools, also designed to organize
information regarding intended outcomes and results, are used across different agencies: logical frameworks,
logic models, theories of change, results chains, and outcome mapping. Thus, the results framework captures
the essential elements of the logical and expected cause-effect relationships among inputs, outputs, intermediate
results or outcomes, and impact.
A results framework is therefore a useful management tool, with program implementation assessed in direct
relationship to progress in achieving results, at the outputs, outcomes, and impact levels. It helps achieve strategic
objectives. The strategic objective is the ultimate driver of a program.
Source: WB Independent Evaluation Group.
The outcome framework as mentioned in the ToC explanation share similar principles as the results framework.

64

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

ANNEX 6: EVALUATION MATRIX

Evaluation Questions

Indicator

Means of Verification

Relevance
1.

To what extent are the objectives of the Project Degreeofinterventions’ Case study. CCR and ToR.
consistent with national goals, policies and alignment to national and local Questionnaire survey*
strategies, and urban development plans?
policies.

2.

To what extent is the project implementation Degree to which interventions Case study. CCR and ToR for city
strategy responsive to SDGs, New Urban Agenda are responsive to SDG targets, interventions
and strategies of UN-Habitat?
NUA, etc.

3.

To what extent are the Project’s intended outputs Beneficiaries appreciation of Case study. CCR and ToR.
and outcome relevant to the needs of cities, local the project interventions.
Questionnaire survey
authorities and citizens?

4.

To what extent were vulnerable groups included Degree to which the vulnerable Case study. CCR and ToR.
in the Project design and implementation?
groups are included.
Questionnaire survey.

Efficiency/ Outputs
5.

How well was the Project designed and Project team’s and UK FCO Interviews with project team
implemented, and were resources efficiently staff’s perception of the members, UK FCO HQ & posts andutilized?
efficiency.
LCSs.
NB: “Project” refers to UN-Habitat’s assignment
Questionnaire survey.
as opposed to the GFCP projects/interventions.

6.

To what extent were the institutional arrangements Project team’s and UK FCO Interviews with project teamadequate for achieving the Project’s expected staff’s perception of the members, UK FCO HQ & posts andoutputs and outcomes?
delivery mechanisms.
LCSs.

7.1

To what extent have internal and external obstacles Projectteam’sand
UK Interviews with project team(administrative, financial and managerial) affected FCO staff’s perception of members, UK FCO HQ & posts andProject delivery of outputs and achievement of encountered obstacles.
LCSs.
the expected outcomes?

8.2

To what extent was the Project delivered in a cost- Ratio of manpower input to Cost-efficiency assessment
effective manner?
anticipated investments

9.3

To what extent has monitoring and reporting on Deadlines have been met
the implementation of the Project been timely, timely and deliverables aremeaningful and adequate?
consistent with the partners
expectation and live up togood professional standards.

Scrutiny of project documentation.
Interviews with project teammembers, UK FCO HQ & posts and
LCSs.

Effectiveness/ Outcomes10.

Did the Project achieve the intended outcomes Rate of achievements
during the Strategic Development Phase as per volume and substance.
the project design?

by Case study.
Comparison of Project Proposal withactual achievements, incl. MoUs**.

11.4

To what extent have city level stakeholders been Degree
of
city
level
involved in the identification of and reporting on stakeholders’ acceptance andthe interventions?
appreciation of the projectinterventions.

Charrette
reports,
reports and MoUs.
Case study.
Questionnaire survey

validation

65

12.

How has the project been able to partner and Extent of consultations with Charrette
reports,
collaborate with other stakeholders to achieve national level stakeholders, reports and MoUs.
the Project objectives?
academia, CSOs, etc.
Case study.
Questionnaire survey

validation

13.5

How well did the project management adapt to Number and type of deviations Monthly progress reports andchanges during the implementation and what
interviews with the project team.
were the main lessons learned?
Case study.

14.

To what extent were cross-cutting issues ofgender, youth, climate change, and human rights
integrated into the identification and validation
process and in the reporting and monitoring of
the Project?***Actualandmeaningful
inclusionofthecrosscutting issues in project
documentation.

CCR and ToR, charrette reports,
validation reports and MoUs. Casestudy.
Interviews with project team members,
UK FCO HQ & posts and LCSs.

Extent to which short-term
outcomes have been achieve bycity and are likely to contributeto long-term impact.

Global papers, charrette reports,
validation
reports,
technical
validation assessments and MoUs.
Interviews with project team.
Case study.
Questionnaire survey.

16.

To what extent and in what ways has the The degree of city stakeholders’ownership by city level stakeholders enhanced engagement
duringthethe Project’s sustainability?
strategic phase and likely
participation in the programme
implementation phase

Charette
reports,
validation
reports,
technical
validationassessments and MoUs. Interviews
with project team members, UK
FCO HQ & posts and LCSs. Casestudy.
Questionnaire survey

17.

To what extent will the city-level activities be
replicable or scaled up at national, regional or
local levels or encourage further collaborationand exchange between stakeholders?

18.

Are the systems and capacities in place to ensure City
authorities’
evolving Technical validation assessments.
the project results are sustained?
capacity for urban planning Interviews with UN-Habitat, UK
and management.
FCO HQ, IGC and UKBEAG.
Case study.

19.7

Is the Project seen as being innovative and would Degree of appreciation of the UN-Habitat and UK FCO HQ
the project be replicable in other middle-income project’s future potential.
countries with support from development partners?

Impact/ impact outlook
15.6

To what extent are the identified interventions likely
to attain or not their objectives and expected results– or even negative effects due to non-contained
risks (short, medium and long-term) related topartners and targeted beneficiaries, whether
citizens, participating cities and local authorities?

Sustainability and sustainability of approach

Donor willingness to support Interviews with UN-Habitat, UK
the urban agenda; and national FCO HQ, IGC and UKBEAG.
level enabling environment Case study.
and support.

Comments to the evaluation questions in the Evaluation’s ToR, Section 5:
1. The second question in bullet 2 (Efficiency) has been formulated as a separate question. EQ7 above was found to cover thebullet 2 question (Effectiveness) which is therefore not included.
2. EQ8 above was found to cover the bullet 3 question (Effectiveness) which is therefore not included.
3. The bullet 4 question (Efficiency) has been replaced by bullet 7 question in (Effectiveness).
4. EQ11 above was found to cover the bullet 1 question (Sustainability) which is therefore not included.
5. EQ13 above covers the bullet 6 question (Efficiency) but has been reformulated.
6. EQ15 above was found to cover the bullet 5 question (Effectiveness) which is therefore not included.
7. New EQ added related to the evaluation objectives (ref. ToR Section 3).
Notes:*The questionnaire survey is addressed to the city authorities.
**The MoUs between UK FCO HQ and city authorities were in the process of being prepared at the time of conducting theevaluation and could thus not be included as evidence.
*** The evaluation question has been amended to correspond to the actual situation.

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

ANNEX 7: QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY ANDSYNTHESIS

Do not know

Strongly disagree

Disagree

AgreeStatement

Neither agree nor
disagree

Questionnaire Summary (29 responses)
Strongly agree

66

1.

The proposed project is consistent with national goals, policies, 20
strategies and urban development plans.

92

The proposed project is relevant to the city authority and its citizens.

22

7

3,

The city authority has been fully involved in the identification process 17
and in determining the scope of the proposed project.

124.

The charrette session and the validation workshop were essential 14
for the participatory process to achieve consensus among city
stakeholders as regards project scope and substance.

12

1

1

1

5.

The charrette session and the validation workshop were essential for 10
achieving national level support to the proposed project.

9

5

3

2

6.

The proposed project will have the anticipated effects on targeted 19
beneficiaries when implemented.

9

1

7.

The intended effects from the proposed project and positive changes 15
on our city are likely to materialise in the short, medium or long-term.

13

1

8.

The ownership and engagement by city level stakeholders have 16
enhanced the proposed project’s sustainability.

11

2

9.

The UN-Habitat team* has played an important facilitation role in the 19
formulation of the proposed project.

71

10. The Transition Training and Dialogue week held in London by UKBEAG 13
proved valuable for exchanging of experiences, exposing goodpractises, and providing inputs to the project scope and substancefor your City.

7

2

1

1
7

The questionnaire responses covered 25 (83%) of the identified interventions. In five cases two city officials responded
to the same intervention – making the number of respondents 29. Not all respondents offered additional comments.
The score of the statements indicates the respondents’ overall opinion, but the additional comments made may not
be entirely representative, as not all respondents made additional comments. Nonetheless, the additional comments
provide useful positions. The additional comments are synthesised as follows:
Statement 1: One respondent expressed that the intervention reflected what was most needed and had yielded theneed for a cohesive, long-term and strategic approach. Another respondent expressed that economic and systematic
solutions must be found to address the challenges of rapid urban growth.
Statement 2: One respondent expressed that the intervention will benefit a large proportion of the city’s and themetropolitan region’s citizens; another expressed that the intervention reflects the voice of the city stakeholders.
Statement 3: A number of respondents expressed that they in their respective interventions worked closely with

67

city stakeholders as well as with key national and city stakeholder entities. The ToRs were finetuned during theidentification and validation process. In one case it was observed the UN-Habitat team’s knowledge did not matchthe substance of the intervention.
Statement 4: A number of respondents expressed that the discussions during the charrettes and validation workshops
resulted in a common understanding and consensus among the participants. One respondent expressed that thevalidation workshop would have benefitted from more direct citizen participation.
Statement 5: Some respondents expressed that national level organisations should participate in the charretteand validation workshops when their backing and support are needed – national level support may also facilitate
local council approval and may also promote replication in the country. Some respondents expressed that national
stakeholders were not involved as they were not deemed relevant for the intervention.
Statement 6: Some respondents expressed that the interventions include all citizens in the influence area, but thetarget group needs to be well defined; the proposed intervention will improve service delivery, budget allocation andproject prioritization, which ultimately will impact on city residents; and that other derived effects of higher land
value, rent rates, and home values sales will affect the existing residents. The project will become a benchmark forother municipalities and authorities.
Statement 7: Some respondents expressed that he interventions will have lasting effects and that effects from someinterventions will already be felt in the short-term; and that a strategy needs to be put in place to achieve theenvisioned changes as each phase requires different efforts. Other cities will be able to draw on the experiences.
Statement 8: Some respondents expressed that the engagement of local stakeholders including local NGOs,
academia and community representatives mitigates the risk of government turn-over during elections, which ensuresproject sustainability by placing project ownership on a broad group of stakeholders; stakeholder participation in
the identification and implementation process will facilitate sustainability; and involvement of public authorities will
ensure prioritisation and commitment.
Statement 9: Some respondents expressed that UN-Habitat had provided the needed guidance in developing theintervention concept and in drafting the ToR – their experience and perspective in working with various cities werevaluable in articulating their needs. Two respondents expressed that the division roles and responsibilities among the
UN-Habitat team members were not made clear upfront, which made the city authorities to lead the discussions.
Statement 10: The respondents expressed that new ideas were conceptualised and added to the proposedinterventions; and that the training week was a valuable experience getting to know how challenges and solutions in
one of the most diverse cities in the world.

68

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

ANNEX 8: SYNTHESIS OF CASE STUDIES

A8.1 Synthesis of desk review of eight case studies
The case studies comprised a desk review of the City Context Reports, the Terms of Reference, Technical Viability
Reports, Charrette Reports and Validation Workshop Reports. The observations have been synthesised and are related
to a number of the evaluation questions (ref. Evaluation Matrix, Annex 6).
EQ1: Relevance of national and local policies, strategies and plans
The case study sample indicates that the interventions where possible aim at being aligned with national, regional andlocal policies, strategies and plans. However, the governance contexts for the interventions are very diverse. Some cities
have limited autonomy and are subject to the authority of national or regional bodies and have limited decision-making
powers of their own, a situation which is further exacerbated when neither masterplans nor sector plans have beendeveloped. In contrast, other cities have a high degree of autonomy and have masterplans and sector plans in placethat provides the development framework for the interventions. In one case, a comprehensive sector plan has beendeveloped and approved, but implementation suffers from complex coordination mechanisms and lack of funding.
EQ2: Responsiveness to SDGs, the New Urban Agenda and strategies of UN-Habitat
The case study sample indicates that the responsiveness to SDGs and AFINUA key items is reflected differently in the
CCRs and ToRs. Generally, the CCRs have a wider coverage of SDGs and AFINUA key items than in the TORs. In somecases, the AFINUA key items are not mentioned in the ToRs. In one case reference is made to all 17 SDGs in the ToR.
The CCRs have a quite deliberate overview of “Potential Impact and Programme Objectives Alignment” indicating
potential benefits by sub-phase – that theoretically could be achieved – with due reference to SDGs and target,
AFINUA Key items, and Programme objectives and cross-cutting issues.
EQ3: Relevance of outputs and outcomes to the needs of the cities, local authorities and citizens
The case study sample indicates that the identified interventions generally are relevant to the needs of the cities andits residents and the local authority. Some interventions have city-wide relevance, whereas others are area specific.
The area specific interventions may be replicated in other parts of the city. The degree of relevance is relatively higher
for low-income groups. The continued relevance of the interventions will eventually be determined by the extent towhich they are implemented, and potential benefits achieved, as all barriers may not be fully overcome – which inparticular may be the case for cities having a high level of barriers.
EQ4: Inclusion of vulnerable groups in the project design and implementation
The case study sample confirms the inclusion of vulnerable groups in the intervention design, but this has been
expressed to varying degrees in the intervention documents – from being very explicit to being somewhat implicit byreferring to the relevant SDGs and AFINUA key items. It appears that limited direct consultations have been conductedwith vulnerable citizens, so their needs and interests have mostly been expressed by the city key stakeholders. The
composition of the interventions’ consulting teams for the Planning and Design Phase hardly includes social scientists,
which may hamper a more optimal inclusion of the vulnerable groups.
EQ10: Achievement of the intended outcomes as per the Project design
The case study sample indicates that the outcomes related to the cities have generally been achieved as follows:
1) Enhanced understanding to the challenges and solutions addressed by the intervention have been achieved; 2)
Validated frameworks for the intervention have been developed; and 3) Awareness on the capabilities and capacity
required to implement the intervention has been created. The prospects for further development of capacity depends

69

among others on the city governance structure and degree of autonomy. In cases with a hierarchy of decision-makers
and complex approval procedures, it may prove difficult to mobilise adequate capacity.
EQ11: City level stakeholders’ involvement in the design of and reporting on the interventions
The case study sample indicates that in cities with a high degree of autonomy it has mainly been the city stakeholders
that have been involved in the identification process, but frequently in due coordination with regional or national level
administrations as appropriate. In cases where the regional administration has the jurisdiction over city affairs, the city
stakeholders have been involved to a lesser extent. City sector managers and service providers have generally been
involved to represent their respective areas of responsibility and to advise on the scope of the interventions. Other
city level stakeholders (city service operators, the private sector, CSOs and academia) were invited to the charretteand validation workshop sessions providing an opportunity for them to influence the scope of the interventions.
Development partners were in some cases also invited if they had previously been involved in the intervention themeor shown an interest and could potentially have a role when it comes to funding of the interventions. The low-income
and vulnerable beneficiaries have only been involved indirectly. Involvement of community leaders and NGOs in thefurther implementation process could add value to reaching the overall objective.
EQ12: The ability of the Project team to partner and collaborate with other stakeholders to achieve the Project objective
The case study sample indicates that the charrette and validation workshop sessions have been an opportunity toinclude other city-level stakeholders (city service operators, the private sector, CSOs and academia) and in number ofcases also central and regional government officials from which some cities are depending on their active involvement
for implementing the proposed interventions. Interaction with city stakeholders has also taken place in connection
with the elaboration of context reports and ToR for the interventions.
EQ13: Project management’s ability to adapt to changes during the implementation and main lessons learned
The case study sample indicates that the interventions were subject to some adjustments in the course of the validation
process, but the interventions’ overall scope remained unchanged.
EQ14: Integrating of cross-cutting issues into the design, planning and implementation of the Project
All three pillars of urban planning, transport and resilience have implicit prospects for mainstreaming of the crosscutting issue, for example:•••

Urban planning: Access to safe public spaces; mitigation of disaster risk through appropriate location; access toemployment and public services for women and youth; and right to proper and safe housing areas and landownership.
Transports: Increased mobility and access to work places and education institutions for women and youth; rights
to affordable transport; and reduction of greenhouse gases.
Resilience: Adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, rights to proper protection for flooding and other
weather hazards for women and vulnerable groups.

The case study sample indicates that gender equality is the most frequently mentioned cross-cutting issue in theintervention descriptions, whereas there is limited reference to youth, climate change and human rights. This iscontrary to the intent of shaping the interventions under the mainstreaming of environmental safeguards, youth,
gender equality and human rights.
EQ15: Attainment of expected results or non-intended negative effects
These are well elaborated in the case study sample’ CCRs and present the ideal development scenario. However,
the achievement of outcomes and impacts is subject to how the identified barriers can be resolved. The viability byintervention varies significantly in the case study sample as is also the case for the entire portfolio. It is evident thatthe cities with low success rates have a lesser likelihood of achieving the expected result, unless specific measures
are undertaken to improve the conditions of the five viability factors. Alternatively, the scope of the results should be
reduced to correspond with viability assessment.

70

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

EQ16: Influence of city level stakeholders’ ownership on sustainability
The case study sample indicates that the city authorities generally have taken ownership of the interventions, which
is likely to facilitate the interventions’ sustainability, especially so for cities enjoying a high degree of autonomy andtechnical viability.
EQ17: Replicability of city-level activities at national, regional and local levels
The case study sample indicates that there is considerable scope for collaboration within the city authorities themselves,
but also with central government and development partners with a view to address overall policy and legal issues aswell as funding issues. Furthermore, there is also substantial scope for collaboration with affected community groups– in particular the vulnerable groups, possibly through civil society organisations. In some cases, the interventions
are city-wide, and can as such not be replicated in the city. In other cases, the interventions are related to specificcommunities and may thus be replicated in other communities in the city having similar needs.
EQ18: Adequacy of systems and capacity to ensure sustainability of achieved results
The case study sample indicates that while the policy and planning environment is adequate, they can be highly
centralised, which may limit the capacity for executing the plans and programmes and enforcement of these. Thisis further accentuated when the city administration rests with an external body to the city and be even worse if themandated body itself has limited capacity. Cities can have a good professional capacity, but planners may be rooted
in traditional siloed fields making integrated planning a challenge.

A8.2 Synthesis of interviews with FCO posts and Local City Specialist
Interviews of FCO posts and Local City Specialists were conducted to complement the desk study of the eightcase studies. A total of 15 interviews out of 16 possible were conducted. The interviews were semi-structured. Theinterview answers have been generalised and related to a number of the evaluation questions (ref. Evaluation Matrix,
Annex 6).
EQ5: Design and implementation of the Project and use of resources
The further identification of the interventions was based on the UK FCO scoping studies. There were some variations
in how the perspectives of the scoping studies were contained in the subsequent identification process: in somecases, there were a continuation of the considerations, whereas in others the interventions deviated significantly fromthe initial scope. The charrettes were important for inviting stakeholders’ views and establishing the interventions’framework and substance. Correspondingly, the validation workshop was important for the cities’ acceptance andsubsequent approval of the Terms of Reference (ToR). Some cases involved several categories of stakeholders withvarying perceptions making the identification and validation more complex.
The general sentiment was that the identification and validation process was well conceived. In most cases theinteraction with the city authority was constructive. However, in a few cases the city authority was hesitant andnot immediately forthcoming – one reason being that they expected more tangible results than what was being
proposed. In some cases, it took some time before the intervention concept was in place, leaving limited time for the
preparation of the City Context Report (CCR) and the ToR within a timeframe that was already tight.
The FCO posts were instrumental in contacting senior city officials, resolving critical issues in relation to the city
authority and for facilitating the identification process. The Local City Specialists (LCSs) were essential for conducting
the identification and concluding the intervention framework. The LCSs were mainly recruited in country/city with
substantial knowledge of the local context, good professional networks and previous experience from assignments inthe city Understanding of the local political context was found to be essential for conceptualisation of the intervention
and achieving consensus among political and administrative leaders. The Project team’s tasks were intended tofollow a structured sequence, but in some cases, this was not always achieved – creating some confusion about therespective roles of UN-Habitat, UKBEAG, IGC and the LCSs. More information on the set-up and division of tasks forthe identification process early on might have provided the cities a better insight of the adopted approach.

71

EQ6: Adequacy of the institutional arrangements for achieving Project output and outcomes
Being a ‘neutral agency’, UN-Habitat’s role for providing technical assistance was regarded as objectivity based. In
countries where UN-Habitat did not have country office it was seen as a disadvantage not being able to draw onnational and institutional experience. In countries where UN-Habitat had offices, logistic support was provided toassist the Project core team, but in some cases more professional support within the thematic pillars was warranted.
The cities had in some cases expressed that more IGC inputs on certain disciplines would have been desirable. The
consortium partners (UN-Habitat HQ, IGC, UKBEAG and the LCS) were assigned specific tasks but attempted tocomplement one another when specific need for technical expertise was required. The training week organised by
UKBEAG in London was regarded very effective by those having the opportunity to participate – providing interesting
showcases and demonstrating potential effects.
The conduct of the charrette and the validation workshop was considered a beneficial approach for achieving city
stakeholders’ buy-in. Buy-in from higher level officials was in some cases difficult to obtain as the handling of mattersrelating to the intervention was delegated to middle-level management, whereas delegation to the city level managers
in a few cases was limited. The cities generally assigned a technical department as the focal point for interaction with
the Project team; at times, however, some cities had initially difficulties in mobilising the right staff to be in charge ofcommunicating the city’s interest and in providing adequate technical back-up. The feedback to the Project team on
the CCR and ToR was mainly provided by the technical departments; and in some cases, the technical departments
contributed significantly to the elaboration of the ToR. The interventions’ CCR and ToR were mainly finalised by
end of 2018. Some ToRs were refined during the Transition Phase. Generally, the ToRs were aligned with cities’
development plans when feasible and when these were found appropriate. The ToRs were approved by the ‘proper
authority’, which could either be a state or regional government, a development authority, the local government
authority or a technical department.
The Strategic Development Phase was intended to be concluded by facilitating a Memorandum of Understanding(MoU) between the city authority and UK FCO concerning the mutual responsibilities and obligations when theintervention progresses into the Implementation Phase. MoUs were prepared in some forms and in some level ofdetail. Some of the MoUs are likely to be reviewed and updated during the Implementation Phase reflecting the levelof progress of the intervention. The consent from the central government in some form may be required in addition
to the MoU/agreement made with the city authorities.
EQ7: Encountered internal and external obstacles affecting the delivery of the interventions’ outputs and achievementof outcomesInternal barriers were mainly concerned with the tight time schedule and in mobilising the right type of expertiseat the right time, which as mentioned above caused some confusion. External barriers were in some cities mainly
concerned with some initial hesitance on the intervention’s scope, difficulties moving from abstract concepts toconcrete interventions, and lack of adequate capacity to enter into a cooperating partnership. In cases with many
stakeholders having different commercial and political interest it was a challenge to reconcile the differences pertaining
to the intervention. In one case elections were held during the identification phase which disrupted the work that had
to be taken up again. Despite the various shortcomings all ToRs were finalised and approved.
EQ9: Timeliness and meaningfulness of monitoring and reporting on the interventions’ progress
The charrettes and validation workshops were very important in moving the identification process forward. Whereas
the charrette was attended by wider groups of stakeholders, the validation workshops were generally attended
by smaller audiences of mainly city key stakeholders. The FCO posts and the LCSs had frequent sessions to resolve
occurring issues. The LCSs had weekly conversations with core team members at UN-Habitat HQ; and FCO posts had
monthly meetings with UK FCO HQ. The reporting mechanisms were generally found to be appropriate. Besides theregular meetings, ad-hoc meetings were held when urgent issues needed to be resolved.
EQ14: Extent of integrating mainstreaming the cross-cutting issues of gender, youth, human rights and climatechange during the identification and validation process
The cross-cutting issues and the corresponding SDG targets are generally embedded in the interventions. The crosscutting issues were considered to varying degrees: some cities were observant of these and that development should

72

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

be linked to the SDGs, whereas others were constrained by lack of accessibility to key informants and thus unable tocollect adequate evidence – with the implication that the trust of the identification was mainly on technical aspects.
The three GFCP pillars have the potential to incorporate all four cross-cutting issues but the relative emphasis of
mainstreaming these depends on the interventions’ specific context. Some of the cross-cutting issues referred to in
relation to the three pillars were:•

Urban planning and design interventions promote better integration of low-income areas and improvement ofpublic spaces which will implicitly benefit women and youth. Urban planning should take the risk of climatechange hazards into account, especially flooding by avoiding development in flood-prone areas. Urban planningalso contains human rights aspects by ensuring access to low-income housing and land rights when resettlementof residents is part of the intervention.

•

Transport interventions improve access to employment, education and social services and enhance safety andthus address gender and youth. Transport infrastructure should be developed, and services delivered to mitigate
climate change risks. Access to appropriate transport services is an essential human rights issue.

•

Resilience interventions provides protection against flooding which is partly caused by climate change but also
the absence of storm-water drainage systems and thus address: climate change, gender and youth. Proper
protect against flooding and climate change health hazards is an essential human rights issue.

Urban planning and transport planning could be integrated processes – which would also facilitate a better
mainstreaming of the cross-cutting issues. NGOs have in number of cases been invited to take part in the identificationand validation process to, among others, facilitate adequate mainstreaming of the cross-cutting issues. In some cases,
it was stated that more inputs on the cross-cutting issues would have been useful. Mainstreaming of the cross-cutting
issue were seen as a process that should continue into the Implementation Phase.
EQ16: Extent of community participation during the identification and validation process
There was some variation in the way community participation was sought: in some cases, an extensive process of
consultations with NGOs, CSOs and academia was applied providing a strong foundation for the implementationof the intervention; whereas in other cases community participation was constrained due to protocol issues andgenerally being problematic. Some interventions were not location specific and thus more targeted community
participation was not an option.
The wider engagement of stakeholders and affected communities would require more time than what wasallocated within the tight time schedule and thus community participation was mainly considered indirectly throughstakeholders’ views. A wider engagement of stakeholders and affected communities would, nonetheless, be a wayof mainstreaming the cross-cutting issues into the interventions – the charrettes was one such means of inviting abroader group of city stakeholders and community groups.

73

ANNEX 9: AFINUA KEY ITEMS REFERRED TO IN
GFCP INTERVENTIONS

Principles and Values
The ‘New Urban Agenda (NUA) is universal in scope, participatory and people-centred; protects the planet; and has
a long-term vision, setting out priorities and actions at the global, regional, national, subnational and local levels thatgovernments and other relevant stakeholders in every country can adopt based on their needs.’ The city it envisages
offers ‘(1) [the] right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, without
discrimination, (2) universal access to safe and affordable drinking water and sanitation…(3) equal access for all topublic goods and quality services…such as food security and nutrition, health, education, infrastructure, mobility
and transportation, energy, air quality and livelihoods, (4) participatory, civic engagement [and] social cohesion andinclusion, (5)…women’s full and effective participation and equal rights in all fields and in leadership at all levels ofdecision-making, (6) [reduced] disaster risk…(7) sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth [and] … (8)protection, conservation, restoration and promotion of their ecosystems, water, natural habitats and biodiversity.’
The NUA also has a preeminent commitment to inclusion, innovation and integration. Indeed, these values are botha cause and consequence of the principles above.
The purpose of the AFINUA is to outline the basic ingredients for the implementation of NUA. The 35 AFINUA keyelements are divided into five major groups: 1) National urban policies; 2) Urban legislation, rules and regulation; 3)
Urban planning and design; 4) Urban economy and municipal finance; and 5) Local Implementation. The principles ofparticipation and governance cut across all key elements. Table A7.1 provides an overview of AFINUA key items thatare referred to in the GFCP City Context Reports and Terms of Reference.
Table A9.1: AFINUA key items referred to in CCRs and ToRs
No.

Key Item

Links to NUA paragraphs

1

National Urban Policies

1.4

Align national urban policies with national and sectoral development Paras 13(e), 13(g), 14(c), 15(c)i, 15(c)ii, 50, 63,plans and policies at all territorial levels to harness the transformative 64, 86, 96, 136
power of urbanization with urban plans (e.g. energy, water,transportation and other infrastructural corridors)

1.6

Promote jurisdictional coordination and coherence

2.

Urban Legislation, Rules and Regulations

2.2

Establish a legal basis for the urban plan and distinguish public space Paras 31, 41, 72, 90, 114, 138, 155, 156
from buildable urban land

2.3

Enact effective law for the definition, acquisition and protection of Paras 13(b), 15(c)iii, 37, 53, 54, 67, 99, 100,
public space
109, 113, 114, 116, 118

2.4

Recognize and regulate urban development, i.e. buildability rights

2.6

Develop equitable and legal instruments to capture and share the increase Paras 53, 69, 132, 135, 152
in land and property value generated as a result of urban development
processes, infrastructure projects and public investments, ensuring thatthese do not result in unsustainable land use and consumption.

Paras 13(e), 14(a), 15(c)ii, 87, 88, 90, 91, 96,
99, 105, 117

Paras 15(c)ii, 86, 104

74

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

2.7

Develop inclusive, adequate and enforceable regulations in the housing Paras 13(a), 14(b), 105, 111, 121, 124and economic sectors, including resilient building codes, standards,
development permits, land use by-laws and ordinances, and planning
regulations, combating and preventing speculation, displacement,
homelessness and arbitrary forced evictions.

2.9

Establish impact assessment, monitoring, inspection, correction and Paras 117, 151, 159, 161
enforcement tools.

3

Urban Planning and Design

3.1

Set up a planning and design process that is evidence based, integrated and participatory

3.2

Plan and define the urban area as well as agricultural and natural Paras 13(a), 13(f), 14(c), 49, 51, 69, 88, 95protection areas.
98, 101, 113, 114, 115, 117

3.3

Define connectivity and the quantity and quality of urban space Paras 37, 50, 54, 99, 100, 114(c), 118
including the structuring layout of streets, blocks and plots

3.4

Promote sustainable density and mixed use to attain the economies of Paras 13(a), 13(b), 13(c), 13(d), 13(f), 13(h),agglomeration
14(b), 15(c)iii, 32, 37, 44, 51, 52, 67, 69, 70,
97, 98, 99, 100, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118

3.5

Make effective use of urban design to provide livable spaces, walkability Paras 37, 100, 102, 103, 113, 114(a)and a sense of place

3.6

Protect and preserve natural resources and cultural heritage

Paras 13(a), 13(g), 13(h), 14(c), 15(c)iii, 19,
49, 51, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 77, 95, 101,
123, 124, 125

3.7

Promote housing as an integrating element of urban planning.

Paras 13(a), 13(f), 14(b), 25, 31, 32, 33, 35,
104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114, 119

4

Urban Economy and Municipal Finance

4.1

Establish principles for enhancing the role of local government in Paras 5, 15(a), 15(c)iv, 86, 134, 135, 138
fostering inclusive, equitable and sustainable urban development andstrengthen local leadership capacity for inclusive municipal finance4.2

Help local authorities design and implement a more inclusive, Paras 15(c)iv, 53, 58, 132, 133, 134, 135,
sustainable, equitable local financial and economic framework to 138, 139
operationalize municipal finance principles

4.4

Design and implement tools for fostering inclusive local economic Paras 40, 47, 49, 58, 77, 95
development (e.g. job creation, entrepreneurship, microfinance, etc.)

4.5

Help local authorities design and implement systems that ensure social, Paras 15(c)iv, 90, 104, 132, 133, 135, 137,
economic and safe physical access to quality basic services by all, and 145, 151, 152
local economic development platforms that support community-led
initiatives in service delivery

5

Local Implementation

5.2

Use tools for urban regeneration of derelict and/or obsolete areas (e.g. Paras 13(a), 15(c)iii, 38, 97, 103, 107, 109,
brownfield redevelopment)
110, 119, 120

5.3

Plan for urban infill of planned, built areas and control of urban land Paras 13(a), 14(b), 15(c)iii, 52, 54, 97, 98
price speculation

5.4

Provide integrated, efficient and equitable urban service frameworks, Paras 14(a), 55, 70, 99, 107particularly in unplanned, built urban areas

5.6

Establish and support community-led groups that liaise between citizens Paras 13(a), 15(c)iv, 90, 91, 100, 159
and government.

Source: UN-Habitat. April 2017. Action Framework for Implementation of the New Urban Agenda.

75

ANNEX 10: SUCCESS RATES BY INTERVENTION
AND PHASE

Assessment of overall success rate by intervention and phase
City

Pillar1

Intervention Title

P & D Build O & M O v e r%
%
%
all %

Cape Town

Planning

Supporting the Implementation of the City of Cape Town’s 74
Data Strategy

66

66

69

Johannesburg

Transport

A review of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) trends 82
and effects on urban mobility in Johannesburg

74

74

77

Johannesburg

Planning

Strategic Area Framework and Associated Implementation 82
Tools for Soweto “Triangle” in Johannesburg

58

58

66

DurbanPlanning

Improved data integration, collection and analysis to 74
facilitate collaborative informal settlement action

74

74

74

DurbanP l a n n i n g / Enhanced institutional and governance coordination for 66
Transport
supporting alignment of stakeholder plans working on
Transit-Oriented Development

66

66

66

RecifePlanning

Data Ecosystem for Urban Governance for Recife

74

74

66

71

Belo Horizonte

Transport

Intelligent mobility in Expresso Amazonas

74

74

66

71

Cebu

Planning

Data and Strategic Foundations for Long Term Planning in 58
Cebu City

34

50

47

New Clark City Planning(NCC)

Integrated sustainability plan for New Clark City

42

34

34

37

YangonResilience

Revitalising Streetscapes: unlocking the potential of 58
Yangon City’s assets

34

34

42

Ho Chi Minh

Transport

Development of Smart Ticketing System for Public
Transportation Network in Ho Chi Minh City

58

50

50

53

Ho Chi Minh

Resilience

Development of Geographical Information System for 58
Drainage System in Ho Chi Minh City

34

34

42

BangkokPlanning

Data Hub Roadmap for Integrated Planning

-

-

-

-

BangkokTransport

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan for the Khlong Bang Luang area--

Bangkok

Resilience

Decision Support System (DSS) for Flood Management

-

-

-

Istanbul

Planning

Urban Planning Training and Capacity Development 58
Programme for Resilient Istanbul

66

66

63

Istanbul

Transport

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan for Istanbul

58

66

74

66

Bursa

Transport

Sustainable Urban Transformation Approach for Bursa

66

66

66

66

Bursa

Planning

Transforming Bursa into a Smart City

82

74

66

74

-

76

Evaluation of the Strategic Development Phase for the Global Future Cities Programme

AnkaraPlanning

Increasing Quality and Accessibility of Streets in Çankaya
Neighborhoods in Ankara

91

66

58

71

AnkaraTransport

Bicycle Strategy, Master Plan and Pilot Implementation for 66
Integrated Non-motorized Multimodal Transport in Ankara

74

74

71

Abeokuta

Transport

Development of Transport Policy and Capacity Building in 50
Abeokuta

34

18

34

Abeokuta

Planning

Abeokuta Master Plan and Guidelines for Urban Renewal

50

42

26

39

Lagos

Transport

Feasibility Study for the development of water transport 58
in Lagos

34

26

39

Lagos

Planning

Development of Guidelines
Programmes in Lagos

42

34

45

Surabaya

Planning

Urban Transformation Plan for Putat Jaya in Surabaya

74

58

58

63

Surabaya

Resilience

Earthquake Preparedness Strategy for Surabaya

66

58

58

61

Bandung

Transport

Development of an Integrated Public Transport System in 74
Bandung

50

50

58

IskandarTransport

Implementation Strategy for Iskandar Malaysia’s Smart 74
Integrated Mobility Management System

58

58

63

MelakaTransport

Green Transport Corridor Implementation Plan Heritage 50
Area Integrated Mobility Plan for Melaka

58

58

55

Source: Technical Viability Assessments Reports.

for

Urban

Renewal 58

www.unhabitat.org