#HLPF2018#LISTEN2CITIES#SUBNATIONALHLPF

1
2

17

16

3

4

15

11

14

5

SUSTAINABLE CITIESAND COMMUNITIES

13

6

12

7

10

8
9

LOCAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS’ REPORTTO THE 2018 HLPF

2nd REPORTTOWARDS
THE LOCALIZATION
OF THE SDGs
Facilitated by:

2

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

© 2018 UCLG
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission inwriting from the publishers.
United Cities and Local Governments
Cités et Gouvernements Locaux Unis
Ciudades y Gobiernos Locales Unidos
Avinyó 15
08002 Barcelona
www.uclg.org
DISCLAIMERS
The terms used concerning the legal status of any country, territory, cityor area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers orboundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development
do not necessarily reflect the opinion of United Cities and Local
Governments. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of thisreport do not necessarily reflect the views of all the members of United
Cities and Local Governments.
This document has been produced with the financial assistance of
the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole
responsibility of UCLG and can under no circumstances be regarded asreflecting the position of the European Union.

Graphic design and lay-out: www.ggrafic.com
All photos are property of the authors and were published under
Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/).
Some rights reserved.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS’
REPORT TO THE 2018 HLPF

TOWARDS
THE LOCALIZATION
OF THE SDGs

Facilitated by:

4

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

ABBREVIATIONS�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 6
STATEMENT OF THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS CONSTITUENCY������������������������������������������������������ 8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11

O1
O2
O3

INTRODUCTION���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������16

METHODOLOGY AND PROCESS OF PREPARATION OF THE REPORT���������������19
THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SDG LOCALIZATION
3.1 Participation of local and regional governments in the preparation of the VNRs������������������20
3.2 Local and regional governments actions to localize the SDGs ����������������������������������������������23
3.3 Local and regional governments and the institutional framework
for coordination and follow-up ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������28
3.4 Mapping local and regional governments actions by region���������������������������������������������������32

CONTENTS

O4

THE TRANSFORMATION TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE
AND RESILIENT SOCIETIESSDG 11. Sustainable Cities and Communities............................................................................... 46
11.1 Adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services........................................... 48
11.2 Adequate, safe and affordable transport systems for all............................................... 54
11.3 Inclusive and sustainable urbanization........................................................................... 58
11.4 Culture and heritage......................................................................................................... 62
11.5 Making cities sustainable and resilient .......................................................................... 66
11.6 The environmental impact of cities.................................................................................. 70
11.7 Universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible green and public spaces............... 75
SDG 6. Clean water and sanitation................................................................................................. 78
SDG 7. Affordable and clean energy............................................................................................... 82
SDG 12. Responsible consumption and production ..................................................................... 86
SDG 15. Life on land..........................................................................................................................90
Cross-cutting issues: Leaving no one behind................................................................................ 94

O5
O6

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 99

CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD ............................................................................ 104

6

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

ABBREVIATIONSAAAAA – Addis Ababa Action Agenda for

Financing for Development
AAM – Albanian Association of
Municipalities
ABELO – Association Burundaise desElus Locaux (Burundi Association of
Local Elected Officials)
AChM – Asociación chilena demunicipalidades (Chilean Association of
Municipalities)
ACHR – Asian Coalition for Housing
RightsACOR - Asociația Comunelor din
România (Association of Communes inRomania)
ACVN – Association of Cities of Vietnam
ADEKSI – Asosiasi DPRD Kota Seluruh
Indonesia (Indonesian Municipal
Councils Association)
ADKASI – Asosiasi DPRD Kabupaten
Seluruh Indonesia (Association ofRegency Governments of Indonesia)
ADS – Association des départementsdu Sénégal (Association of the
Departments of Senegal)
AER – Assembly of European Regions
AfD – Agence française dedéveloppement (French Development
Agency)AGAAI - Asociación Guatemalteca
de Alcaldes y Autoridades Indígenas(Guatemalan Association of Mayors andIndigenous Authorities)AICCRE – Associazione Italiana per ilConsiglio dei Comuni e delle Regioni
d’Europa (Italian Association of the
CEMR-CCRE)
AIMF – Association internationale desMaires francophones (International
Association of French-speaking
Mayors)
ALAL – Association of Local Authorities
in Lithuania
ALGA – Association of Local
Governments of Australia
ALGAJ – Association of Local
Government Authorities of Jamaica
AME – Asociación de Municipalidades
Ecuatorianas (Association of Ecuadorian
Municipalities)
AMCA – Association des Maires deCentrafrique (Association of Mayors of
the Central African Republic)
AMM – Association des Municipalités duMali (Association of Municipalities ofMali)
AMN – Association des Municipalités du
Niger (Association of Municipalities of
Niger)
AMPE – Asociación de Municipalidadesdel Perú (Association of Municipalities
of Peru)
AMS – Association des Maires duSénégal (Association of Mayors of
Senegal)ANAMM - Associação Nacional dos
Municípios de Moçambique (National
Association of Municipalities ofMozambique)
ANCB – Association Nationale desCommunes du Bénin (National
Association of Municipalities of Benin)
ANCI – Associazione Nazionale dei
Comuni Italiani (National Association of
Italian Municipalities)
ANGR – Asamblea Nacional de Gobiernos
Regionales (National Assembly of Regional
Governments, Peru)
ANMC – Association nationale desmaires comoriens (National Associationof Comorian Mayors)
ANMCV – Associação Nacional dos
Municípios Caboverdianos (National
Association of the Capeverdean
Municipalities)
APEKSI – Asosiasi Pemerintah Kota
Seluruh Indonesia (Association ofIndonesian Municipalities)
APKASI – Asosiasi Pemerintah
Kabupaten Seluruh Indonesia(Association of District Governments ofIndonesia)
APLA – Association of Palestinian Local
Authorities
APPSI – Asosiasi Pemerintah Provinsi
Seluruh Indonesia (Association ofProvincial Governments of Indonesia)

B

BTVL – Bureau Technique des Villes
Libanaises (Lebanese Cities Technical
Office)C

C40 – C40 Cities Climate LeadershipGroupCAHF – Centre for Affordable
Housing Finance in Africa

CALM – Congresul Autorităților Locale
din Moldova (Congress of Local
Authorities from Moldova)
CBD – Convention of Biological
Diversity
CEMR-CCRE – Council of European
Municipalities and Regions - Conseil
des Communes et Régions d’Europe
CIS – Commonwealth of Independent
States
CLGF – Commonwealth Local
Government Forum
CNM – Confederação Nacional de
Municípios (Brazilian National
Association of Municipalities)
CONAGO – Conferencia Nacional deGobernadores (National Conference ofGovernors, Mexico)
CONAMM – Conferencia Nacionalde Municipios de México (Mexican
National Conference of Municipalities)
CONGOPE – Consorcio de Gobiernos
Autónomos Provinciales del Ecuador(Association of Autonomous Provincial
Governments of Ecuador)

CONPES – Consejo Nacional de Política
Económica y Social (National Council on
Economic and Social Policy, Colombia)
COSLA – Convention of Scottish Local
Authorities
CRPM – Conférence des Régions
Périphériques Maritimes (Conferenceof Peripherical Maritime Regions)
CSOs – Civil society organizations
CUF – Cités Unies France (French
United Cities)
CVUC – Communes et Villes Unies duCameroun (United Councils and Cities
of Cameroon)D

DLT – Deutscher Landkreistag (German
County Association)
DRR – Disaster Risk Reduction
DST – Deutscher Städtetag (German
Association of Cities)
DStGB – Deutsher Städte- undGemeindebund (German Association ofTowns and Municipalities)E

ECA – Economic Commission for Africa
ECLAC – Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific
ESCAP – United Nations Economic andSocial Commission for Asia and thePacific
ESCWA – Economic and Social
Commission for Western AsiaF

FAMSI – Fondo Andaluz de Municipios
para la Solidaridad Internacional(Andalousian Municipal Fund forInternational Solidarity)
FAO – Food and Agriculture
Organization
FCM – Federation of Canadian
Municipalities
FCM – Federación Colombiana deMunicipios (Colombian Federation of
Municipalities)
FEDOMU – Federación Dominicana deMunicipios (Dominican Federation of
Municipalities)
FEMP – Federación Española deMunicipios y Provincias (Spanish
Federation of Municipalities andProvinces)
FENAMM – Federación Nacionalde Municipios de México (National
Federation of Municipalities of Mexico)
FLACMA - Federación Latinoamericanade Ciudades, Municipios y Asociaciones
de Gobiernos Locales (Latin American
Federation of Cities, Municipalities andLocal Government Associations)
FMDV – Fonds mondial dedéveloppement des villes (Global Fundfor Cities Development)
FSLGA – Federation of Sri Lankan
Local Government Authorities

7

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

G

GDP – Gross Domestic Product
GHG – Greenhouse gases
GLCN – Global Lead City Network
GTF – Global Taskforce of Local andRegional Governments

H

HDI – Human Development Index
HLPF – High-Level Political ForumI

ICLEI – Local Governments for
Sustainability
ICMA – International City/County
Management Association
IGES – Institute for Global Environment
Strategies
IIED – International Institute forEnvironment and Development
ILO – International Labour Organization
INAFED – Instituto Nacional para elFederalismo y el Desarrollo Municipal(National Institute for Federalism andMunicipal Development, Mexico)
ISWA – International Solid Waste
Association
IUCN – International Union forConservation of Nature

NUA – New Urban Agenda
NUP – National Urban Policy

OOECD – Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development
OHCHR – Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights
OPACI - Organización Paraguaya
de Cooperación Intermunicipal(Paraguayan Intermunicipal Cooperation
Organization)
ORU-Fogar – Organisation des Régions
Unies-Forum Global des Associations
Régionales (Organization of United
Regions – Global Forum of Regional
Associations)R

REFELA – Réseau des Femmes Elues
Locales d’Afrique (Network for LocallyElected Women of Africa)
RGRE – Rat der Gemeinden und Regionen
Europas (German Association of CEMR)S

KEDE – Central Union of Municipalities
of Greece
KiLGA – Kiribati Local Government
Association
KL – Kommunernes Landsforening (Local
Government Association of Denmark)KS – Kommunesektorens organisasjon(Norwegian Association of Local andRegional Authorities)

SALAR – Swedish Association of Local
Authorities and Regions
SALGA – South African Local
Government Association
SDI – Slum/Shack Dwellers International
SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals
SKL – Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting(Municipalities and County Councils of
Sweden)SMO – Union of Towns and Municipalitiesof the Czech Republic
SNG – Sub-national Government
SOS - Association of Municipalities andTowns of Slovenia
SUMP – Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan

L

U

K

LALRG – Latvian Association of Local
and Regional Governments
LCP – League of Cities of the Philippines
LDC – Least Developed Countries
LGAs – Local government associations
LGNZ – Local Government New Zealand
LRGs – Local and Regional Governments
LSE – London School of Economics

M

MDGs – Millennium Development Goals

N

NAMRB – National Association of
Municipalities in the Republic of
Bulgaria
NBSAPs - National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans
NGOs – Non-Governmental
Organizations
Nrg4SD – Network of Regional Governments for Sustainable Development

UAE – United Arab Emirates
UAEL – Union des associations d’élus
locaux (Union of Associations of Local
Elected Representatives, Senegal)
UCCI – Unión de Ciudades Capitales
Iberoamericanas (Union of IberoAmerican Capital Cities)UCLGA – United Cities and Local
Governments of Africa
UCLG ASPAC – United Cities and Local
Governments of Asia Pacific
UCLG Eurasia – United Cities and Local
Governments of Eurasia
UCLG-MEWA – United Cities and Local
Governments of Middle East and West
Asia
UCT – Union des Communes du Togo
(Union of Municipalities of Togo)
UITP - International Association of
Public Transport
UMT – Union of Municipalities of Turkey
UNCCD - United Nations Convention to
Combat Desertification

UNCDF – United Nations Capital
Development FundUNDESA – United Nations Departmentof Economic and Social Affairs
UNDP – United Nations Development
Programme
UNECE – United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe
UNEP – United Nations Environment
Programme
UNESCO – United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNFCCC – United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
UNGL – Unión Nacional de Gobiernos
Locales (National Union of Local
Governments, Costa Rica)
UN-Habitat – United Nations Human
Settlements Programme
UNISDR – United Nations Office forDisaster Risk Reduction
UNPAN – United Nations Public
Administration Network
UOM – Union of Municipalities ofMontenegro
UVCW – Union des villes et des communes
de Wallonie (Union of Walloon cities andmunicipalities)V

VNG – Vereniging van Nederlandse
Gemeenten (Association of Dutch
Municipalities)
VNR – Voluntary National Review
VVSG – Vereniging van Vlaamse Stedenen Gemeenten (Association of Flemish
Cities and Towns)

W

WHO – World Health OrganizationZ

ZELS – Association of the Units of Local
Self-Government of the Republic ofMacedonia
ZMO – Združenie miest a obcí Slovenska(Association of Towns and Communities
of Slovakia)

8

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

STATEMENT OF
THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS CONSTITUENCYGATHERED IN THE GLOBAL TASKFORCE

This Statement was adopted
by the Global Taskforce
of Local and Regional
Governments at the Local
and Regional Authorities
Forum, held within theframework of the High-Level
Political Forum, in New Yorkat the UN Headquarters, on
16 July 2018. The Statement
is also available online at thefollowing link: www.globaltaskforce.org/sites/default/
files/2018-07/gtfstatement_
HLPF_2018.pdf.

Our place at
the global table

The Development Agendas adopted throughout 2015 and 2016, in particularthe 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda and the Paris Agreement represent
not only a unique landmark to achieve a shift of our societies and systems
towards sustainability, but perhaps the last opportunity to preserve ourplanet and build new patterns of development.
Our commitment and political will towards the implementation process iswhat we describe as localization. Going beyond the simple adaptation of
global goals to the local level, localization is about political will, co-creation
with our communities and to find solutions at the local level for the global
challenges and objectives.
The local and regional government networks gathered in the Global Taskforce
are convinced that the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals
depends on their full ownership by our communities, cities and regions.
Local and regional governments around the world are also convinced thatthey have a key role to play in triggering that ownership, and an important
responsibility in fostering implementation by integrating the various agendas
on the ground and ensuring territorial cohesion.

The first edition of the Local and Regional Governments Forum within theframework of the HLPF 2018 represents a key milestone for our constituency,
and should provide us with the opportunity to share our vision, experiences andcommitments before national governments and the international community.
As an organized constituency we consider this Forum and the Local2030
network as key contribution to our quest for a permanent seat at the global
policy making table.

9

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Localization is about theco-creation of cities andterritories

Local and regional governments and their associations at the national,
regional and international levels are championing the localization movement.
To accelerate the implementation of the global goals, local and regional
governments are carrying out a rights-based approach in their development
strategies, building on the ‘Right to the City’ principles acknowledged in
Habitat III that strongly foster the premise of leaving no-one behind. These
approaches should provide a new frame for ‘co-creating’ our cities andterritories and build new relationships with the communities.
To face the increasing challenges of rapid urbanization, visionary local
and regional leaders are driving policy changes with their communities
to facilitate access to affordable housing, basic services and sustainablemobility, as well as to safeguard heritage, develop culture, improve urban
resilience, promote a more sustainable use of water and energy, integrated
waste management, and participatory planning approaches that integraterisk prevention.
They are driving new forms of urbanism as well as urban-rural linkages
and environmental sustainability, but they cannot accomplish this shift alone.

Accelerating the
Localization of the 2030
Goals: strengthening
ownership, local financeand the bottom-up
monitoring

In spite of the significant efforts that cities, regions and their networks havemade to raise awareness and foster real ownership for the localization of theSDGs, different subnational governments are at different stages throughout
the localization process, and there is still work to be done to enhance theactive involvement of local leaders in the process. It is our firm belief that
only through integrated governance models that involve all spheres ofgovernment, scale up the local priorities aligned with the SDGs and foster
the inclusion and participation of the communities we represent will we beable to achieve our joint ambitions.
Without fairer and clearer intergovernmental financial frameworks andregulatory reforms that adequately empower local governments, funding is
failing to reach those spheres that need it most. One of the main challenges
for localizing the goals remains addressing subnational governments’
access to finance. This is where the Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the New
Urban Agenda can offer a tangible opportunity to strengthen the role of local
and regional governments as key drivers of urban and regional planning,since they call for supporting subnational governments through innovative
financial mechanisms which build up domestic resources.
Extreme poverty is localized and inequalities between countries, as well as
between territories and within cities, are increasing. Without localized data,
ensuring that no one is left behind will become increasingly difficult. Local
and regional governments are launching initiatives to collect data on the
ground, but stronger support and coordination with communities is essential
to disaggregate and localize data and monitor the localization process.

10

The Local and Regional
Government Networks
gathered in the Global
Taskforce commit to:

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

• Strengthen awareness, policy commitment and ownership among LRGs
and their communities as a shared responsibility.
• Develop further partnerships with civil society and other stakeholders toensuring the achievement of the global goals.
• Support the proactive involvement of Local and Regional Governments inthe process of the Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs).
• Ensure the active participation of LRGs in the Regional Forums on
Sustainable Development.
• Promote and support the development of tools for LRGs’ self-assessmenton the alignment of their development plans and strategies with the SDGs.
• Promote Voluntary Local Reviews at both city and regional levels that
include the development of accountability mechanisms.
• Promote international cooperation and peer-to-peer exchange ofknowledge for localization in partnerships with other stakeholders.

GTF members and partners
call national governments
and the international
community to:• Foster the integration of specific references in the VNR to monitor the
implementation of the SDGs at subnational levels in each country.
• Include specific follow-up processes to the VNRs in order to guarantee
accountability mechanisms at all levels and further develop the HLPF.
• Enhance the presence and spaces for dialogue between LRGs and national
governments within the context of the HLPF and beyond.
• Pay specific attention to local solutions and actions in the Quadrennial
Global Sustainable Development Report.
• Promote the implementation of the New Urban Agenda as an acceleratorof the SDGs.
• Rally LRGs to lead an international coalition for the implementation of SDG
11 within a broader localization strategy.
• Enhance the participation of local and regional governments andstakeholders in the renewed governance structure of the UN and of UN
Habitat in particular building on the recommendations of Habitat III.

We would like to reiterate the commitment of our organized constituency
towards the achievement of the global agendas and the wellbeing of ourcommunities. The task is too large for any single level of government or
any single stakeholder to fulfill alone. As the closest level of government toour citizens we are committed to leave no one behind and call for national
governments and the international community not to leave local governanceand territorial cohesion behind.

11

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents evidence of the involvement of Local and Regional
Governments (LRGs) in the ‘localization’ of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). It complements the Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) and‘Main Messages’ submitted by 103 countries to the High-Level Political
Forum (HLPF) in 2016, 2017 and 2018. It delivers first-hand informationfrom LRGs in 61 different countries. It is the second in an annual series
coinciding with national reports to the HLPF and provides an update on theactive engagement of LRGs in the dissemination and implementation of theSDGs at the local level.
The report is facilitated by United Cities and Local Governments within
the framework of the Global Observatory on Decentralization and Local
Democracy (GOLD) and on behalf of the Global Taskforce of Local andRegional Governments, a consultation mechanism of the constituency thatgathers over 25 networks. The report counts with special contributions
from many cities and associations around the world.
In the majority of countries that reported to the HLPF in 2016, 2017and 2018, LRGs have key competencies in policy areas relating to theachievement of all SDGs, and particularly SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 15 and 17.
This report pays special attention to SDG 11 and its interlinkages withother goals, which has special relevance for the LRG constituency. The
report also demonstrates the role of local initiatives in mainstreaming theobjective to ‘leave no one behind’.

12

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

GOOD PRACTICESLRGs are putting the ‘Rightto the City’ approach andparticipation at the heart oftheir localization strategies

Many LRGs are choosing to mainstream rights-based approaches in theirterritorial development strategies to accelerate SDG implementation (e.g.
Gwangju, Venice and Vienna). Furthermore, they are supporting the ‘Right to
the City’ principles acknowledged in Habitat III (e.g. Mexico City/State).
They are proactive in building multi-stakeholder alliances to back the rightto housing (e.g. the ‘Cities for adequate housing’ initiative led by Barcelona andmore than ten other cities). Moreover, they are addressing the needs of specificvulnerable groups (e.g. Sanctuary Cities in and Refuge-Cities to welcoming
refugees and asylum seekers). These are a means of strengthening social
cohesion and solidarity but also of guaranteeing the protection of human rights
and the commons.
Participatory instruments through planning and budgeting are anotherway in which LRGs are creating ‘virtuous circles’ of engagement between
citizens and local institutions in different countries in all regions.
Participatory and rights-based approaches are developing a new framework
for the ‘co-creation’ of cities and territories based on the stronger involvementof local actors.
LRGs’ collaborative work with Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI) in
Africa, and the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) are examples ofsuccessful initiatives to gather local knowledge and disaggregated data at thelevel of informal settlement and to plan timely, inclusive and group-sensitive
policies and identify local opportunities and threats (e.g. disaster risks).

LRGs play a key role indeveloping integrated urban
and territorial plans tolocalize all the SDGs

In many countries, LRGs are building their capacities and engaging in a longterm vision to integrate the SDGs into their strategic local frameworks (e.g.
local plans for the 2030 Agenda) as well as their daily activities (e.g. in Durban,
Mannheim, New York, Quito and Seoul).
Many LRGs in developed and developing countries have been proactive
in sharing, learning and developing more holistic and comprehensive
participatory plans at the urban and territorial level (e.g. ‘strategic planning’,city development strategies, etc.). These use cross-cutting policies to respond
simultaneously to all the SDGs, and particularly SDG 11. Integrated urban andterritorial plans promote place-based approaches to development, and they
foster multilevel and multi-sectoral systems of governance, while at the sametime promoting alignment with the SDGs.

LRGs are leading innovative
actions to achieve Goals andTargets that are instrumental
to the ‘transformation
towards sustainable andresilient societies’

The report gives examples of how local leaders are developing alternative
policies to make cities and territories more sustainable and resilient. LRGs
with an enabling institutional framework play a key role in integrating social
housing and neighbourhood improvement at the heart of city policies. This
also calls for increasing efforts to avoid forced evictions and support coproduction of public-private community-driven housing.

13

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

In the face of increasing water stress, many cities are developing renewed
water management strategies taking into account integrated approaches
inspired by SDGs (e.g. Brisbane and Cape Town), whilst others are innovating
to overcome sanitation challenges (e.g. Rajkot in India). Some cities andregions are implementing integrated multimodal and sustainable transportsystems. These facilitate access, integrate and regulate formal and informaltransport modalities (e.g. Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans in Brazil), andreduce congestion, GHG emissions and air pollution. LRGs make culture –including cultural heritage protection – one of the pillars of their sustainablestrategies that support diversity and inclusion (e.g. Regensburg, Pekalongan,
Gabrovo and Timbuktu).
Following assessment by the UNISDR, cities are progressively applying the
Sendai Framework targets into their policies and strategies. There are many
examples of how they are improving waste collection and final disposal (4R reduce, reuse, recycle and recover). In the Global South, collaborations aredeveloping with informal workers in waste collection and recycling (e.g. Belo
Horizonte, Dhaka, Manila and Qalyubeya Governorate).
Elsewhere LRGs are leading actions towards more efficient and renewableenergy use, often as part of climate change mitigation and adaptation plans;
and they are committed to reducing their carbon footprint from transport,
buildings and services (Baden-Württemberg, Boston, Tokyo and Vancouver).
At a global scale, more than 9,000 cities and local governments are participatingin the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy to take action on
mitigation, adaptation, as well as access to sustainable energy.
Despite these positive efforts, the report emphasizes that the scope of these
local initiatives remains limited to a small group of frontrunner cities andregions. A cleared and bolder support system will be needed to bring this goodpractices up to scale. Globally, LRGs need more policy guidance, powers andresources, particularly in low-income and middle-low income countries.

LESSONS LEARNED

LRGs’ participation bothin the VNR process andthe national institutional
mechanisms for
coordination and follow-up
need to be scaled up

Less than half of the VNR consultations and over one third of the follow-up
mechanisms in 99 countries involve local governments. The integration of thelocal and regional perspective in reporting and follow-up remains a major
challenge. Although many national governments acknowledge the role ofsub-national governments, their national plans and VNRs do not always
reflect a clear strategy for their inclusion. Coordination between all levelsof government is critical to ensuring LRGs’ participation in both processes.
National governments and UN institutions need to further develop spaces for
multilevel dialogue and joint action. These must ensure the participation andengagement of local and regional leaders, both in the reporting process (VNRs),
and the national, regional and global follow-up of institutional mechanisms, withadapted agendas and policy support.

14

LRGs’ mobilization andinvolvement at global scale
is progressing but it is still
not sufficient to support
the localization process

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Significant efforts have been made by LRGs and their networks worldwide
to raise awareness and find innovative ways of mobilizing and fostering
real ownership for the localization of the SDGs. Cities and territories of all
sizes are enhancing actions to align their policies with the global goals andrethinking their local action plans in line with the SDGs. LRGs are driving
the localization process in many countries and being proactive in building
multilevel and multi-stakeholder partnerships to catalyse implementation.
Frontrunner cities have taken a further step by presenting their Voluntary
Local Reviews to self-assess the progress they have made in the localizationof the SDGs. Yet, many LRGs and Local and Regional Government Associations(LGAs) are still not acquainted with the SDGs or consider them to be yet
another external internationally imposed ‘burden’. More efforts are needed
to empower LRGs and to develop local-based approaches combined withnational enabling policies to support the localization process and enhance
the active involvement and innovation of local leaders in the achievement of
the 2030 Agenda.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Scale-up the localization of
the SDGs as an integral partof national strategies:

Effective localization strategies require empowered LRGs to foster integrated
urban and regional plans that are well-coordinated with national strategies.
The 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda offer a real opportunity tostrengthen the role of LRGs as key drivers of urban and regional planning.
National Urban Policies (NUPs) can contribute to a more collaborative
framework to develop cross-sectoral and coherent approaches to support
and accompany local urban policies. However, improved multilevel and multistakeholder collaboration should be facilitated to scale up sub-nationalinnovative solutions integrated into national strategies.

Strengthen institutionaland fiscal frameworks toempower LRGs:

Rethinking the sub-national financial architecture, and municipal finance inparticular, will be critical to achieving the SDGs. The majority of LRGs that
contributed to this report have underlined the need for financial support andfiscal decentralization to achieve SDG localization. National governments madea commitment to promoting a more integrated framework for LRG planningand financing in line with the Addis Ababa Action Agenda (paragraph 34).
They should provide to LRGs the necessary capacities, enabling regulatory
frameworks and institutional incentives to act autonomously to ensure theirtasks and responsibilities. At global scale, international institutions should
catalyse investments in sustainable local long-term financial projects adapted
to local needs.

15

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

‘Make the Shift’ to arights-based approach at thecenter of local agendas:

The outcome document of Habitat III stresses the importance of linking
the implementation of the SDGs with a rights-based approach. This is
instrumental to deliver on the core promise to leave no one behind. Suchpolicies address the global challenges of the right to housing and the ‘Rightto the City’ paying particular attention to the diversity of needs. Proactive
involvement of LRGs is imperative to fully implement the right to adequate
housing. Greater linkages between SDG implementation and right to the city
-based approach should be enhanced by LRGs.

Support initiatives todisaggregate data formonitoring localization
processes:

A bottom-up monitoring process is essential to delivering the objective to‘leave no one behind’. Monitoring of SDG localization must use disaggregatedand place-based data and collect information on the ground to reflect local
realities. A participatory approach to fostering co-production of data at
the local level should be enhanced, and collaborative partnerships with
community-based organizations and NGOs be supported.

Promote international
cooperation in partnershipwith LRGs for localization:

The LRGs and their LGAs are deeply involved in international development
cooperation. Peer-to-peer exchange of knowledge, city-to-city dialogue
and decentralized cooperation are powerful vehicles for strengthening
LRGs’ capacities to localize the SDGs. Greater efforts are needed to upscalethese practices. National governments should create enabling policy
environments for decentralized cooperation and support LRGs’ involvement
in development cooperation plans.

Rally local and regional
governments to strengtheninternational coalition for the
implementation of SDGs:

Local and Regional Government Associations at national, regional and global
levels have shown significant commitment to put the SDGs at the heart oftheir strategies and support the implementation, monitoring and innovating
to Localize the 2030 Agenda. An international alliance to foster these efforts
worldwide, such as the UN Local 2030 Network and the Localizing the SDGs
Platform, will be instrumental for the success the Localization of the SDGs.

16

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

O1

INTRODUCTION
The second report, ‘Towards the Localization of the SDGs’, represents theunique view of Local and Regional Governments (LRGs) worldwide andtheir role in, and contribution to, achieving the main global development
agendas. It underlines the involvement of LRGs in national and regional
processes and summarizes the key local and regional trends observedin the implementation of the SDGs, and particularly those that are being
assessed this year in the four-year cycle framework.
The ‘transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies’, reviewed
by the HLPF in 2018, is particularly pertinent to this constituency. It includes
SDG 11, to ‘make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient andsustainable’, and thus introduces a comprehensive territorial approach tosustainable development. SDG 11 focuses not just on cities, but rather takes
a novel place-based approach with specific attention given to urban, ruralurban, and regional linkages. The majority of the SDGs in fact highlight theimportance of engaging cities, local communities and territories more widely.1
Indeed, the 2030 Agenda emphasizes the need for an inclusive and localized
approach to the SDGs stating, ‘governments and public institutions will also
work closely on implementation with regional and local authorities, subregional institutions, inter-national institutions, academia, philanthropic
organisations, volunteer groups and others.’2
Localization is described as ‘the process of defining, implementing andmonitoring strategies at the local level for achieving global, national, andsub-national sustainable development goals and targets.’ Specifically,
it includes the ‘process of taking into account sub-national contexts in theachievement of the 2030 Agenda, from the setting of goals and targets, todetermining the means of implementation and using indicators to measureand monitor progress.’ 3
The second HLPF report develops the first report’s analysis by mapping the
involvement of the LRGs and their contribution to the localization of the SDGs.4

Localization relates both to how local and regional governments
can support the achievement of the SDGs through action
from the bottom up and to how the SDGs can provide
a framework for local development policy

17

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

The engagement of urban
stakeholders is necessary
to achieving up to 65% of
the SDG targets, see Cities
Alliance (2015), Sustainable
Development Goals andHabitat III: Opportunities for a
Successful New Urban Agenda.

1

United Nations, General
Assembly, Transforming ourworld: The 2030 agenda forsustainable development, A/
RES/70/1 (21 October 2015),
paragraphs 34 and 45.

2

UN Development Group(2014), Localizing the Post2015 Agenda (outcome of the
global UN dialogue process
realized from June 2014 to
October 2014); GTF, UNDP,
UN-Habitat (2016), Roadmap
for Localizing the SDGs:
Implementation and Monitoringat Sub-national Level.

The report follows the guidelines proposed by the UN for the preparationof Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) by countries. Section 2 presents themethodology used for this report. Section 3 analyses LRGs’ ownership andinvolvement in the SDG process. Section 4 presents a sample of policies
and innovations implemented by cities and territories to contribute to theachievement of the SDGs reviewed this year. In the last two sections, thereport synthesizes the main considerations of the LRGs about means of
implementation (Section 5) and lastly draws conclusions and proposes
next steps (Section 6).

3

UCLG – GTF (2017), Nationaland Sub-national Governmentson the way towards the
Localization of the SDGs.

4

Table 1.1 shows the structure and data of LRGs within the 47 countries
reporting in 2018 and complements the table presented in the GTF-UCLG
report to the HLPF in 2017, which showed data from 400,000 LRGs.
Decentralized LRGs are simultaneously policy-makers, implementers
and investors. They are facilitators and catalysts of sustainable
development, linking global, national, regional and local levels andinvolving citizens and communities as drivers of bottom-up change intheir territories. However, it is important to understand the diversity of
LRGs in each region.
In the majority of developed and in some developing countries, the roleof LRGs highlights the instrumental nature of local self-government in
improving governance and development. Conversely, in some regions,such as Sub-Saharan Africa or West Asia, incomplete decentralization
processes and difficulty adapting transferred competences — often
without resources or accompanying measures — can undermine therole of LRGs in localization. This is observed particularly in countries
with weak local systems, no local elected authorities, or a ‘mix’ of
local executives appointed by national governments and local councils
elected with very limited powers (e.g. Sudan). Lastly, there are countries
where elections only take place at the village level (Lao PRD), or havebeen delayed for a long time (Guinea), or are expected to take place forthe first time in the coming year (Egypt, Togo).

“Localizing” is the process of taking into account sub-national
contexts in the achievement of the 2030 Agenda,
from the setting of goals and targets, to determining the meansof implementation and using indicators to measure and monitor progress

18

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

TABLE 1.1.

MUNICIPAL LEVELTOTAL LRGS

U

32

1102

1134

INTERMEDIATELEVELColombia

REGIONAL-STATE
LEVEL

77

AFRICA (11)

TYPE OF STATETOTAL LRGs

77

INTERMEDIATE
LEVEL

U

REGIONAL-STATE
LEVEL

Benin

TYPE OF STATEMUNICIPAL LEVELLOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENTS IN THE 47 COUNTRIES REPORTING TO THE HLPF IN 2018

LATIN AMERICA (6)

Cabo Verde

U

22

22

Dominican Republic

U

32

162

194

Egypta

U

366

366

Ecuador

U

24

221

245

Guinea

U

Mali

U

8

Namibia

U

Niger

h

342

342

Mexico

F

32

2464

2496

704

761

Paraguay

U

18

254

272

14

57

71

Uruguay

U

19

112

131

U

8

265

273

MEWA (6)

Republic of Congo

U

12

92

104

Bahraini

U

4

4

1029

1029

49

Senegal

U

557

602

LebanonU

Sudanb

F

18

45

186

204

Qatarj

U

Togoc

U

5

116

121

Saudi Arabiak

U

178

178

State of Palestine

U

483

483

United Arab Emirates

F
32

32

3959

3972

14

14

48935

50647

ASIA-PACIFIC (7)Australia

F

8

571

579

Bhutan

U

20

234

254

NORTH AMERICA (3)Kiribati

U

26

26

BahamasU-

CanadaF-

Jamaica

U

335

344

TOTAL

11162

11938

Lao PDRU

Singaporef

U

d

-

Sri Lanka

U

9Viet Nam

U

63

g

713

475

1237

Local councils’ elections are going to take place in 2019 for the first time in 10 years.
Local assemblies and executive bodies are appointed by the central authoritiesc
Local elections will be held in 2018.
d
In Bhutan and Vietnam Local assemblies are elected by executive bodies who
are appointed.
f
Provincial governors, mayors and district chiefs are appointed, while the village
heads are directly elected.
g
There are no local governments, but 5 community development councils.
hBased on the legislation local governments are elected. However due to internal
problems, since 2015, local executives are appointed by central governments.
Local elections are planned for 2018.
iEach governorate has its own municipality council, with separate elections forthem. The most recent municipal election was held in 2014.
j
The Central Municipal Council is elected. The Council is formed of 29 members
representing constituencies spreading over 230 regions in the State of Qatar. The
last elections were held in May 2015.
k
In 2005, local elections in 178 municipalities were held for half of the seats in themunicipal council. The last local elections were held in 2015 in 284 local councils,
the first-ever elections open to female voters and candidates.
a

EURASIA (1)Armenia

13

b

U

804

804

AlbaniaU

61

61

AndorraU

7

7

EUROPE (14)Greece

U

13

325

338

Hungary

U

19

3201

3220

Ireland

U

126

126

Latvia

U

119

119

Lithuania

U

60

60

Malta

U

PolandU

16

RomaniaU

42

Slovakia

U

8

Spain

M

17

Switzerland

F

26

380

50

68

68

2479

2875

3181

3223

2930

2938

8124

8191

2324

2350

Sources: information obtained from local government associations, particularly
from CEMR database for European countries; OECD, UCLG (2016) Subnational
Governments around the World; CLGF Country profiles (available online at: http://
www.clgf.org.uk/resource-centre/clgf-publications/country-profiles/); OECD(2018) Subnational Government in OECD Countries; UNPAN, Public Administration
Country Profile (available online at: http://www.unpan.org/country_profiles);European Committee of Regions, Division of Powers section (available online
at https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/default.aspx), National
Statistical Offices and National Government and Local Government’s Portals fromdifferent countries; local press and online media.

19

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

O2

METHODOLOGY AND PROCESSOF PREPARATION OF THE REPORTThis second report to the HLPF is based on information from the main
global and regional networks, as well as national associations of cities,municipalities and regions in more than 61 countries. Data is mainly fromdifferent sources: a survey of the localization of the SDGs circulated among
LRGs from March to April 2018; the contributions of several LRG network
members of the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments (GTF);5
as well as expert research groups.
Information for some countries has been collected in conjunction with theanalysis of the 47 ‘Main messages’ and the 29 Voluntary National Reviews(VNRs) published by the HLPF up to June 22. Partners (ACHR, CAHF, IIED,
ISWA, UITP); UN agencies (UNISDR); and experts participated in Section 3
and 4 (specific goals analysis).
The survey of LRGs was designed according to the structure recommended
by the Office of the UN Secretary-General for the Voluntary National Reviews
to enhance cross-context comparability. The results show a striking level ofmobilization by LRGs, with responses from diverse authorities within thegovernance tier, and several spontaneous contributions by municipalities,
provinces and/or regions. Box 2.1 gives more insights into the survey and its
techniques.6!

The reportcomplements the47 ‘Main messages’
and the 29 VNRs
published up toJune 22, 2018

BOX 2.1.

UCLG’S SURVEY: LESSONS LEARNED AND GUIDELINES
101 LRGs and their associations from 61 different countries responded tothe survey. Twenty-eight of these are reporting to the 2018 HLPF. In Europe,a total of 47 answers were collected by CEMR/Platforma.
The surveys proved to be an interesting experiment on methodologies
apt to engage local and regional governments in the monitoring process. It
comprised of seven open-ended questions on the process of localization,
addressing the national context for SDG implementation, LRGs’ involvementin the VNRs, and follow-up mechanisms. It also asked LRGs about initiatives
that support the localization of the SDGs.
We can draw a few general conclusions. Respondents were inclined to build
on initiatives created at or led by the local and regional level, as well as on
local strategic alignment with the SDGs.
Several respondents were also found to be comfortable with the conceptsof multilevel, territorial reform and local financing at the core of the survey’s
analysis.

For more information on the
GTF, see Global networks in
Section 3.4.

5

From a total of 101 answers
received, 54 were sent by LGAs
from all the regions, while
the remaining 47 were sentby cities and regions, except
two answers: one from a CSO(Djibouti) and one from an
SDG coordination unit (Unionof Arab Emirates). Moreover,in Europe, the Council ofEuropean Municipalities andRegions (CEMR-CCRE), theEuropean Section of UCLG and
Platforma developed a survey
with the same methodologicalpremises and techniques
as UCLG’s, which was thendistributed to all CEMR and
Platforma members. In theregion, a total of 47 responses
were received, which werekindly shared with UCLG
for the sake of the analysis
conducted in this report.

6

20

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

O3

THE INSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORKFOR SDG
LOCALIZATION
The involvement of LRGs in the localization process is progressing in all regions. Each,however, takes different forms. The following sub-sections analyse the participation of
LRGs in VNR processes (Section 3.1); synthesize their actions to mobilize LRGs (Section3.2); identify the institutional framework, analysing the relationships between alllevels of government and stakeholders (Section 3.3); and make an initial attempt for
the global mapping of LRGs’ mobilization (Section 3.4).

3.1

PARTICIPATION OF LRGs
IN THE PREPARATION OF THE VNRs
Countries often mention the importance of
involving sub-national authorities or national
parliaments, as well as civil society and otherstakeholders, in their VNRs. But they are
not always explicit about the terms of thisinvolvement.
In collaboration with the GTF, UCLG
has reviewed the information provided by
LRGs since 2016. In 2018, in 23 out of the 43
countries which submitted information to
UCLG (53%) LRGs affirm to have participatedin the reporting process and the preparationof the VNRs. Only 28 countries out of 65
stated the same among respondents in2016 and 2017 combined. Ultimately, in thewhole 2016-2018 period under review, LRGs
in 45% of the reporting countries affirm tohave participated in the preparation of theircountries’ VNRs. This information is shownin Table 3.1.
This information suggests that there has
been progress since the reviewing process
began in 2016, but LRG involvement is still
limited. Figure 3.1 gives a global overview anddistribution by region of the consultation of
LRGs in the 103 countries that presented their
VNRs between 2016 and 2018.

21

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

TABLE 3.1.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS' PARTICIPATION IN THE PREPARATION OF THE VNRs7

2016

2017

TOTAL

2018

(Repeated countries
excluded)

Total countries

22

Consulted

11

50%

17

40%

23

53%

45

45%

Weak consultation

4

18%

10

23%

4

9%

17

17%

Not consulted
No Local Governments8

7

32%

15

35%

10

23%

30

30%

6

7

7%

4

4**

43

1

No information9

47

99*

Explanation of the categories: 1) Consulted: LRGs through their representative LGAs or a representative delegation of elected officers were invited to participate
in the consultation (conferences, surveys, meetings); 2) Weak consultation: only isolated representatives and neither LGAs nor a representative delegation
participated in meetings, or LGAs were invited to a presentation of the VNR (once finalized); 3) Not consulted: no invitation or involvement in the consultation
process was issued, even if LGAs were informed.

7

8Countries with no local self-governments: Monaco (2017), Bahrain, Lao PDR, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Sudan.

9

No information (until 22 June 2018): Bahamas, Hungary, Namibia, Republic of Congo.

Sources: Surveys answered by LRGs and VNRs.
* In total, 112 countries reported between 2016 and 2018 (22 in 2016, 43 in 2017 and 47 in 2018). The final total (99 countries) records all countries once
even though some have reported twice (9), or three times (1).
** Countries with no information (4) are not accounted in the total.

FIGURE 3.1.

MAP OF LRG PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSULTATION PROCESSES FOR THE VNRs

Involvement of LRGs in
the VNR process
Participation in 2018
Participation in 2016-2017
Limited participation in 2018
Limited participation in 2016-2017
No participation in 2018
No participation in 2016-2017
No LRGs in reporting countries
Committed to report in 2018, no information yet available

22

10
A national workshop topresent the draft of the VNR
was held in mid-May.
11
This is based on the VNRof Senegal (2018). NGOs and
CSOs organized regional
workshops and presented
their conclusions to theTechnical Committee in charge
preparing the VNR.
12
Based on the VNR of
Niger (2018), the review
was prepared by aTechnical committee which
consulted the “concerned
administrations”.
13
In the Main messages ofGuinea, the country reports
the organization of a workshop
with all stakeholders. It alsomentions its commitment to
conduct a VNR process every
year, which should include
workshops for consultationand validation of each report.
14
The VNR of Sudan refers toa multi-stakeholder national
consultation and workshops,
but no specific mention ismade of LRGs.
15
The VNR of Australia (2018)
reports that the national
government has engaged
with state, territory and local
governments on the SDGs
through existing committees
for the preparation of the
VNR, coordinated by aninterdepartmental group ofsenior officials, co-chaired by
the Department of the Prime
Minister and Cabinet (PM&C)
and the Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade (DFAT).
16
The VNR of Lao PDR (2018)
mentions that public officials
from 18 provinces participate
in a first stakeholder
consultation in late 2017and in second round in April
2018.’ The Main messagesof Singapore mention‘government agencies andstakeholders’ (businesses,
youth, civil society).
17

See VNR of Greece (2018).

According to the Main
messages of Hungary mentionsa ‘multi-stakeholder platform’,
but not the LRGs.
18

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Even when they are recognized as important
actors, LRGs and examples of their actions
are only given limited reference in the majority
of VNRs. Only a few countries dedicate specificspace to the voice of LRGs (Spain); or assess
their situation (Benin, Uruguay); or extensively
quote LRG sources and examples (Australia,
Ecuador, Greece and Latvia).
As in previous years, the modalities of LRGs’
involvement in the VNR process are diverse:
direct participative consultation; contribution
to different multi-stakeholder meetings;
national or regional dialogues; submissionof experiences; or online consultations (e.g.
Andorra, Benin, Ecuador, Ireland, Jamaica,
Mali, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Togo,
Uruguay). In other cases, engagement has
been through bilateral contact or highlevel taskforce groups in charge of VNR
preparation (Bhutan, Dominican Republic,
Kiribati, Latvia, Slovakia); a direct note to thegovernment (Australia, Canada); occasional
dialogue with a specific ministry (Cabo Verde,Vietnam); participation in other institutional
spaces (Greece, Poland); or a mix of allmodalities (Spain). Finally, in Mexico,
information on LRGs was collected through aspecialized technical committee.
Based on the assessment of the VNRs
submitted between 2016 and 2018, LRGs
are most involved in the VNR consultation
process in Europe (in 62% of European
countries that reported), followed by AsiaPacific (53%), Latin America (47%) and
Africa (44%). In some federal countries (e.g.
Ethiopia, India, and Nigeria), participation is,de facto, limited to the regional level, withweaker involvement of local levels. LRGs in
the Middle East and West Asia (MEWA) andEurasia (CIS countries) are either scarcely
involved or not participating at all (with the
exception of Belarus at the regional level).
Lastly, in North America, LRGs in Canada
and, to a lesser extent, Jamaica have also
been consulted.
In AFRICA, the LGAs of Benin and Togo
are the ‘frontrunners’ most actively involvedin bringing the vision at local levels to thereporting process. Cabo Verde also reported
some level of consultation. Local authorities
in Mali were invited to national and regional
workshops, but the AMM (Association desMunicipalités du Mali) was not a part of thedrafting committee.10 In Senegal, local
governments among other stakeholders
were invited to a preparatory meeting inJanuary 2018 and to a final meeting in June

2018.11 In Niger while the LGA was informed,
it was not actively involved.12 In Egypt andGuinea, local administrative levels are not
involved in the reporting process (and have
limited autonomy).13 Information was notreceived from Namibia, Republic of Congoand Sudan.14
In the ASIA-PACIFIC REGION, Australian
LGAs, cities and regions contributed to
the report, collected experiences andsent case studies.15 In Bhutan, the VNR
mentions that, among other stakeholders,local governments were at least consulted.
In Kiribati, KiLGA has been involved in theplanning stages of the VNR from the outset.
In Vietnam, ACVN is planning to work with
the Ministry of Planning and Investment tocontribute to the VNR process. In Sri Lanka,
several multi-stakeholder consultations
were held at national and regional levels
and a public call published on the ministry
website inviting volunteers to report. In
Singapore and Lao PDR there is no local
elected government.16
In EUROPE, LRGs in Spain, Ireland, Latvia,
Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland wereinvolved or at least consulted. In Greece, thenational government reports that the Central
Union of Municipalities of Greece (KEDE) andthe Association of Greek Regions (ENPE)
were consulted. This information, however,
was not confirmed by KEDE.17 In Lithuania,
municipal experts from the associationof local authorities (ALAL) participatedin the process (but not confirmed in thesurvey). The involvement of LRGs is still
very limited or non-existent in Albania,
Malta and Romania. Data on Hungary arestill missing.18 In 2016-2017, LRGs wereparticularly active in Northern countries(Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway andSweden), and in countries from Western andCentral Europe (Belgium, Czech Republic,
Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland).
Since July 2017, the participation of LRGs
in the reporting process also improved in
France and Italy (see LRG involvement ininstitutional coordination mechanisms in
Section 3.3. below).
In LATIN AMERICA, LGAs of Dominican
Republic, Ecuador and Uruguay reported
their involvement in the consultation process
in 2018. Conversely, LGAs in Colombia,
which previously reported some level ofinvolvement, said this year they had not been
sufficiently consulted. Meanwhile, in Mexico,
both the governors and the municipalities

23

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

took part in the National Council for the 2030
Agenda, but municipalities seem to havebeen less active in the VNR process. National
electoral processes take place in both thesecountries this year. The LGA of Paraguay —OPACI — emphasized they had never been
contacted.19 LGAs of Brazil and Costa Rica
continue to reaffirm their strong involvementin the process.
In the NORTH AMERICAN REGION, theFederal Government of Canada has engaged
local governments, the private sector and civilsociety in the preparations for meetings anddocuments. In the past, these stakeholders
have been included as part of the Canadiandelegation to the UN Forums. In Jamaica,
regional consultation, including of local
governments, took place for the preparationof the Long and Medium-Term Development
Strategy (Vision 2030 Jamaica).
In MIDDLE EAST AND WEST ASIA, some
LGAs have been informed about reporting
processes (e.g. Lebanon), but none has
been invited to contribute. In Lebanon, theprivate sector and civil society — including
representatives from local governments —were consulted by the National Reporting
Committee.20 The Association of Local
Governments of Palestine (APLA) said
they intended to contact their government
to request participation. As mentioned
above, in other countries in the region
reporting this year (Bahrain, Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates), there iseither limited local government autonomy or
no local elected authorities.
LRGs’ participation in the five regional
forums organized this year by the UN
regional commissions (UNECE, ESCAP,ECLAC, ESCWA and ECA) to prepare for the
HLPF is still limited. In general, a very small
number of LRG representatives are given
accreditation, but usually with restricted
access, e.g. LRGs in Latin America can only
go to side events. These are government
forums, thus LRGs must be allowed toparticipate and appropriate access granted
so that they can address other partners in
the main forums.
The involvement of LRGs in reporting
depends largely on the openness of theconsultation process led by national
governments and international institutions.
It is important to underline, however, that insome countries lack of participation is also
the result of either diminished capacity of
LGAs (Guinea, Republic of Congo), or lack

LRGs’ participation in the five regional
forums organized this year by the UN
regional commissions (UNECE, ESCAP,ECLAC, ESCWA, and ECA) to prepare
for the HLPF is still limitedof political understanding by local leaders.
In other cases, there are no organized
LGAs or, as mentioned above, sub-national
administrative levels appointed by thenational or regional government, who do notdeem it necessary to engage subordinate
levels in the consultation process.
A leap forward is necessary to involve
LRGs in the reporting process. Strong
joint efforts by both national governments
and international institutions, as well as by
LRG networks and organizations, will beessential. The GTF and UCLG in particular
are developing an initiative to catalyse themobilization of LGAs and local electedleaders in the reporting process throughtraining and advice.

3.2

LOCAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS’ ACTION TO
LOCALIZE THE SDGs
As has been noted in the previous subsection, the involvement of LRGs and theirassociations in the national consultation
process, and/or in the drafting of the VNRs,
is progressing but limited. At the same time,
an increasing number of cities, regions,
national associations and networks of LRGs
worldwide are strongly promoting andsupporting the localization of the global
agendas. Awareness efforts by LRGs todisseminate the SDGs through campaigns,
events and regular communication channels
are growing in almost all regions. There
are more and more references to the
SDGs and global agendas in social media
by LRGs, as well as in bulletins, websites
and other platforms.21 Greater attention is
also being given to the global agendas innational conferences and congresses of LRG

19
According to the VNR, thereport was developed by theCommittee on SDG Paraguay
2030, with contributions from
central government officers
and institutions, CSO andprivate sector. The reportmentions a more participative
process for the definition of
the National Development
Strategy in 2014 that included‘a consultation process withmore than 2,000 participantsfrom national and SNGs, civilsociety, academia and private
sector in more than
10 districts’.
20
The Main messages ofLebanon (2018) mention
three workshops organizedat national level and regional
consultation. Civil society
consultations included
representatives from local
authorities, but not theirnational associations. A
parliamentary committee on
the SDGs was subsequently
established.
21
For example, the website
http://localizingthesdgs.
org/ developed by UNDP, UN
Habitat and the GTF has beenaccessed in the past 2 years
by 23,900 users from 192
countries and 2,794 cities.

24

22
For example, three cities
in Japan are also planning topresent local SDG reports:
Toyama city, Kitakyushu cityand Shimokawa town.
23
IGES Policy Report (April2018), Early view of ASEAN’s‘Frontrunner cities’ on the
Sustainable Development
Goals and Local DataManagement, Japan, p.9.
Survey answered by 30
respondents from national
and local governments infirst quarter 2018. From thisstudy, awareness on the
SDGs appears to be higher
in Cambodia, Indonesia,
Singapore, Thailand and thePhilippines, and lower in Lao
PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam.
24
For European countries,
as mentioned above, CEMR/
Platforma collected answers
based on a specific survey.
Similar considerations arequoted in IGES for ASEAN
countries (2018), p.9. ‘Many
city officials are unsure if
SDGs will be directly useful intheir daily work. Similar to thenational officials, they are taken
aback by “so many” goals andtargets, and they think that theSDGs are “abstract” and purely“aspirational”. They are unsureof the real benefits of explicitly
reframing all local actions inreference to the SDGs.’
25
UCLG (2016), The Sustainable
Development Goals, What local
governments need to know.
The document is available
at: https://www.uclg.org/fr/
media/news/sustainabledevelopment-goals-whatlocal-governments-needknow.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

associations (e.g. during local governmentdays in African countries such as Burundi,
Cameroon, Mali, Togo). Moreover, many
cities, regions and their associations are
moving beyond awareness-raising activities
to taking action to develop knowledge
exchange initiatives or integrate the SDGs
in their local plans and projects. Table
3.2. presents a short overview of the typeof actions that national associations andregional and global networks have beenpromoting around the world.
Many cities are taking the lead in
implementing the SDGs and the otherglobal agendas, even before their national
governments have done so. Under theleadership of visionary mayors and local
leaders, cities are willing to be proactive in
implementing innovative actions to ‘localize’
the SDGs without waiting for instructions
from higher levels of government. They
are committing to achieving the SDGs using
either an integrated approach or by selecting
the more relevant goals and targets. For
example, New York City announced in May
2018 that it would become the first city in theworld to report directly to the HLPF in what
it calls a Voluntary Local Review (see Box
3.1.). Others have expressed a similar intent.22
Section 3.4 presents different examples of thestrategies cities are adopting.
Globally, the involvement of LRGs inlocalization is progressing in all regions.
Section 3.4 highlights this by illustrating
region-by-region actions. However, eachregion is evolving at a different pace: LRGs
in Europe and North America are moving
fastest, followed by Africa, Asia Pacific andLatin America, whilst efforts in Eurasia (CIS
countries) and the Middle East and West Asia
are still nominal.
Some LGAs stand out for their particularintention and actions to train and incentivize
their members, as well as for theirinteraction with national governments andother stakeholders. Among the countries
that are reporting this year, this is the casein Australia, Benin, Canada, Dominican
Republic, Latvia, Spain and Togo. In lastyear’s LRG report to the HLPF, the more
active LGAs were from Northern and Western
Europe. However, this year those in Brazil andCosta Rica in Latin America have been added
to the list, as well as LGAs in Indonesia andlocal governments in South Africa, and otherplatforms that gather cities (Japan), or NGOs
and local governments (Republic of Korea).

In many countries, mobilization of
LRGs has been fostered through strategic
alliances with civil society organizations(CSOs), the private sector and academia(e.g. nine out of 15 LGAs in Europe; Brazil
with the movement ODS Nós Podemos), andinternational institutions (UNDP, UN Habitat,
ILO, etc.). Cities are bringing together amultiplicity of stakeholders to addressinterlinked and cross-cutting issues, aswell as pilot innovative solutions that could
later be scaled up both nationally andinternationally (see Section 4). Many cities
are engaging their citizens through publiccampaigns, travelling expositions, activitiesin schools, libraries and cultural actions.
Global and regional networks of LRGs
are also making remarkable efforts toput ‘localization’ at the centre of the
LRGs’ agendas, developing campaigns
and expanding initiatives (see Section 3.4).
Despite these efforts, outreach is still
limited. A study of the Asia region provides avaluable insight for other regions. In general,the ‘frontrunner’ cities, as well as the LGAs
that are involved, are a minority group.23
As mentioned above, several national
associations remain poorly informed about
the global agendas and their relevance atthe local level. This is even truer in mediumsized and small municipalities.
As shown by the survey responses of LGAs,
including from among the most active from
Europe, Africa and other regions, many LRGs
perceive the SDGs to be an ‘internationallyimposed agenda’. Members consider ‘theSDGs are known but not applicable to[their] daily work’; that there is ‘limited
support to change practices according to the
SDG framework’; and that it is ‘difficult tocooperate with other sectors of society andother tiers of government’ on this.24
As underlined in our 2017 HLPF Report, if
LRGs perceive the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs
to be yet another external ‘burden’ without
adequate support, they will be discouraged
from being proactive. The GTF document
states that, ‘most of the SDGs are a partof the daily responsibilities and activities
of local and regional governments’.25 But
one of the key conditions for stronger LRG
involvement will be acknowledging thatpolicies to empower them and a collaborative
multilevel governance approach must be
integral parts of a national implementation
framework. These fundamental elements
will be analysed in the following section.

25

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs!

BOX 3.1.

NEW YORK GLOBAL VISION – URBAN ACTION: A LOCAL PERSPECTIVE
ON THE GLOBAL GOALS
Source: Verbatim from NYC Mayor’s Office for International Affairs‘In April 2015, Mayor de Blasio committed New York
City to OneNYC, a ground-breaking strategic plan thattook stock of the significant challenges New York City
faced as a global city. OneNYC charted a path forward
to achieving goals such as lifting 800,000 New Yorkers
out of poverty, expanding access to nutritious andaffordable food, and ensuring that those on the front
lines of climate change — often the most vulnerable
New Yorkers — are protected against its risks.
Recognizing the extraordinary overlap between
the thinking about City’s future and the ways in which
the international community thinks about global
challenges, the NYC Mayor's Office for International
Affairs established Global Vision — Urban Action.
Through this programme, we mapped OneNYC to the
SDGs to identify the links between the city local strategy and the Global Goals. Since then, our officehas held a series of events to bring policy practitioners together to discuss these links. We haveorganized a range of opportunities to explore how our work fits with the SDGs, including mental
health, pay equity, and decent work and economic growth.
The Global Vision | Urban Action program also brings the UN diplomatic community out of theheadquarters in Turtle Bay and into our communities across the five boroughs to see first-hand
how NYC is implementing the Global Goals locally. Activities have included a visit to the largest
recycling facility in the United States in Brooklyn and a tour around the local waterways on a sludge
vessel to understand how NYC manages our wastewater. We also work to bring the voices of our
NYC colleagues to the UN to inform discussions about achieving the SDGs.
In July 2018, NYC will become the first city to report directly to the UN on our progress towardachieving the SDGs in what we call a Voluntary Local Review, modelled after the Voluntary National
Reviews. Using the common language of the SDGs, we will share its successes and also identify
areas where we can learn from other stakeholders who are searching for solutions to the world’s
most critical issues.
Youth engagement is key to achieving the SDGs. Our NYC Junior Ambassadors programmeconnects the work of the United Nations to NYC 7th graders in schools across NYC to build global
citizens. The programme offers unique tools to educators, who integrate the UN and its work on
the SDGs into their teaching to help students learn about global issues and make an impact in theirown neighbourhoods. Since 2015, we have reached over 1,000 students and educators in more than
50 classrooms who are learning about topics ranging from climate change and gender equity to
the refugee crisis and thinking critically about how to make a difference locally. We are creating
an ecosystem that involves our students going home and talking to their families, friends andneighbours about why the UN and this work matters.
With cities growing faster than at any point in history, some of the most challenging issuesof our time are most acutely experienced in urban areas. By the same token, solutions to someof humanity's toughest problems will be found in cities — from addressing poverty and income
inequality, to tackling climate change. Policy practitioners and colleagues throughout NYC are
making progress locally on a number of challenges — all of which have a global resonance. Cities
can make a huge impact by sharing examples with the global community on what is working andshowcasing our lived experience.’

26

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

ABELO

Cabo VerdeANMCVCameroon

CVUC

Central African Rep. AMCA
Comoros

ANMC

Mali

AMM

Mozambique

ANAMM

Niger

AMN

Senegal

UAEL, AMS, ADS

South Africa

SALGA

Togo

UCT

Regional LevelUCLG Africa
REFELA

•
•
•
•
•
•

ASIA-PACIFIC

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Australia

ALGA

Indonesia

APEKSI

Kiribati

KiLGA

New Zealand

LGNZ

PhilippinesLCP

Sri Lanka

FSLGA

Vietnam

ACVN

Regional LevelUCLG ASPAC

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

UCLG EURASIA••

Albania

AAM

Belgium

VVSG

Bulgaria

NAMRB

•
•

Czech Republic

SMO

Germany

DST, DLT, DStGB

Greece

KEDE

Italy

ANCI, Toscana, AICCRE

LatviaLALRG

Lithuania

ALAL

Macedonia

ZELS

Moldova

CALM

Montenegro

UOM

The Netherlands

VNG

NorwayKS

EURASIA
Regional Level

EUROPE

•
•

•

•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•

•

INVOLVEMENTIN VNR•

SPECIALINITIATIVES OR
PROJECTS••••PROMOTE LOCAL
PLANS' ALIGNMENTWITH SDGs••

TRAINING,
KNOWLEDGESHARINGPROGRAMMESANCBBurundiCAMPAIGNING

Benin

PUBLICATIONS(NEWSLETTERS,BROCHURES)

AFRICADECLARATIONS,FORA, NATIONALCONFERENCEREPORTING
INSTITUTIONSCOUNTRY

ACTIVITIES OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS ASSOCIATIONS TO SUPPORT SDG LOCALIZATION

Participation (2018)
To be presented
Participation (2018)
To be presented in 2019
To be presented
To be presented

•

•

•
•
•

Participation (2018)
To be presented
No participation (2018)
Weak participation (2018)•••

To be presented in 2019
Participation (2018)
Participation in UNECARegional Forum

Participation (2018)

•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•

Weak participation (2017)

•
•
•
•
•

•

To be presented•

Participation (2018)•

Participation in UNESCAP
Regional Forum••

Participation (2018)
Participation (2016)
Participation (2018)

No participation (2018)

•

•

•
•

•
•

•

•

Weak participation (2017)•

Weak participation (2018)•

To be presented

•
•

•
•

•

Participation (2017)
To be presented
Participation (2017)••

Participation (2016)
No participation (2018)
Participation (2018)
To be presented••

To be presented•

Participation (2017)
Participation (2016)

27

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

SOS

Slovakia

ZMOS

Spain

FEMP

SwedenSALAR

United Kingdom

COSLA (Scotland)

Regional Level

CEMR/
PLATFORMAICLEI/European Sustainable Cities Platform

LATIN AMERICA

•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

•

Participation (2017)

•
•
•

•

Weak participation (2018)

Dominican Rep.

FEDOMU

Ecuador

AME

Guatemala

AGAAI

Mexico

FENAMM

Paraguay

OPACI

Peru

AMPE

Regional Level

AL-LASFLACMA
Mercociudades•••

Lebanon

AAM

State of Palestine

APLA

•

TurkeyUMT

Regional LevelUCLG MEWA

•
•

NORAM

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•

•
•
•

•

•
•

Nrg4SD
UCCI
UCLG

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Participation (2018)
Participation (2018)
Participation (2017)
To be presented in 2019•

Participation in UNECE
Regional Forum

Weak participation (2017)
Participation (2017)
Participation (2018)
Participation (2018)
Weak participation (2017)
Participation (2018)•••

No participation (2018)•

Participation in UNECLAC
Regional Forum••

No participation (2018)••

Weak participation (2016)••

Participation (2018)

•
•
•
•

GLOBAL TASKFORCE OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS (GTF)

ICLEI

INVOLVEMENTIN VNR

•

UNGL

CLGF

SPECIALINITIATIVES OR
PROJECTSPROMOTE LOCAL
PLANS' ALIGNMENTWITH SDGs

•

FCM

C40

No participation (2017)•

Costa Rica

AIMF

•

•

Colombia

ALGAJ

•
•
•

No participation (2018)

•
•
•
•

AChM

Jamaica

•

•
•
•
•

Chile

FCM

•

•
•
•
•

CNM

Canada

•

•
•
•
•
•

BrazilMEWA

TRAINING,
KNOWLEDGESHARINGPROGRAMMESACORSlovenia

CAMPAIGNING

EUROPE
Romania

PUBLICATIONS(NEWSLETTERS,BROCHURES)

DECLARATIONS,FORA, NATIONALCONFERENCEREPORTING
INSTITUTIONSCOUNTRY

TABLE 3.2.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Participation (2017)

Weak participation (2018)
Participation in UNESCWA
Regional Forum•

Participation (2018)

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Sources: Surveys answered by LRGs and UCLG research. Additional contributions, not included in this table, were received from cities and regions from Djibouti, France,
Morocco, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Seychelles and Uruguay.

28

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

3.3

LRGs ANDTHE INSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORKS FOR
COORDINATION AND
FOLLOW-UP OF THE SDGs
In the majority of countries, national
development plans or national sustainable
development strategies already provide anational implementation framework for the2030 Agenda.26 Although UN Member States
will implement the SDGs, national policies andframeworks should undergo a ‘localization’process to make sense of and operationalize
the SDGs in cities and territories, where subnational governments are the key drivers. In
other words, the role of LRGs is critical tosupporting the ‘policy-implementation’ loop.27
Indeed, achieving the SDGs means
strengthening collaboration and developing
joint efforts within governments ‘to a levelthat has not been seen before'.28 This is toensure not only that an integrated approachis delivered but also that ‘policy coherence’is guaranteed, as stated in SDG 17.14.
Responding to people’s needs and demands
means connecting LRGs with national
policies and strategies through an integrated
multilevel governance (MLG) approach, or‘whole-of-government’ and ‘whole society’approach. This necessitates a thoroughgoingchange of political culture, participation andcooperation between national, regional andlocal levels throughout the administration,
as well as between public and civil society
actors, private sector, workers’ organizations,and academia, among others.
The majority of countries (53 out of asample of 99) have either created or assigned
responsibilities to cross-sectoral entities,
e.g. inter-ministerial committees or National
Councils for Sustainable Development. Manyof these are new structures, e.g. national
commissions or high-level councils for the
implementation of the SDGs (35 countries)
to facilitate coordination and follow-up
of the 2030 Agenda. In 36 countries, SDG
implementation is chaired, coordinatedand led by Heads of State or Heads ofGovernment.29 This would imply that the SDGs
are high on national policy agendas and havepolitical priority.30 However, some countries
are still deciding on which mechanisms to use.

TABLE 3.3.

TOTAL

NO
INFORMATION33

4

18

2

TOTAL COUNTRIES

39

12

41

Africa6

1

11

Asia Pacific

7

1

9

2

19

Europe

17

4

8

1

30

Eurasia (CIS countries)1

Latin America

6

Middle East and West Asia

1

North America

1(including at
consultative level)

NOT
PARTICIPATING

99

LIMITEDPARTICIPATION31

7

PARTICIPATIONNO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS32

LOCAL AND REGIONAL INVOLVEMENT IN NATIONAL COORDINATION AND FOLLOW-UPMECHANISMS

5

3

4

6

17

4
1

4

1

9
2

1

Sources: Surveys answered by LRGs and VNRs of 2016-2017. The total (99) includes the countries that reported between 2016 and 2018 (112). However, it
only records a country once even though it has reported twice (the case with nine countries), or three times (one country). Countries with no information were
removed (four countries).

29

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Coordination remains a critical challenge.
There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach tocollaboration between tiers of governments.
The structure of the state (federal or unitary),
decentralization reforms, political andeconomic considerations, and organizational
factors relating to the context of a particularcountry may create specific opportunities for, orbarriers to, vertical and horizontal cooperation.
An analysis of the national coordinationand follow-up mechanisms for the SDGs
shows LRG engagement is still limited inalmost all regions. In the majority, however,the national level recognizes that LRGs must
play a critical role in implementation.
As shown in Table 3.3, LRG involvementin national coordination mechanisms andfollow-up is in the main effective in 39% of
the countries that reported between 2016
and 2018. LRGs are most involved in Europe(57% of countries reported), followed by
Asia Pacific (37%), Latin America (35%), andAfrica (33%). In federal countries Belgium,
Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and Sudan, LRG
engagement is restricted to the state or
regional level. Meanwhile in Australia, Brazil,
Mexico and Germany, local governments arealso involved in national mechanisms and thesituation is similar in quasi-federal countries
such as South Africa and Spain. In Eurasia,
only in Belarus are local governments (butalso regional authorities) participating; andin MEWA they are only participating in Turkey.

Different modalities of participation

The involvement of LRGs can take different
forms but for the purposes of this analysis,
three have been identified. The first modality
is LRGs’ involvement in a new consultative
council that advises central government (e.g.
in Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republicand Mexico). This first modality also includes
engagement in technical committees underinter-ministerial coordination (e.g. Benin,
Colombia), and LGAs having a seat in national
decision-making mechanisms, which does insome instances happen. For example, in Spainthe representatives of municipalities andregions, e.g. FEMP and some Comunidades
Autónomas, while involved as observers at
first, have recently (as the report was being
developed) become full members of thecountry’s High-Level Commission; in the
Netherlands, they are invited to the interministerial SDG focal point group. In somecases, the representation of LGAs is limited

to sectoral commissions — e.g. InterMinisterial Working Group on Sustainable
Urban Development (‘IMA-STadt’) in Germany,or the Committee on the Integrated Urban
Development Framework (IUDF) for SALGA in
South Africa.
LGA participation is also observed throughpre-existing mechanisms such as a Council
for Sustainable Development (e.g. Czech
Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece,
Moldova, Montenegro and Switzerland);
Greece’s Economic and Social Committee, orPoland’s Joint Central Government and Local
Government Committee. In 24 countries, thesemechanisms are framed as multi-stakeholder
forums (e.g. Ireland, Ivory Coast, Mali, Slovakia
and Togo), some of which are considered ‘nongovernmental’.
Beyond the multi-stakeholder mechanisms,a third modality includes the specific coordination and follow-up of the SDGs through regular ad-hoc meetings between LGAs and thegovernment (e.g. in Canada34 and Denmark).
These categories may evolve. In fact, in thepast few months there have been positive
developments in France and Indonesia. In
France, a representation of LGAs was invited
to the High-Level Steering Committee for
the SDGs that was established in April 2018
and charged with creating a roadmap for
the Localization of the SDGs. In Indonesia, apresidential decree in July 2017 incorporated
the LGAs in the SDGs National Coordination
Team and requested regional and local actionplans to be aligned with national plans andthe SDGs. Furthermore, all LGAs (APEKSI,APPSI, APKASI, ADEKSI, ADKASI and ADPSI)
were invited to the launching of the Home
Minister Decree on Localising the SDGs. On
the other hand, the VNR of Paraguay statesthat LRGs should be involved in the working
groups to support the coordination of the
SDGs. The LGA — OPACI — reports, however,that it was not informed.35

Weak or no participation

Even when there is weak or no participation,
indirect or sporadic consultation of subnational levels can take place. Coordination isusually ensured by either an inter-ministerial
or inter-agency mechanism (e.g. Bhutan,
China, Egypt, Romania, Senegal, Sri Lanka37
and Sudan), or a single ministry, with limited
or no involvement of other stakeholders (e.g.
Cyprus, Niger and Vietnam). In Eurasiancountries new mechanisms were created

26
The analysis of VNRs
(and the UCLG surveys)
in 99 countries that werereporting between 2016 and2018 shows that, globally,in developing countries the
SDGs were aligned withnational development plans
while in developed countries
the SDGs are mainstreamedin the national sustainable
development strategies.
27
UNDESA (2018), Working
Together: Integration,
Institutions and the SDGs, World
Public Sector Report 2018.
28

UNDESA (2018), p.29.

UNDESA (2018), p. viii-ix.
Based on the data and analysis
proposed by UNDESA (2018),
p. ix, updated with the new
information collected for thisreport. See also: UNDP (2017),
Institutional and Coordination
Mechanisms, Guidance Noteon Facilitating Integration
and Coherence for SDG
Implementation.
29

30
OECD (2016), Coordinationand implementation of theSDGs: The Role of the Centreof Government. http://
oecdinsights.org/2016/04/05/
coordination-andimplementation-of-the-sdgsthe-role-of-the-centres-ofgovernment.
31‘Limited participation’ refers
to countries where LRGs areoccasionally consulted, either
directly (Slovenia); or througha technical committee (China);
or in federal countries,
through state or provincial
government (Argentina). In
some cases, LGAs participate
through NGO platforms(Italy, although the previous
government committed to
involve them directly).
32
Countries with no local selfgovernments: Monaco (2017),
Bahrain, Lao PDR, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Singapore, United ArabEmirates.
33
No information received:
Bahamas, Hungary, Namibia,
Republic of Congo.
34
FCM has a strategic
partnership with Global Affairs
Canada agency where the twoparties could consider making
the SDGs a more formal partof the semi-annual meetings.
35
See VNR of Paraguay (2018),
p. 35.
36
According to the VNRof Sri Lanka (2018) three
representatives of Provincial
Councils were appointed
by the President to be partof the national Sustainable
Development Council (12members).

30

37
Other countries createdinter-ministerial working
groups, bringing together
experts from different
ministries (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan). The
Russian Federation has nocomprehensive national
Sustainable Development
Strategy or National SDG Plan
at this stage.
38

See also UNDESA (2018).

See VNR of Lao PDR (2018).
Moreover, Sri Lanka reports asimilar approach.
39

For more information on
Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Ivory
Coast and Senegal, see AIMF
(December 2017) Plaidoyer desAutorités Locales en Faveurde la Localisation des ODD,
Rapport Pays. In the case of
Senegal, see also Ministèrede l’Économie, des Finances
et du Plan, Républiquedu Sénégal, Objectifs deDéveloppement Durable –ODD,
Etat d’avancement de la miseen œuvre, Rapport provisoire,August 2017.
40

41
See CONPES 3918 (March2018), Estrategia para la
implementación de los Objetivos
de Desarrollo Sostenible en
Colombia. See also DNP(October 2017), Inclusiónde los ODS en los planes dedesarrollo territoriales, 20162019, Bogota; CCONG (June2017), Segundo Monitoreo
Ciudadano, Bogota.
42
CEMR, in collaboration
with the French Government,
has since 2016 developed amonitoring tool: The Reference
Framework for Sustainable
Cities (RFSC). In Germany,
the associations of LRGs, incollaboration with the Federal
Ministry of Territorial Researchand other partners, created amodel of assessment whose
indicators stem directly fromthe requirements, targets
and indicators of the SDGs.
The National Confederationof Municipalities (CNM) of
Brazil has developed its own
measurement and reporting
tool – a Mandala of SDGs at themunicipal level. Some cities
have developed their own setof indicators, e.g. Utrecht (theNetherlands).
43
See Presidency of Nigeria(2015), Nigeria’s Road to the
SDGs – Country Transition
Strategy, p. 9.
44

See UNDESA (2018).

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

— National Councils for Sustainable
Development — headed by the Prime
Minister or the Deputy (Armenia, Azerbaijan)
or by an SDGs coordinator linked to the
President’s office (Belarus, Kyrgyzstan), as
well as Advisory Councils (Tajikistan).37
Interactions between LRGs and theMinisterial Committees on the SDGs canbe indirect and mediated by a Special
Liaison Office (SLO) (e.g. Kenya), or by SDG
representatives at national and regional levels(e.g. Nigeria), or by the ministry or departmentof local governments (e.g. Ghana, Jamaica). In
some countries, there are multi-stakeholder
mechanisms with no clear representation of
LRGs (e.g. Chile, Lebanon, Lithuania). Figure
3.2. below sums up the various degrees of LRG
involvement in dialogue and participation, in
the framework of multilevel mechanisms for
coordination and SDG follow-up.

More efforts are still needed

The effectiveness of the mechanisms mentioned above is still incipient in a majority ofcountries in terms of fostering an administrative culture that promotes both horizontal(cross-sectoral) and vertical (between
different levels of government) collaboration.
In fact, the 'whole-of-government' or
MLG approach is often more sensitive on
effective collaboration between ministries
and national agencies (a more horizontal
approach), whereas the vertical relations
between administrations are not integrated
in a systematic way.38 Localization (referred
to as ‘territorialization’ in some countries) isoften fragmented. The complexity of multiple
layers of LRGs (state, province and district)can further complicate the commitments
already made. Some state or provincial
governments are likely to show only limited
interest in embracing the 2030 Agenda given
their current resources.
At the same time, a striking number ofcountries are adopting top-down approaches.
Many countries assume in their VNR thatnational plans will ‘trickle down’ to subnational levels; and this is consistently theapproach in non-decentralized countries such
as Lao PDR. In such cases, every sectoral
department and agency at central and subnational level (from provincial to district level)
has been instructed to integrate SDGs into
their Socio-Economic Development Plans.39
Even when national plans or strategies
acknowledge the role of LRGs, as is thecase in West and Central African countries(Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guinea, Ivory
Coast and Senegal), the proposed strategies
for SDG implementation are not necessarily
supported by concrete measures to empower
local governments, or they remain vague on
the strategy of ‘territorialization’.40
The involvement of sub-national levels
requires both strong dialogue and longterm integrated strategies. In Latin America,
the experience of Colombia is particularly
illustrative in this regard. A recent national
report (March 2018) pointed out that, inspite of the efforts of national governments,
in a sample of 63 development plans ofdepartments and their capital cities, only
15 had reached a high level of integration of
the SDGs. The remaining 48 development
plans had either a 'partial' (24) or a ‘generalreference’ (24) to the SDGs. Even if thisappears to be a positive trend, other sources
point out that less than 3% of municipalities
have integrated the SDGs in their plans.
Sources agree, however, that a large majorityof local and departmental governments
still need to translate their commitments
into action agendas, enhance stakeholders’involvement and mobilize more resources.
Local governments argue, however, that thenational government approach has been
unilateral and has not taken into consideration
the needs of peripheral areas and small
municipalities.41
As discussed in the next section, in countries
where the process of localization is gaining
momentum, this is the result of the confluenceof bottom-up initiatives and national policies.
National initiatives are necessary to encourage
local involvement. National governments needto develop enabling institutional frameworks,
with adequate incentives (e.g. in Benin and
Nigeria, where national funds incentivize local
engagements; or in Belgium, where local
political leaders from 20 pilot municipalities
receive clear support to develop innovative
experiences). However, at the local level,
political will and leadership are needed,
and this must be supported by strong local
coalitions and stakeholder mobilization.
Creating these conditions at sub-national levelis one of the major challenges of the SDGs andan essential condition for their achievement.
LRGs' involvement is also crucial tomonitor and follow up on the progress of
the SDGs at sub-national levels. Most of
the indicators adopted by the international
community pose a challenge in terms of
being disaggregated and collected at the

31

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

sub-national level. Few countries have madereal progress in involving LRGs in improving
the availability of reliable disaggregateddata. Several local governments and theirassociations and organizations have started
to develop different systems of indicators,(e.g. Germany, Brazil) and in Europe by theCouncil of European Municipalities andRegions — CEMR.42 Other international
institutionsaredeveloping
different
initiatives (e.g. UN-Habitat). Some of these,
however, take an approach that does not help
LRGs join the formal reporting process at the
global level. To realize the promise of ‘leaving
no one behind’, the development of indicatorsand follow-up mechanisms that are both
disaggregated and adapted to the subnational level is urgently needed, allowing
the monitoring of progress in territories
and communities. This issue will be further
analysed in Section 5.
From the perspective of LRGs, localizing
means adopting a local-based approach
to mobilize endogenous capacities andenhance the potentialities of territories
and local stakeholders in the achievementof the 2030 Agenda. As an inclusive process,it should go from the design of objectives
and targets to the means of implementation,using disaggregated indicators to measureand monitor progress. A real multilevelapproach should catalyse dialogue andrespect the principle of subsidiarity.
As recognized by the Nigerian Government

in its SDGs strategy, local governments are‘pivotal to the achievement of the SDGs
because they are the only tier of governmentthat can feasibly understand, (…) and react tothe millions of activities that will collectively
add up to the SDGs’.43
The SDGs create an opportunity to developa ‘new governance culture’, requiring the
progressive transformation of institutionalframeworks. However, the UCLG — GTF Reportto the 2017 HLPF shows that while national
governments are increasingly recognizing therole of LRGs, this does not necessarily lead tothe creation of multilevel spaces for dialogue
and joint action. UNDESA reaches similar
conclusions.44
Even if localization is making progress
and innovative initiatives are identified inmany countries, these local actions still face
the challenge of scale. Going beyond the
local or regional level is crucial to effectively
connecting and integrating SDG actions
across levels of government and embedding
them within a national development strategy.
Enhanced collaboration between all levels ofgovernment and with local stakeholders could
help establish and strengthen these linkages.
However, such a paradigmatic change ingovernance culture would need to be given
more priority as part of an institutionaltransformation driven by the process of
implementing the SDGs, as well as during thefollow-up and reporting process. A dedicatedsection on the involvement of LRGs in the
VNRs could give greater focus to these issues.
FIGURE 3.2.

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE DEPTH OF NATIONAL-LOCAL DIALOGUEFOR SDG IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
VERY LIMITEDDIALOGUE

COMMITMENT TO MAKE
DIALOGUE EFFECTIVEAD HOCINVITATIONAD HOCCONSULTATION

Few mechanisms or
inappropriately used, andno intention to change

Sub-national level
conceptually included in
SDG mechanism but notyet operational

National awareness-raising
events, some coordination
meeting, but sub-national
level not 'listened' toAsking for local data once ina while, sub-national level
present in some sectoral
coordination bodies

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
MAIN ACTORS OF SDGs

CO-PRODUCTION

EFFECTIVE
COORDINATIONSYSTEMATIC
CONSULTATION

Systematic integration of
local perspective in SDG
strategies and policies

Presence of local government
representatives or
associations in national
bodies for SDG
implementation, reporting

With a national enabling
support system (technical,
financial, legal)

Constant, fluid andpermanent inclusion of subnational level in strategic
and sectoral policies, VNRs

Source: GTF; UCLG; UN Habitat (May 2018) Sustainable Cities Dialogue – Urban Governance at the Core of the Implementation of the SDG 11.

32

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs!

3.4
BOX 3.2.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS' ACTIONTOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF SDGs IN SPAIN
In the 1st Agenda Euskadi Basque Country 2030, covering theperiod 2017-2020, the 17 SDGs and 100 selected targets arelinked to 93 of the commitments of the Basque Government's
Programme, 80 planning instruments, 19 legislative initiatives
and 50 indicators.46 The Regional Government of Valencia createda multi-stakeholder partnership at regional level (including
CSOs, academia, NGOs and the private sector) ,and developed
an inter-departmental mechanism to promote a 'whole-ofgovernment' SDG approach, shared with their municipalities.47
The Barcelona Provincial Council aligned its Action Plan (20162019) with the SDGs, including its international strategy, anddeveloped a communication campaign ('Sí, m'hi comprometo!').
In addition, it developed a training programme for its employees
and 311 municipalities and enabled economic and technicalsupport to municipalities to localize the SDGs.48 The provinceof Córdoba is adapting its budget to the ‘localization plan forthe 2030 Agenda’. It launched multi-stakeholder dialogues
and outreach actions, in collaboration with the Andalusian
Municipal Fund for International Solidarity (FAMSI). The FAMSI,
as well as other municipal funds that cover the municipalities
and NGOs of their regions (Extremadura, Mallorca), are also
developing several initiatives (forums, campaigns, cooperation,etc.).49 Other municipalities involved include Alcalá de Henares,
La Granja de San Idelfonso, Granollers, Málaga, Móstoles, Sant
Cugat del Vallès, Soria, Terrassa and Torrejón del Rey.
Thanks to a strong advocacy effort by the Spanish Federationof Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP), a representation of LRGs
was invited to participate in the High-Level Group for the 2030
Agenda in charge of the VNR preparation (created in October
2017). The LRGs initially had observer status, but recently thegovernment recognized them as permanent members of theHigh-Level Group. The new national government nominated a
High-Level Commissioner for the 2030 Agenda, linked to the
President of Government, to complement the inter-ministerial
committee on the SDGs under the responsibility of Foreign
Affairs, created in October 2017. FEMP's efforts also meant that
Spain's VNR — the Spanish Action Plan for the 2030 Agenda— now integrates two key proposals made by LRGs. These
are: 1) open and transparent governments and 2) international
development cooperation, including decentralized cooperation.
It also makes the New Urban Agenda a strategic lever to achieve
the SDGs. Additionally, the report includes two chapters on the
LRGs: one on their specific commitment to the 2030 Agenda,
including several pages for each regional government; andanother on a national policy for territorial cohesion. Lastly, on
29 May 2018, the FEMP adopted its Strategy to Implement the2030 Agenda.

MAPPING LRG ACTIONSBY REGION
As mentioned above, the involvement of LRGs
in the implementation of the SDGs is growing in
all regions, but using different ways and means.
Based on LRG sources, this section considers
many of these initiatives. Section 4 will thenprovide an in-depth analysis of concrete policies
and experiences at sub-national levels.

EUROPEIn Europe, mobilization has been more active
in Northern and Western countries and, to alesser extent, in East and South-East Europe.
Among the countries that are providing reports
this year, Spain’s LRGs have been particularly
active. Many LRGs and their associations— particularly the Federation of Spanish
Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP) — have taken
the lead with innovative initiatives to support abottom-up approach. Regional governments suchas the Basque Country, Catalonia and Valencia
were among the first in Europe to launch theirown SDG strategies. Cities and municipalities,
such as Madrid and the Barcelona Metropolitan
Area, are integrating the SDGs into their current
development plans (2015-2019 and 20152020 respectively). Madrid launched a public
consultation on its plan ‘Madrid 2030: a city for all
peoples and generations’.45 At the intermediarylevel, different provincial governments are trying
to localize the 2030 Agenda, e.g. Barcelona, Cádiz,Castelló and Córdoba (see Box 3.2).
In Albania, local governments are integrated
into the National SDG Committee andParliament has acknowledged their role in
SDG implementation. The LGA — AAM — hasbeen involved in the UN SDG-MAPS mission
to accelerate SDG implementation. In Greece,
local and regional governments associations
participate in the national body that ensuresdialogue and a consultative role — the Economic
and Social Council-. Athens and Thessaloniki,
or medium-sized municipalities such as Trikala,Halandri, as well as the small island of Tilos, havedeveloped initiatives in different domains (socialand health relief, refugees, resilience, waste,
renewable energies). Regions have thus far
implemented 30,000 projects promoting regional
development and local economies, creating newjobs, supporting social solidarity structures,
improving the environment and upgrading

33

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

education, health, tourism and culture. In
Ireland, local authorities are represented in
the SDG Stakeholder Forum that contributes to
the National Implementation Plan 2018-2020.
In Latvia, both the associations of regional
and local governments — LALRG and LPS— have promoted SDG multi-stakeholder
dialogues during 2017 between local andnational governments and civil society. The
LALRG organized two grant competitions
for development education in Latvian local
governments, and five winning projects wereawarded financial support: as the country's VNR
claims, 'all local governments in Latvia haveadopted sustainable development strategies'.
In Lithuania, experts from the association of
local authorities — ALAL — participated in the
preparation of the VNR. Following the VNR,
LRGs are gradually integrating sustainable
development approaches in their policies(planning, mobility, waste management,
energy, risk prevention, etc). Nevertheless,in its response to the survey, ALAL notesthat the involvement of local authorities islimited. LRGs in Poland participate in the
Task Force for the Coherence of the Strategy
for Responsible Development to contribute to
the reporting process and the monitoring of
the strategy. The Joint Central Governmentand Local Government Committee facilitates
the joint follow-up of the implementation ofPolish priorities for the SDGs at sub-national
level. Sixteen Polish cities are active in EU
programmes seeking to combine the economic,
social and environmental dimensions ofimproving the functioning and quality ofurban life (URBACT III), and another 34 cities
participate in pilot programmes related torevitalization of urban areas and sustainablemobility. The association of municipalities ofRomania — ACR — reported that it participatedin several conferences organized by thegovernment at regional levels and will launcha sensitization campaign directed at members
this year. Its municipalities (151) are involvedin the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate
and Energy, as are many others in Europe.
Different cities are engaged in the 'smart cities'
initiative launched by central government(Bucharest, Oradea and Sibiu). In Slovakia, theassociation of towns and communities — ZMOS
— approved the prioritization of SDGs in March
2018, but little action has been taken until
now. In Switzerland, 16 regional governments(cantons) and 234 municipalities are being
involved in sustainability processes. Many
cantons and communes have defined theirown strategies for sustainable development.
Municipalities co-operate among themselves
and are represented in cantonal and federal
decision making. The federal government will
intensify the dialogue with the cantons andcommunes through the Swiss Associationof Towns and the Swiss Association of
Municipalities, and support them in
implementing the 2030 Agenda, for example
through platforms for exchange and networks.
The involvement of LRGs in Malta is limited. No
specific answers were received from Hungary.
While national governments are notpresenting a VNR this year, many LRGs
have provided encouraging inputs on the
progress made in the localization process,in particular Belgium, Denmark, Germany,
the Netherlands and Sweden (see Box 3.3.).
For the purposes of this report, positive
reviews were received from France,50 Italy,51Austria, Czech Republic and Slovakia to alesser extent. Progress is also underway in
the Baltic countries and at an initial stage
in Eastern and South-eastern Europe (withthe exception of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Slovenia, and Montenegro).
At the European level, many networks
are implementing initiatives to support the
localization process. As already mentioned,
European LRG networks such as CEMR — theEuropean section of UCLG52 —, Platforma,53
Eurocities, and NALAS54 in South-East Europe,
ICLEI through the European Sustainable Cities
Platform (launched in 2016, with the support of
Aalborg, in Denmark, the Basque Country and
ICLEI Europe to follow up on the commitmentsof the 8th European Conference on Sustainable
Cities and Towns), and CRPM55 are advocating
for the SDGs and organizing conferencesand events. Through Eurocities, many citymembers are developing mechanisms
for exchanging experiences on the SDGs
(Utrecht, Ghent, Stuttgart, Malmo and Bonn).
The regional network, as well as the majorityof LGAs, cities and regions in Northern andWestern European countries, now refer to the
SDGs to guide their cooperation with partners
in the Global South.
The 2030 Agenda, together with the New
Urban Agenda and the Urban Agenda of theEU (the Pact of Amsterdam, adopted in 2016),
are becoming the policy frameworks for EU
debates. LRGs are represented at the HighLevel Multi-Stakeholder Platform, chairedby the Vice-President of the European
Commission, to deliver the SDGs at the
EU level.

45
More information is available on
the web portal of the City of Madrid.
46
See Basque Country (2018), La
Agenda Euskadi Basque Country
2030, available trough: http://www.
euskadi.eus/pdf/agenda-euskadibasque-country-2030.pdf.
47
See Generalitat Valenciana(2017), La Agenda 2030 – Hojade ruta para ciudades y pueblos
de la Comunitat Valenciana; andGeneralitat de Catalunya (2017) The
2030 Agenda: Transform Catalonia
improve the World, available online.
48
See Diputació de Barcelona(2018), Plan Estratégico derelaciones Internacionales
2017-2020. See also,
https://www.diba.cat/ods andhttps://seuelectronica.diba.
cat/tramits-ens/concertacio/
cataleg2018/default.asp. The
most active municipalities in theprovince are Sant Cugat del Vallès,Sant Feliu de Llobregat, Manresa,
Granollers, Terrassa, Vilanova i laGeltrú, Sabadell, Gavà, Badalona,
Igualada, Vic, Santa Coloma deGramenet, Esplugues de Llobregat,
Mataró, Sant Boi de Llobregat,
Vilafranca del Penedés andl’Hospitalet de Llobregat.
49
For more information, see also:
http://www.andaluciasolidaria.org.
50
Some regions are integrating
the SDGs into their Regional
Sustainable Development Plans(SRADET) which are mandatory
documents. Some cities e.g. thecity of Besançon, transformed
their Report on Sustainable
Development (mandatory for cities
with more than 50,000 inhabitants)
into an SDG Report. See Ville deBesançon (2017), Rapport annuelDéveloppement Durable 2017 –Les 17 Objectifs de développement
durable. Région Normandie (2017),
Rapport de Développement Durable
2017; Région Bourgogne Franche
Comté, Rapport 2016-2017.
51
The LGAs – AICCRE and ANCI
– have increased the numberof events to mobilize local
governments and some regions aredeveloping strategies to integrate
the SDGs. See Tuscany Region(2018), Gli SDGs e le politiche e lebuone pratiche di sviluppo sostenibilein Toscana [draft version] andAgenda di Sviluppo, localizzazione e
azione tra sponda nord e sponda suddel Mediterraneo, which highlights
the actions in more than 30
municipalities in the region.
52
CEMR meeting in Soria (Spain),
January 2018, Think Europe,
Compromise 2030. The Councilof European Municipalities andRegions (CEMR) is the oldest
and broadest European LGA,
encompassing LRGs from 42
European countries and, throughthem, representing all territorial
levels – local, intermediate andregional.
53
CRPM-PLATFORMA seminar on
Integrated Territorial Partnerships
and the SDGs in June 2017 inBrussels, Eurocities Social Affairs
Forum on Delivering the SDGs:
cities working together withcitizens in March 2018 in Utrecht.
54
NALAS Regional conference onsocial inclusion and (re)integration
through 2030 Agenda and SDGs,
in April 2018 in Brno. NALAS is a
network comprising 14 associationsof local authorities in South-East
Europe.
55
The Conference of Peripheral
Maritime Regions (CRPM) gathers
160 Regions from 25 States of the
EU and beyond.

34

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs!

BOX 3.3.

LOCAL AND REGIONAL INITIATIVES IN DIFFERENT EUROPEAN
COUNTRIES (not reporting in 2018)
In Belgium, a number of cities have committed to the localization process, and it
continues to expand (for example in Ghent, the province of Antwerp, and in municipalities
such as Evergem, Edegem, Harelbeke, etc.). This is the result of continued support
to local governments from the Walloon, Brussels and Flemish LGAs — respectively
UVCW, Brulocalis, and VVSG.56 VVSG partnered with the regional government to support
localization projects in 20 pilot municipalities and develop a strong advocacy andawareness campaign: 66 municipalities have signed the SDG engagement declaration.
They are working on a software system that enables municipalities to link the indicatorsof their policy plans to the SDGs. The 2030 Agenda is remarkably widespread in
Flanders through multi-stakeholder platforms (e.g. De Shift).
In Denmark, both the regional and local government associations — DR, KL — and theDanish Government agreed on the need to establish partnerships across society toachieve the SDGs.57 Many municipalities are now transitioning from the Agenda 21 to the
SDGs framework. KL, in particular, presented a guide to support municipalities in thisprocess. In 2017 the Municipality of Copenhagen, amongst others, decided to develop
an SDG action plan.
Since 2017, in Germany, 73 local governments have signed the charter on ‘The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development: Building Sustainability at the Local Level’.58
Moreover, 11 Länder (out of 16) have either revised their sustainable development
strategies (e.g. Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-Pfalz) or developed a new strategy(e.g. Nordrhein-Westfalen and the Global Sustainable Municipality in NRW project
involving 15 municipalities in this region). Many cities, such as Mannheim, Munster
or Hannover, have managed to involve the ‘whole local administration’ in theimplementation process. The associations of LRGs — DST, DLT, DStGB and RGRE —with the support of different partners (BBSR and BSt), have developed a set of ‘SDG
indicators for municipalities’.
In the Netherlands the ‘Municipalities4GlobalGoals Campaign’ now numbers 60
municipalities and is coordinated by the LGA VNG. This has fostered the inclusionof the SDGs in various local political agreements (2018-2022) following the local
elections in March 2018, in overarching municipal strategies, in local budgeting oreven in adapting the municipal organization along the 17 goals (e.g. Utrecht, Oss andRheden, which were laureates of the Campaign in 2017 and 2018). Together with subnational governments (provinces and water boards), VNG drafted a chapter for theannual SDG report for the Dutch Parliament.59
In Sweden, the LGA – SALAR - reported that ‘approximately 50% of the members
is currently using the SDGs as tools in their work with sustainable development (tovarying extents).’ The association launched a communication project together with theSwedish UN association to spread awareness about the SDGs.
Platforma, a pan-European coalition of 30 LRGs supported by the European Union,
are developing training actions and organizing pilot exercises of multi-stakeholder
dialogues on development, implemented at a national scale and enriched with a European
perspective in Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and Spain. A comparative analysis to highlightthe lessons learnt, challenges and opportunities will be published in October 2018.

56
Awareness-raising
campaigns (e.g. VVSG ‘local
heroes’ on the SDGs, theSDG Voices programmein partnership with CSOs)
have boosted pooling andexchange of good practiceand supported local plans.
Taking advantage of the local
elections of October 2018,
VVSG developed a number ofrecommendations, including‘discussing the SDGs toconvince party members
and the citizenship about
the importance of the 2030
Agenda’.
57
Both regions andmunicipalities are alreadyworking to promote a
circular economy andsustainable procurement.
KL has presented a guide formunicipalities on the SDGs
and established a framework
for monitoring municipalities’contribution to the SDGs,
including the development of
indicators.
58
For more information, seealso: www.rgre.de.
59
For more information,
see The National Report on
the Implementation of the
Sustainable Development Goals:
Autonomous chapter Local
governments drafted by VNG,
IPO and UvW. The 12 provinces
use the SDGs to develop a
joint vision on sustainableagriculture. The waterauthorities strive to be energy
neutral in 2025. The new
Green Deal Sustainable GWWfrom 2017 agreed that by 2030,
50% less use will be made ofprimary raw materials and by
2020 the CO2 emissions will
be reduced by 20% compared
to 1990.
60
Federation of Canadian
Municipalities has received
significant funding from thefederal government to support
capacity-building initiatives bymunicipal governments thatare indirectly supporting SDGs.
61
According to the mappingof the Centre for Immigration
Studies, there are more than
170 sanctuary counties andcities as well as seven states
have decoupled from thenational government’s policies
and are hosting refugees
escaping the wars in Central
America.
62
For more information on the
U.S. Cities SDG Index, see:
http://unsdsn.org/resources/
publications/us-cities-sdgindex.

35

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

In the absence of a federal framework for
SDGs in the United States and in Canada,
LRGs and their associations in bothcountries implicitly support many of the
SDGs. Canada is nonetheless in the processof developing a new framework.
In Canada, the LGA — FCM — has met
with members of the VNR team to discuss
inputs from the local perspective. FCM has
fostered awareness and exchange among
members and advocated in many forums
for the importance of LRGs in achieving a
multi-stakeholder approach. FCM has been
influential in the development of Canada’s
National Housing Strategy, which highlights the
SDGs and a human rights-based approach. The
partnership between FCM and the Governmentof Canada has over the past few years helped
mobilize long-term funding for sustainableinfrastructures, as well as identify people living
in poverty to whom resources and services canbe targeted. Many Canadian cities are strongly
involved in the localization of the global
agendas (Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver).
In its international municipal programmes,
FCM addresses the SDGs through the deliveryof capacity building programmes focused on
governance, economic growth, infrastructure
and the environment and define a set ofindicators to ensure the alignment of the
programmes with the SDGs.60
In the United States, different LGAs andnetworks – such as the National League ofCities; the National Association of Counties;
the Conference of Mayors (ICMA); andregional governing bodies such as the Councilof Governments, Regional Councils, andRegional Planning Commissions — are activein the promotion of the global agendas.
Informal networks such as ‘We Are Still In’
and U.S. Climate Mayors have emerged in
response to the withdrawal of the U.S Federal
Government from the Paris Agreement.
Over 330 mayors pledged to uphold theParis Agreement under the auspices of the
Mayors’ National Climate Action Agenda,
and approximately 147 cities and counties
committed to reduce GHG emissions throughthe Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate
and Energy. The concept of ‘sanctuary cities’has even been rediscovered61 with respect tomigration and the challenges that come with

'UN Day in the Park- Experience 2030' in Kingston, Jamaica (photo by FAO/Jamaica)

NORTH AMERICAN REGION

it. To address climate challenges and reduce
GHG emissions, states have also createdcap-and-trade systems, such as the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative put forward by
ten states in the U.S., and the Western
Climate Initiative, which brings together
American states and Canadian provinces. The
Sustainable Development Solutions Network(SDSN) released the first-ever U.S. Cities SDG
Index in August 2017. The Index ranks the 100
most populous U.S. cities using Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (MSAs), based on theirperformance on the SDGs.62
Finally, in Jamaica, with the support of the
Ministry of Local Government and Community
Development, five municipalities (out of 14)
have completed their Local Sustainable
Development Planning, which are aligned with
the national development priorities and theSDGs; and an additional two jurisdictions areat different stages of preparation. Some local
authorities have received funding to support
implementation of various actions identified
in their plans (e.g. integration of migrants,
emerging and sustainable cities initiative, andrisk prevention). Dialogue between national
and local governments is improving, but
funding is still a central problem.

36

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

LATIN AMERICA
The mobilization of LRGs in other regions ismuch more fragmented. In Latin America,
the more active LRGs are in Brazil, Costa
Rica and the Dominican Republic. In othercountries, associations still have limited
involvement. In parallel, many big cities in theregion (Buenos Aires, Belo Horizonte, Bogotá,
La Paz, Medellin, Mexico City, Montevideo,
Quito, Porto Alegre, Rio de Janeiro, Rosario
and San José), as well as some intermediaryor medium-sized cities (e.g. Canelones in
Uruguay, Cuenca in Ecuador, Barcarena in
Brazil), have started to link their development
strategies with the SDGs.
Among the countries due to report in
2018, Colombia looked to be one of the mostpromising for the localization of the SDGs. As
mentioned above (see Section 3.3) in the VNR
presented in 2016, the national government
reported a strong effort to align the SDGs withlocal and departmental development plans.
More recently, the Federation of Colombian
Municipalities — as well as cities such as
Medellin — reported that the visions andexpectations of LRGs, particularly those fromthe peripheral areas, had not received enoughattention. A national document published in
March 2018 set out a new strategy to support
the implementation of the SDGs in Colombia
as part of the peace process, with a specificobjective to ‘territorialize’ (localize) the SDGs.63
The new government that will be elected inJune 2018 should ratify the strategy.64
In Dominican Republic, the LGA — FEDOMU— formally adopted a statement to support theSDGs in their Congress (November 2017). They
participate, support training actions on theSDGs, and actively contribute to the National
High-Level Committee on the SDGs in chargeof the reporting process. They are also involvedin the development of different sectoral
initiatives (e.g. a Roadmap for SDG 2 including
a water and waste management programme
developed in collaboration with FAO; and the
preparation of the Action Plan for the New
Urban Agenda) and in several programmes
for waste management and upgrading of poor
neighbourhoods. In its VNR, the government
reports that a strategic agreement is in
discussion with local governments.
In Ecuador, cities such as Quito, Cuenca,
Durán, Ibarra, Francisco de Orellanas andAmbato (out of 221 municipalities) are leading
the way. At the provincial level, the TerritoriosODS Ecuador initiative aims to localize the SDGs

in five provinces: Azuay, Galápagos, Manabí,Napo and Santo Domingo de los Tsachilas.65
Quito launched a consultative process tointegrate the SDGs and the New Urban
Agenda into its Metropolitan Development andLand Use Plan (PMDOT) and its Disaster Risk
Prevention Plan (Quito Listo). This exercise issupported by different outreach and training
initiatives.66 The LGAs — AME and CONGOPE— participated and organized several eventsand training sessions for municipalities andprovinces and were involved in the national
consultation process for the VNR. CONGOPE
developed a Plan for Equality between
Territories and Poverty Reduction which
is being implemented in the province ofCañar (2017-2022).67 Specific programmes,
such as the Sustainable Intermediary Cities
Programme, have been established in orderto support the implementation of the New
Urban Agenda, through the creation of urban
labs, knowledge management, and improved
civil society participation.
In Mexico, as part of the national strategy,
29 federated states (out of 32) have created‘Committees for monitoring and implementationof the SDGs’ (OSI), a multi-stakeholder
mechanism which includes municipalities andhas been in charge of the alignment of theSDGs with Regional Development Plans. About
300 municipalities have also acted to establish
similar mechanisms locally. Mexico City, forexample, created its committee in July 2017.
The committee fostered effective coordination
between all government areas, identified 55
social programmes and aligned important partsof the city’s budget to the SDGs. It also developed
a public platform for monitoring and evaluation,68
fostering transparency and accountability.
The state of Hidalgo is also an example ofalignment between regional plans and the
SDGs. The National Council for the 2030 Agenda
Strategy includes, with consultative status, bothfederated states — through the Conference ofGovernors (CONAGO) — and municipalities— via a federal institution, INAFED. INAFED
launched a programme to strengthen thecapacities of local governments to support
localization but with limited participation (sevenstates and 53 municipalities registered in May
2018). The federal government also issued a setof guidelines to support SDG integration in local
and state development plans.69
With respect to the last countries to report
this year, in Paraguay the participation of local
governments is weak. Nevertheless, one of the
key cross-cutting objectives of the National

CONPES 3918 (2018).
Beyond Bogota and Medellin,
who have a more integrated
approach (including for the New
Urban Agenda) and promote
consultative processes, different
cities are implementing
initiatives in different sectors
related to the SDGs: energy andpublic transport (Bucaramanga,
San Geronimo, Cartago),
waste management and CO2
emissions (Bucaramanga,
Cartagena, Medellin, Cali,
Villavicencio and Bogotá
D.C), and land ecosystems(Barranquilla, Ibague). However,involvement is still limited andefforts are needed to train local
officers. Federation of Colombia
Municipalities is developing
several projects to improve local
governance.
65
See also, http://www.
grupofaro.org/content/odsterritorio-ecuador.
66
More than 1,000 technical staff
working for the secretariats andmunicipal companies, as well as
more than 400 citizen leadersparticipate in the training
programmes.
67
According to the Main
messages of Ecuador (2018),
CONGOPE is supporting theprovincial development plans forequity and poverty reduction inseveral provinces such as Cañar,
Carchi and Imbabura.
68
This platform shows progresson the implementation of theSDGs in four dimensions:society, economy, environment
and partnerships. For more
information, see: www.
monitoreo.cdmx.gob.mx/
consulta/indicadoresODS.
69
See VNR of Mexico (2018).
Initially, municipalities wererepresented in the National
Council through CONAMM,
but the 2018 report does not
mention the association thistime around. As regards local
devleopment plans, it is reported
that 84% of municipal plans
are not being implemented.
It is worth mentioning that
the City Prosperity Indicators(CPI) developed by UN Habitat
to monitor the New Urban
Agenda have been collected
in 137 municipalities in the
country and in 17 districts of
Mexico City. See also, Alcaldesde México, consulted on June
19, 2018 available at: https://www.alcaldesdemexico.com/
notas-principales/retos-de-losmunicipios-para-cumplir-conla-agenda-2030-de-la-onu.
70
See VNR of Paraguay (2018).
71
São Paulo, Barcarena, SãoJosé do Rio Preto, Paracatu,São Bernardo do Campo, Alto
Paraiso, 8 municipalities fromthe State of Minas Gerais, 54
municipalities from the Stateof Parana, a regional Project in
the State of Pernambuco andin State of Piauí. See http://ods.
cnm.org.br/ and https://www.
uclg.org/sites/default/files/the_mandala_tool.pdf.
72
The main programmes in Riode Janeiro include: ’Nave do
Conhecimento’, implementationof electronic medical records,
social territories, popular
restaurants, PIC (an earlychildhood programme),
public lightning, metropolitan
integration, slum upgrading
programmes, and workshops for
employment.
63
64

37

73
Osa, Esparza, Guácimo, Barva,
Tilarán, Cartago, Atenas, Alajuela,
Aserrí, Desamparados, Pococí
and Mora.
74
The Federal Government
in Argentina is signingagreements with different
states (provinces) to support the2030 Agenda (14 agreements)and making efforts to support
LRGs through guidelines
and training programmes indifferent regions. A network ofmunicipal councils for the SDGs
was launched in 2017. Among
regional governments, theprovince of Santa Fé has madeprogress in including the SDGs
in its development plan, andsupporting a similar action within
their municipalities. However,beyond Buenos Aires and alimited number of municipalities,
involvement is still limited.
75
In Peru, the LGAs - AMPE and
ANGR - have contributed training
to support the elaboration ofRegional and Local Development
Participative Plans. Honduras has
established pilot programmes
for municipal level 2030 Agenda
projects.
76With the support of thenational government and UNDP,
municipalities are involved inprogrammes for food security,
health (78 municipalities), floodand risk prevention (120), waste
management (23) and local
economic development. See
United Nations in Bolivia (2018),
ODS para Vivir Bien.
77
FLACMA organized a regional
forum on the SDGs in Dominican
Republic in March 2016, a Forumon the localization of the SDGs
and a Declaración de Viña del Mar(January 2018), and a training
session in Belem (Brazil) in April
2018, jointly with UNDP andCONGOPE.
78
Mercociudades organized a
training session in Puerto Mont
(Chile) in October 2017 and in
November 2017 in Cordoba(Argentina).
79
AL-LAS regularly conduct
webinars on the international
actions of LRGs, as well as
holding a face to face event on
localization in October 2017 in
Quito (Ecuador).

All the networks participatedin the first regional training
workshop on the localization of
SDGs organized in June 2017 in
Bolivia by UCLG and UNDP andlater in September in México.
A training session was alsoorganized by the regional networkof local governments in Central
America – CAMCAYCA – in Costa
Rica in May 2018. Two specificforums looking at the role ofintermediary cities in localizing
the SDGs; and for Amazonian
local governments (SDG 15) werealso organized by UCLG and the
networks, the first in Cuenca(Ecuador) in March 2018, and thesecond in Riberalta (Bolivia) in
April 2018.

80

81
The State of Victoria has
introduced a bill to Parliament
which if passed could makeit the first Australian state
to implement legally binding
renewable energy targets, in a bid
to reduce electricity bills as wellas emissions. Entitled ‘Renewable
Energy (Jobs and Investment)
Bill 2017’, it will implement theVictoria Renewable Energy Targets(VRET) to achieve 25% renewableenergy by 2020 and 40% by 2025.
The State of South Australia isundertaking efforts to support next
generation (Nextgen) renewableenergy projects.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Development Plan 2030 is ‘participatory
local development’ and regional and urban
planning, which assumes the strengtheningof municipalities. The VNR mentions several
training sessions and the constitution of 244
Local Development Councils and 17 Regional
Development Councils as ‘consultative
mechanisms’ that, in principle, should facilitate
national-local government coordination.70
In Uruguay, within the framework of the
preparation of the VNR, the national
government is leading an effort in awarenessrising, training to support the alignment of theSDGs in local plans and workshops to foster
dialogue between local governments and civilsociety in all departments. The objective is todevelop a roadmap for the localization of theSDGs at local levels (with progress achieved in
9 departments). Local governments have madeprogress in the preparation of local adaptationplans for climate change and risk prevention,
as well as in the updating of tools for urban andregional planning. As highlighted previously,
cities such as Canelones are planning to use
the SDGs as a framework, while Montevideo
is linking different sectoral projects with the
SDGs.
Although Brazil is not reporting this year, theefforts of LRGs call for special attention. Oneof the Brazilian LGAs — CNM — established
a comprehensive strategy to support the
localization of the SDGs. With the support ofUNDP, the project ‘Localizing Brazil’ is basedon advocacy, awareness raising (campaign,bulletins, social media) and training. CNM hasdeveloped different tools and guidelines for
localization, as well as a system of indicators
at the local level aligned with the SDGs(‘Mandala’, 28 indicators). The association,
as well as the representatives of governors ofstates, participate in the National Commission
for Sustainable Development Goals and indifferent mechanisms to coordinate specificgoals (e.g. health). The CNM accorded
the SDGs a prominent place at its annual
Congress and lead municipal dialogues on
the localization of the SDGs in 16 states.
There are SDG committees and projects to
support localization in more than 60 cities andregions.71 Cities such as Rio de Janeiro havemade significant efforts to integrate the SDGs
into their plans (2017), involving the ‘whole
city government’ in dialogue with CSOs andthe private sector (through public hearings,
workshops and online consultations).72
In Costa Rica, the LGA — UNGL — participates
actively in the High-Level Commission for

the SDGs (at consultative level) and adopted
an Action Plan at its Congress (2017) which
includes awareness-raising, support for
the alignment of local plans and capacities,
monitoring, reporting and local alliances.
In 2018, it is leading a project to support the
localization of the SDGs in 12 municipalities.73
In other countries, the involvement of LRGs
is less advanced. In Argentina, the process
is progressing partly due to the support
it receives from the federal government,
particularly at regional level.74 Similarly, inboth Peru and Honduras the LGAs and thenational government are making efforts
to promote localization in local plans.75 In
Bolivia, a joint project on the localization of theSDGs with the Association of Municipalities of
Bolivia and UNDP was launched in October
2017 to assist Tarija, El Alto, Sucre, Trinidad
and La Paz.76
At the regional level, regional networks— the Federation of Latin American Cities,
Municipalities and Associations (FLACMA),77
Mercociudades,78 and AL-LAS79 — adopted
action plans, created working groups on
the SDGs and organized several forums andtraining events.80

ASIA-PACIFICIn Asia, many cities are already making
progress in designing policies and plans,
and in implementing projects to enhanceurban and territorial sustainability.
Among the countries that report thisyear, a shining example is Australia, where
the associations of local governments —ALGA, Western Australia Local Government
Association, Council of Capital City Lord
Mayors — several cities and the eight state/regions worked with the federal government tocontribute to the reporting process, collecting
experiences at the local level. Some States suchas Victoria are delivering an integrated responseto the SDGs through the Plan Melbourne
2017-2050.81 At the local level, councils haveadopted different strategies. The Perth Eastern
Metropolitan Regional Council and Melbourne
City Council are leading the way through theincorporation of the SDGs into their planning
processes, whilst Brisbane City Council has put
sustainability at the core of its planning, with afocus on biodiversity. Fremantle has adopted
the One Planet Fremantle Strategy, whilecities such as Illawarra are leading a group of'healthy cities' in the region. A growing number

38

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGsof local councils and statutory authorities
are measuring their progress against the
SDGs. Local authorities are using pledges,
action plans and grant programs, alongsidepublic information, training and networking
opportunities to mobilize climate change andsustainability action in their communities andto build resilience and adaptation capacity.
Seventy local councils across Australia,
representing over 8 million people, have joined
the Climate Council’s Cities Power Partnership,
which encourages, motivates and accelerates
local initiatives in emissions reduction andclean energy.82
On the small island of Kiribati, KILGA, thenational LGA, has been particularly active inawareness-raising (through bulle-tins, radio
and forums for councillors), training (for womencouncillors on SDG5) and involvement in thereporting process. In Bhutan, an awarenessraising initiative for local governments was
carried out in 2016 and integration of theSDGs in the ‘Sector and Local Governments
Key Results Areas’ is being implemented.
The 12th Five Year Plan has prioritized'Liveability, Safety and Sustainability of Human
Settlements Improved' as one of its National
Key Result Areas (NKRAs), and a Nationally
Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA) Planon human settlements. Within the strategy
defined by the central government, one of theobjectives is to achieve a ‘just, harmonious
and sustainable society through enhanced!

decentralization’. In Sri Lanka there is agreat deal of promotion of the SDGs, withtalk shows on radio and television. The
association of local governments — FSLGA— initiated training sessions on the SDGs in
two provinces. Following the approval of the
National Policy and Strategy for Sustainable
Development (NPSSD) by the Parliament,
all levels of government will be required
to prepare their Sustainable Development
Strategy and submit regular progress
reports.83 The focus in Vietnam is essentiallyat both provincial and urban district level. In
January 2018, the LGA of Vietnam — ACVN
— hosted a workshop on the SDGs related to
local economic development in the Mekong
Delta Region, with more meetings due to takeplace in 2018. In Lao PDR, every central andsub-national level sector department andagency (from provincial to district level) has
been instructed to integrate SDGs into their
Socio-Economic Development Plans.
LGAs from other countries not reporting thisyear also responded to the survey. Among them,the more active included Indonesia, Japan andRepublic of Korea. In Indonesia, according to asurvey undertaken by the national project for
the localization of the SDGs — LOCALISE (seeBox 3.4.) — 95% of provincial governments
have conducted consultations to launch
Regional Action Plans before 4 July 2018,as set out by a presidential decree of August
2017.84 Forty percent of local governments
BOX 3.4.

'LOCALISE' THE SDGs IN INDONESIA
Leadership, Ownership and Capacities for Agenda 2030 Local Implementation and Stakeholders Empowerment
is a joint project that was launched by UCLG ASPAC and the Association of Indonesian Municipalities (APEKSI) in
the first quarter of 2018. It receives support from the EU.
Building on the Presidential Decree 59 of 2017, its objective is to support the local implementation of SDGs
by strengthening the capacities of local governments and their associations to plan, implement and monitor
SDGs at the local level.
The project involves 30 local governments (16 provinces and 14 cities) and five LGAs (APEKSI, APKASI,APPSI, ADEKSI and ADKASI). It collaborates regularly with the National Development Planning Agency andthe Ministry of Home Affairs.
THE ROAD MAP FOR LOCALIZING SDGs

Set up local
political
commitment toachieve SDGs

Baseline study
and Stakeholder
mapping to matchyour available
institutional function
and issues of SDGs

Set up a local
SDGs special
task force toensure wellcoordinated

Develop action
plan according tocity development
agenda that match
to the SDGs

Synchronization
between local
and national
Setting up businessdevelopment
model to ﬁnance SDGs
agendasaction plan as a platform
Develop a monitoring
for multi sector andand evaluation
cross cutting issue
scheme as a basis forpartnership
reporting progress

Best practices
promotion
experienceexchange andinitiated local
government
cooperation

39

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

have a dedicated division dealing with the SDGs
and several districts and municipalities havealready made commitments to implement
the SDGs.85 However, only three provincial
governments have taken concrete initiatives:
Riau (see the HLPF report 2017), Lampung and
DKI Jakarta, which is preparing a roadmap forthe localization of the SDGs.
In Japan, 34 cities and towns are involved in
the implementation of the SDGs with the supportof the national government through a numberof programmes (e.g. ‘Future city’ and ‘Ecomodel city’).86 Three cities (Toyama, Kitakyushu
and Shimokawa) are launching Voluntary
Local Reviews for the HLPF 2018. Many others
are promoting initiatives through outreachcampaigns aimed at local stakeholders thatemphasize the importance of the SDGs for
local development (e.g. Shiga and Nagano aswell Sapporo, Otsu and Omihamichan). In thePhilippines, the League of Cities monitors
progress on the achievement of various global
commitments such as the SDGs. A system
of scorecards (Local Target) is being used to
document baseline data for governance andwhether development plans are aligned with
the SDGs. Some cities are signing specificconventions with the Department of Interior andLocal Governments (DILG) to implement SDGFACES projects (e.g. Mandaluyong City in Metro
Manila). In New Zealand, local government has
independently taken the lead on a number ofSDGs, focusing on different targets (e.g. Hutt
City Council, Wellington Regional Council andRotorua Lakes Councils).
In other countries, a range of conferences
and workshops have taken place in the last few
months: in different districts of Bangladesh,with the support of international cooperationand national government;87 and in Pakistan,with the local councils’ association of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab Provinces and theparticipation of the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
In the HLPF 2017 report, other LRG initiatives
have already been highlighted in countries
such as China, India, Nepal, Thailand andRepublic of Korea. In Republic of Korea,
100 out of 243 LRGs created Local Councils
for Sustainable Development (LCSDs), including local government and civil society
representatives with a strong environmental
focus. A number of local governments suchas Seoul (which adopted the SD Vision 2030),
Gwangju, Jeonju, Cheongju, Suwon, and the
Bupyeong District (Incheon) have voluntarily
established implementation strategies forsustainable development at the local level.
At the regional level, UCLG ASPAC isorganizing forums, publications and training
actions to disseminate the global agendas.88
It published two roadmaps, one for LRGs andthe other for LGAs, on the Localization of theSDGs (in different languages); and carriedout a regional assessment of 28 countries in
the region to explore whether the legal andinstitutional environment of LRGs is conducive tothe localization of the 2030 Agenda.89 UNESCAP,
the Seoul Metropolitan Government and CityNet
promote and support knowledge-sharing andcity-to-city cooperation for sustainable urban
development through the Urban SDG Online
Portal.90 UCLG ASPAC is also supporting greater
LRG involvement in the regional mechanism(ASEAN) through the ASEAN Mayors Forum.
UNESCAP and the Asian Development Bank
are implementing several projects for the
localization of SDGs in the region.

AFRICAIn Africa, the LGAs of Benin, Togo and South
Africa are ‘frontrunners’. Benin and Togo wereencouraged by their national governments’commitment to report almost yearly to the
HLPF. In Benin, the LGA — ANCB — set out aroadmap to support the localization of SDGs.
In partnership with the national government,
the LGA also organized ten regional workshops
for the alignment of national and local plans. The
ANCB contributes to the consultation processof the VNRs as a member of the two committees(steering and technical committees) createdby the national government to coordinate
and monitor the SDGs, as well as creatinga 'coordination committee between local
and national government’. It has launchedbenchmarking between municipalities tomeasure progress and facilitate knowledge
exchange on good practices (through a groupof 37 out of 77 municipalities) and supported
the constitution of committees for the followup of the goals at municipal level. The third
generation local development plans (PDC)
developed in 2017 have largely taken into
account the SDGs and their annual investment
plans (PAI), including the programmed actions
and related implementation costs. The VNR
shows a detailed assessment of the progressof different SDGs at municipal levels.91 In
Cabo Verde, a project to support localizationof SDGs and the development of municipal
strategic sustainable development plans (in 9municipalities) was launched with the supportof UNDP.92 In Mali, decentralization is one of thepriorities of the post-crisis process. The LGA —AMM — is active in many national committees,

See also: http://www.
cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/sustainable-sydney-2030.

82

83
The Western Province of
Sri Lanka has already startedaligning government priorities
with the SDGs, as well as specificprojects for mainstreaming the2030 Agenda.
84
In addition to Local Action
Plan, Indonesian Government
through Ministry of Home Affairs
launched The Minister of Home
Affairs Regulation No. 7 Year2018 concerning the Preparation
and Implementation of Strategic
Environmental Assessment(KLHS) in the preparation of
the Regional Medium-Term
Development Plan (RPJMD).
85
Among the districts:
Pangkajene Islands District(Pangkep) in South Sulawesi
Province, Bojonegoro District inEast Java Province, Kubu Raya
District in West Kalimantan
Province, Gunung Kidul Districtin Yogyakarta Province, and East
Lampung District in Lampung
Province. Source, UCLG ASPAC
and LOCALISE report.
86
The SDG Promotion
Headquarters that coordinate
the 2030 Agenda plans to createa project “SDGs Models of Local
Governments” through which
the entire central government
will provide extensive support
to selected local governmentsin their SDGs implementation,then expand to other local
governments based on lessons
learnt. For more information on
the ‘Future city’ programme, see
http://future-city.jp/en/about.
87
The Upazila Governance
Project (UZGP) and Union
Parishad Governance Project(UPGP), within the Local
Government Division (LGD),
organized awareness-raising
workshops on SDG localization inseven districts in 2017.
88
Training sessions on the
SDGs were organized in Jakarta(Indonesia) in July 2017.
89
For more information, seealso: https://uclg-aspac.org/en/
publication/other-publications.
90
See http://www.
urbansdgplatform.org/index.
msc.
91
See each country’s VNR.
However, the diagnostic
developed jointly by the AIMF
and ANCB stressed the needto strengthen the operationsof the Departmental and Local
Committees for follow up of theSDGs, and the need to revise
sectoral national policies toimprove coordination. See also:
AIMF (October 2017), Etude
sur la localisation des ODD envue d’appuyer le processus deplaidoyer des autorités locales au
Bénin. The document is available,
in French, on the Localizing theSDGs platform at this address:
http://localizingthesdgs.org/
library/view/462.
92
Cabo Verde, Main messages tothe 2018 HLPF and answers to
the UCLG Survey.

40

93
In Senegal, the International
Organization of French Speaking
Countries (OIF) is supporting a
project on local development
and SDGs in the regions of Thies,
Kaffrine and Louga.
94
In Egypt, the Governorateof Qena agreed to pilot the
localization of the SDGs as partof the framework for a strategicplan for the Governorate. It willpropose a methodology for how
the SDGs can be streamlined
in plans at the local level. It
will also provide insights atthe central level into how to
implement the SDGs at different
levels of government.
95
Since April 2017, four pilot
projects have been deployed andshould be rolled out to the rest of
the country. Local governments
are formally represented at the
National Steering Committee for
the Implementation of the 2030
Agenda.
96
In Sierra Leone, the MoFED
and the Ministry of Local
Government and Rural
Development have engaged
the 19 local councils in Sierra
Leone to integrate the SDGs
into their district and municipal
development plans.
97
For more information, access
UCLGA Knowledge Hub at:https://www.uclga.org/theknowledge-hub.
98
ALGA organized training
sessions on the SDGs in
Swakopmund (Namibia), May
2017; Johannesburg (South
Africa), June 2017; Ouagadougou(Burkina Faso), 29 May - 1
June 2017, in partnership with
CIFAL; and Durban (South
Africa) in September 2017 andMarch 2018. Other actions weredeveloped with regard to local
finance, climate change andurban planning.

The ‘African Charter on
the Values and Principles
of Decentralization, Local
Governance and Local
Development’ is available online
at: https://au.int/en/treaties/
african-charter-values-andprinciples-decentralisationlocal-governance-and-local.

99

See also AIMF (October 2017),
Plaidoyer des Autorités Locales…,Rapport Pays.

100

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

particularly in the CREDD (Strategic
Framework for the Economic and Sustainable
Development Recovery). In December 2017,
the association adopted a declaration on SDGs
and the global agendas during its Congress— the National Day of Municipalities — and isstarting to map good practice with support frompartners. LRGs are represented in the National
Steering Committee for the SDGs (the country
is currently moving towards ‘regionalization’).
In Niger, the association is organizing asession on the SDGs during its next Congressin July 2018. However, even though the national
government is encouraging initiatives for thealignment of regional and local development
plans with the National Economic and Social
Development Plan (PNDES), local governments’
involvement is still weak, and the urban masterplans are out-dated. In Senegal, the SDGs
are integrated into the National Emergent
Plan. The national government committed toenhance decentralization (3rd stage, Acte 3),
fostering equal development between regions
and urban areas. The implementation of
the strategy will require further efforts tostrengthen local governments’ ability to deliveron poverty reduction, urban and territorialplanning and management, as well as social
services provision. There are new ongoingmechanisms for integrated urban and regional
development plans in several regions in
Senegal (e.g. Area Dakar-Thiès-Mbour), as
well as new levers of economic development(e.g. Casamance) and new urban plans (e.g.
Dakar horizon 2035).93
Since 2016 in Togo, the LGA — UCT — has
adopted a plan to support the implementationof the SDGs; developed guidelines for thealignment of municipal local plans with theSDGs; and launched an initiative to support
five pilot projects in municipalities. Its lastCongress (November 2017) focused on the
SDGs. It has also carried out training for
local officers. The national government
acknowledge that local governments are
instrumental for the implementation of the
National Development Plan — aligned with theSDGs — and is committed to carrying out local
elections for the first time this year. In Guinea,
Egypt,94 and Sudan, the involvement of local
administration is either weak or non-existent.
This underlines the need to strengthen 'thedecentralized government systems to support
state-led development' and the involvement of
the Council of States on the 2030 Agenda.
Other countries not reporting to the HLPF thisyear have recorded different actions. In South

Africa, SALGA is supporting a national strategy toalign local plans with the National Development
Plan 2030 and the SDGs. In other countries, asreported in 2017, LRGs are mobilized at regional
level (states, counties) in Ethiopia, Kenya,
Nigeria, and at local level in Botswana,95 Ghana,
Sierra Leone,96 and Uganda. In Ghana andUganda, the Commonwealth Local Government
Forum (CLGF) is supporting pilot projects tolocalize the SDGs. In Algeria, a new cooperation
project between the Ministry of the Interior
and local governments, the EU and the UNDP
entitled ‘Strengthening local actors/common
development models (CapDEL)’ was officiallylaunched in 2017. UNDP is also supporting the
localization of the SDGs in several other countries(e.g. Angola). In Burundi, municipalities will
initiate the alignment between national andlocal plans to support localization.
To strengthen regional dynamics, UCLG Africa
is disseminating the SDGs through regional
meetings and assessing local governments’
institutional environment in Africa and its
impact on the SDGs.97 The African Academyof Local Authorities, created by UCLG Africa,
is developing a training programme on the
SDGs for all African regions.98 The regional
network is also developing strong regional
and international advocacy to integrate African
LRGs into regional development agendas, and toencourage ratification by national governmentsof the ‘African Charter on the Values andPrinciples of Decentralization’, adopted by theAfrican Union in 2014.99 The locally elected
women’s network of UCLG Africa — REFELA —organized a workshop on local women leaders
and the SDGs (May 2016).
In West Africa, the International Associationof French Speaking Mayors — AIMF —organized several national workshops at
the end of 2017, gathering together LRG
representatives to present reports on thelocalization of the SDGs in Benin, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Senegal.
The conclusions presented in these papers is
globally very critical of the localization process
in all countries.100

EURASIAIn Eurasia, the Government of Armenia
identified localization of the SDGs as the third
stage of the national strategy to nationalize
the 2030 Agenda and is working to involve
cities in supporting local environmental actionplans and evaluating their environmental

41

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

conditions (Yerevan, Hrazdan, Alaverdi andGyumri). Twenty-three cities in Armenia
joined the Global Covenant of Mayors for
Climate and Energy. Erevan and Echmiadzin
are developing green programmes, while Gorisis creating a smart city project. A number ofRussian regional capital cities are part of theInternational Assembly of Capitals and Large
Cities (IAG), which implements programmes
and projects related to the SDGs. However,there are no LGAs in many Eurasian countries(such as Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, andUzbekistan). As reported in 2017, in Belarus
the national government and the UN organizeda ‘national tour’ — UN70 Belarus Express
for the Sustainable Development Goals —to popularize the global agenda. As part ofthis, the Executive Committee Chairmanof each region signed a Declaration ofCommitment to the Sustainable Development
Goals. The National Council for Sustainable
Development includes representatives fromregional government bodies. In Azerbaijan, as
reported last year, the government committed
to establishing the necessary mechanisms toensure ‘vertical and horizontal coordination’and to integrating the 2030 Agenda in local
plans and budget allocations. However, theinvolvement of LRGs is still very limited in
Eurasian countries.

MIDDLE EAST AND WEST ASIA
State of Palestine (2018),
Palestinian National Voluntary
Review. In the State ofPalestine, APLA supports
small projects on waste andwater management. The
cities of Ramallah and Jericho
focus on clean environmentand climate change todevelop solar energy sources.
In Lebanon, the Technical
Office of Lebanese Local
Government supports
projects related to local
development, urban service
management and sustainable
environmental policies.

101

These cities are Karesi
City Council, Yalova City,
Sferihisar Municipality,
Adana City Council, Esenler
Municipality. Moreover, thefollowing municipalities
committed to include theSDGs in their agendas:
Beylikdüzü Municipality(Istanbul), Eyyubiye
Municipality (Sanliurfa),Tuşba Municipality (Van),
Yunus Emre Municipality(Manisa), Urla Municipality(İzmir), Kestel Municipality(Bursa).

102

The documents areavailable online at the UCLG
MEWA Library: http://uclgmewa.org/en.

103

There is still a long way to go in terms of
localization process in Arab countries,
where national governments do notappear to be mainstreaming SDGs into
local governance policies. In the State ofPalestine and Lebanon, the Prime Minister’s
Offices spearheaded the nationalization of
the SDGs. The process was launched andinitial consultations took place at the national
level. To a much lesser extent, consultations
have also taken place at the regional andlocal level, sometimes at the instigationof NGOs (for example in Lebanon). The
ministries (Planning, Local Government andAdministrative/Political Reform) taking partin the effort to implement the SDGs did notprovide any information to local authorities,
who are seldom included in the dialogue.
The Palestinian LGA — APLA — expressed
its willingness to have a dialogue with thenational government in order to contribute to
the process. The capacity of local authorities todeliver on many of their responsibilities (potablewater, roads, mobility, waste management
among others) is hindered by Israeli zoning
policies and other obstacles (e.g. discriminatory
planning regime), and by a lack of funding.
As a result, several issues such as housing
shortages, overcrowded and limited public
open spaces and poor sanitary conditions, have
had a much more acute impact. Within theframework of the National Policy Agenda 20172020, the national government is committed
to enhance the ability of local authorities toprovide equality and equity in access to public
services and strengthen accountability andtransparency. It developed a work plan that
integrates different local government initiatives
through awareness-raising and advocacy andthe inclusion of the SDGs in local ‘Strategic
Development and Investment Plans’.101
A critical issue for many Lebanese and Jordanian municipalities is providing support to,and integrating, some 1.8 million Syrian refugees. Jordan has a Higher National Committee for Sustainable Development, and a Coordination Committee which involves working
groups where local council representatives
participate. However, there is no clear methodology on how to incorporate and act on their
feedback.
In Iraq, multi-stakeholder workshops haverecently been held, gathering together ministries and regional government representatives
to discuss the 2030 Agenda. However, there isno institutionalized mechanism to monitor effective implementation.
In Turkey, ad hoc committees have been
established to support the integration of theSDGs into the preparation process for the
11th National Development Plan, with theparticipation of local authorities and a wide
range of stakeholders. One of the committees
focused on ‘local authorities and service quality’.
The Union of Municipalities of Turkey (UMT), as
well as regional LGAs (e.g. Union of Marmara
Municipalities), support LRGs by organizing
conferences, publications, capacity building andtraining programmes about the SDGs and the
New Urban Agenda. Some municipalities are
beginning to establish working groups to link
their programmes to the SDGs.102
At a regional level, UCLG MEWA held two
mapping workshops on the SDGs (Nevşehir
and Urla, İzmir) and translated the reference
documents into both Arabic and Turkish.103
They organized several campaigns in partnership with municipalities, city councils,
NGOs and universities in the context of the UN
International Days.

42

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

GLOBAL NETWORKSAt the global level, the main LRG networks
deploy myriad initiatives within the framework of GTF.
The GTF is a coordination and consultation
mechanism, created in 2013, which brings
together the major international and regional
networks of local governments (24) — UCLG,ICLEI, C40, AIMF, Arab Towns Organizations,
CLGF, nrg4SD, ORU Fogar, FMDV, Platforma,
UCCI, AL-LAS, AER, as well as UCLG sections
and members — CEMR, Cités Unies France,
CORDIAL (including Mercociudades, FLACMA,
AL-LAS and UCCI), Metropolis, UCLG Africa,
UCLG Eurasia, UCLG ASPAC, UCLG NORAM,
and UCLG MEWA.
Each of the networks — and the GTF
collectively — is committed to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, the Paris
Agreement on Climate Change, and the New
Urban Agenda, as well as the Addis Ababa
Action Agenda and the Sendai Framework for
Action on Disaster Risk Reduction. Most of the
networks develop capacity-building activities,
cooperation, research, knowledge exchange,
networking and advocacy.
The activities of the networks are complementary. UCLG,104 in close collaboration
with its regional sections, contributed to the
Regional Forums on Sustainable Development
organized by UN Regional Commissions. In
partnership with UNDP and UN Habitat, it
developed learning actions and best practicethroughout the different regions (the alignmentof local plans with the SDGs and support LGAs
to contribute to the VNRs). In parallel, throughthe Global Observatory on Decentralizationand Local Democracy (GOLD) and the World
Observatory on Sub-National Governments
Finance and Investment (in partnership with
OECD, AFD and UNCDF), UCLG contributes
to the monitoring and reporting processes of
LRGs at the global level.
ICLEI activities in relation to SDGs include,
but are not limited to, promoting 100%
renewable energies (SDG 7); supporting urban
transitions from industrial legacy to sustainableeconomies (SDG 9); and developing mobilityfriendly development strategies and monitoring
their implementation (SDG 11). ICLEI also
contributes to the transition to a green economy
by leading networks of sustainable public
procurement (SDG 12); connecting climate
action to urban development; and engaging
LRGs in making Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs) fit for the Paris Agreement(SDG 13), connecting front-line cities andislands with the ocean agenda (SDG 14) andleading the implementation of biodiversity
targets at city and other subnational level(SDG 15).105 With a focus on financing issues,
the Global Fund for Cities Development(FMDV) is also coordinating the Secretariatof the Cities Climate Finance Leadership
Alliance and engaged in Localizing Climate
Finance among other issues.106
Other networks focus on big cities. The C40
Cities connects the world’s greatest cities,
encouraging them to be bold in their climate
action, leading the way towards a healthierand more sustainable future. Mayors of theC40 cities are committed to delivering on themost ambitious goals of the Paris Agreement
at the local level, and influencing local,
national and global policies and markets inorder to put the world on a +1.5°C pathway by
2020. C40’s City Diplomacy Programme helps
convene the collective and individual voice of
cities in global discussions relating to climatechange and sustainable urban development.
Through its Adaptation Diplomacy Project, C40
and partners are opening new channels fordiscussing faster implementation of the 2030
Sustainable Development Goals and the New
Urban Agenda in cities in the Global South.107
Metropolis, the association of metropolitan
areas and metrocities, is involved in learningand training activities, as well as pilot
projects around metropolitan governance. In
particular, their Policy Transfer Platform (PTP)
is aligning all the urban experiences to SDG’s.
Metropolis Women has promoted a specificproject aligned with the implementation of
SDG 5, which focuses on mapping security
in public spaces. The Metropolis Observatory
works on the promotion of governance witha metropolitan perspective, developing asystem of metropolitan indicators which arelinked to the SDGs.108
Some networks organize themselves
according to a shared language. For example,
the International Association of FrenchSpeaking Mayors (AIMF) actively contributes
to the achievement of the SDGs throughdecentralized cooperation to improve accessto water and sanitation, health and education.
It also helps strengthen urban infrastructure
to improve resilience and support adaptations
to climate change. In October 2017, it
launched an advocacy group dedicated to
localizing the SDGs.109 The CommonwealthCreated in 2004, UCLG
is the world organization of
LRGs and their associations,bringing together over 240,000
towns, cities, regions andmetropolises, and over 175
associations of LRGs in 140
countries around the world.
UCLG is organized into
seven regional sections, one
metropolitan section and one
forum of regions. See: www.
uclg.org.

104

105
ICLEI - Local Governments
for Sustainability - engages
with more than 1,500
cities and regions in 100
countries. Its Montreal
Commitment and Strategic
Vision 2018-2024 defines
Low-Emission, Naturebased, Circular, Equitable andPeople-Centred, Resilient
Development as ICLEI´s fivepathways to sustainability. It
supports island communities
at the front line of climate
challenges, addresses landbased ocean pollution (SDG
14), and contributes to theimplementation of global
biodiversity targets at the cityand regional level (SDG 15).
See http://www.iclei.org.
106
Created in 2010, thenetwork involves 50 cities
and regions and collaborates
closely with UCLG. See: http://
www.fmdv.net.
107
C40 encompasses 96 cities,
representing 700+ million
citizens and one quarter of the
global economy. See https://www.c40.org.
108
Created in 1987, Metropolis
gather 137 big cities andmetropolitan areas from allover the world. See www.
metropolis.org.
109
See http://www.aimf.
asso.fr/. Founded in 1979
as a network of Frenchspeaking ‘Francophone’ cities,
the AIMF brings together
294 cities in 51 countries
representing more than 130
million inhabitants. As alreadymentioned, it conducted aseries of studies on SDG
localization strategies insix countries of West andCentral Africa (Benin, Burkina
Faso, Cameroon, Guinea,
Ivory Coast and Senegal).
The association develops
decentralized cooperation
with partner cities. Over the
past five years, €11.5 million
has been mobilized for water
sanitation and waste (SDGs 6
and 12) to improve the living
conditions of more than 3
million inhabitants in 22
partner cities.

43

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Section 3 findings in a nutshell

110
Founded in 1995, CLGF
has 200 members frommost of the 53 countriesof the Commonwealth. As
an associated organization
officially recognized by
Commonwealth Heads
of Government, CLGF
works with national andlocal governments to
support the developmentof democratic values andgood local governance.
Its most recent biennial
conference focused on
the resource and capacity
demands of localization andits members; ministries
of local government, LGAs
and individual councils
adopted a ‘Statement on
Localizing the SDGs in the
Commonwealth’ (Valetta,
Malta November 2017). See:
http://www.clgf.org.uk.
111
Founded in 1982, UCCI
includes 29 big cities of
Latin America and the
Caribbean, Andorra,
Portugal and Spain. See
UCCI 2030, Ciudades
comprometidas con un
modelo de desarrollo
humano, justo y sostenible– Haciendo locales los
ODS. It capitalizes on theexperience of cities such
as Madrid to support
exchange of knowhow and good practicethrough the creation of
joint platforms (local
governments, academia,
civil society, private
sector and city networks),
together with organizations
such as UNDP. For more
information, see: http://
ciudadesiberoamericanas.
org.
112
For more information,see: http://www.arabtowns.
org.
113
NRG4SD wasestablished in 2002 andexclusively represents
regions, supporting theirinternational engagementin three main fields:
sustainable development,
biodiversity and climatechange. See: http://www.
nrg4sd.org.
114
See also: http://www.
regionsunies-fogar.org.
115

See also: https://aer.eu.

Local Government Forum (CLGF) focuses
on strengthening the capacities of LGAs,
building strong relationships between local
and central government, and facilitatingknowledge exchange between local
governments on related SDG priorities(local democracy, gender, sustainable cities,
local economic development, local financeetc.), as well as promoting pilot initiatives
to localize the SDGs (e.g. Ghana, Jamaica,
Rwanda, Trinidad and Tobago, Malawi).110
The Union of Capital Cities of IberoAmerica (UCCI), through the Programmeof Integrated Cooperation between Cities,
fosters political dialogue and the exchangeof experiences; develops training activities
on localization of SDGs and the New
Urban Agenda; and promotes economic
development and local governance in
Hispanic and Portuguese speaking
countries of Latin America and Africa. It
collaborates with and supports networks
of Latin American local governments
through CORDIAL and with UCCLA andEuro-Latin American networks.111 Arab
Towns Organization (ATO) works with
Arab-speaking local governments.112
Finally,otherorganizations
work
specifically with regional governments.
The Network of Regional Governments
for Sustainable Development — nrg4SD— promotes a territorial approach tosupporting the 2030 Agenda, assistingregional governments’ efforts especiallythrough the exchange of experiences andpeer-reviews. It has also created a reference
centre of knowledge and information on
regions.113 ORU Fogar has collaborated
with nrg4SD in the development of a report‘Localizing the SDGs: regions paving theway’, based on a survey which gathered
information from 47 regions, in collaboration
with the University of Strathclyde and withthe support of UNDP Art and CPMR.114 The
Assembly of European Regions (AER) andUCLG Regions are also active members of
the GTF.115
Other networks of the GTF active at
the regional level, as mentioned abovein the brief of each region, are AL-LAS,
CEMR, Cités Unies France, FLACMA,
Mercociudades, PLATFORMA, UCLG Africa,
UCLG Asia-Pacific, UCLG Eurasia and UCLG
North America.

The progress is remarkable but still limited.
Our analysis has highlighted ‘frontrunner’cities and associations from different regions;and some countries stand out in terms of theirgrowing movement of sub-national governments
localizing the SDGs.
The awareness and pedagogic efforts
developed by national governments, international
institutions and local government networks are
significant. However, stronger initiatives andmore policy guidance is still needed to generatesignificant mobilization and foster real ownershipof the localization of the SDGs.
New national institutional mechanisms are
emerging or being strengthened to facilitate
reporting, coordination and ensure followup. These trends need to increase to ensure
broader involvement at all institutional levelsin the voluntary reporting process, as well as incoordination and follow-up mechanisms. In many
countries, LRG involvement is still minimal or
non-existent.
The localization process is essential to theimplementation of the SDGs on the ground in cities
and territories where people and communities
live. To close the ‘policy-implementation
loop’, national governments and international
institutions should consider further developing
tailored multilevel spaces for dialogue and policy
support to ensure local and regional leaders’participation and engagement. The Voluntary
National Reviews (VNRs) could, as some countries
already do, systematically include a specificsection on the progress of the SDGs at the subnational level, thus monitoring the institutionalframework and deployment of LRG action.
A locally-based approach, combined withnational enabling policies to support the
localization of the SDGs, will catalyse the active
involvement and innovation of local leaders andenhance the potential of territories and local
stakeholders in the fulfilment of the 2030 Agenda.
Improved multilevel governance mechanism
founded on the principle of subsidiarity could
facilitate scaling up of sub-national innovative
solutions into national strategies.
Monitoring of the localization process requires
disaggregated and place-based data. Extreme
poverty is local and inequalities between
countries, as well as between territories andwithin cities, are growing. Without localized data
it will be particularly difficult to ‘leave no one
behind’. LRGs are launching some initiatives tothis end, but more support and coordination isessential to disaggregate and localize data.
LRGs and their networks are making progressand have a very strong interest in collaborating
further with national governments and the UN to
support these initiatives.

44

O4

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

THE
TRANSFORMATIONTOWARDS SUSTAINABLE
AND RESILIENT
SOCIETIES45

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

INTRODUCTION
The SDGs — and the New Urban Agenda —are tackling many of the major challenges
that Local and Regional Governments(LRGs) face in the cities and territories
they manage. These include a growing
number of slum dwellers and inadequate
housing; uncontrolled urban sprawl(with implications for urban-rural
linkages and carbon emissions); andinadequate basic services and transportsystems (which exacerbate pollution andassociated environmental risks, making
cities and territories more vulnerable todisasters). LRGs also play a critical rolein water and energy management, andthus have a significant impact on patternsof consumption and production andterrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.
These dimensions are interdependent,
as underlined by the SDGs. With adequate
support and collaboration at every levelof government, LRGs can develop more

integrated and holistic responses at the
territorial level, with broader involvementof local stakeholders.
The following section analyses thecontribution of LRGs to the majority of the
SDG Goals and Targets, whose progress
is being assessed this year by the HLPF.
Special consideration is afforded SDG 11,
given the particular relevance of its targets
for LRGs. The report summarizes themain trends and challenges of each target
for cities and territories. It illustrates
different actions LRGs are implementing
in cities and regions of varying sizes(both large and small) and with different
characteristics (from high, middle andlow-income countries) to innovate andcreate more sustainable solutions forsustainable development; and proposessome potential policy responses for both
local leaders as well as national andinternational institutions and partners.

46

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Housingand Basic
Services
SDG 11.1
Over 100 million people
are homeless and881 million people live
in informal settlements
and slums.

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

PublicTransport
SDG 11.2

SDG 11Urban
Planning
SDG 11.3

From 2000 to 2015, theexpansion of urban land
outpaced the growth ofurban populations.

Daily trips via public
transport currently
only account for
about 16% of daily
urban movement.

47

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Cultural
Heritage

Environmental
ImpactSDG 11.6

SDG 11.4
Up to two billion people do
not have access to solid waste
collection.
130 examples areindexed on the basis of
17 SDGs, and 9 thematiccommitments of Culture
21 Actions.

Urban
Resilience
SDG 11.5

From 1990 to 2013, almost
90% of mortality attributed
to internationally reported
disasters occurred in low andmiddle-income countries.
An UNISDR study surveyed
169 LRGs in different regionsof the world, highlighting
the gap between power andresponsibility.

91% of the urban population
still breathed air that did
not meet the WHO’s Air
Quality Guidelines value forparticulate matter (PM 2.5).

Greenand Public
Spaces
SDG 11.7
Public spaces provide atangible opportunity forinclusive governanceand are potential leversof change in our cities.

48

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

11.1

We want to acknowledge
David Satterthwaite (IIED,UK), as well as the Centre for
Affordable Housing Finance inAfrica (South Africa), the Asian
Coalition for Housing Rights(Malaysia), Joao Whitaker(Brazil) and Eduardo Rojas(Chile), for their contribution tothis section.

1

See Paragraph 13 a; p5 of the
New Urban Agenda (2017) A/
RES/71/256.

2

3

AfDB/OECD/UNDP, 2016.

Report of the Special
Rapporteur on adequate housing
as a component of the rightto an adequate standard ofliving, and on the right to nondiscrimination in this context,
United Nations General
Assembly, A/HRC/34/51, p.
2. Between 1998 and 2008,
forced evictions affected atleast 18.6 million people. The
number of people to have been
displaced due to disasters or
conflicts has also increased
exponentially in the last
decade.

4

Key Facts, World Urbanization
Prospects. The 2018 Revision
United Nations (2018).

5

See UCLG (2016) The Bogotá
Commitment, the document
is available online at thisaddress: https://www.uclg.
org/sites/default/files/bogota_
commitment.pdf.

6

OECD and UCLG (2016)
Subnational Governments
around the World – Structure
and Finance.

7

Par 34 of the Addis Ababa
Action Agenda and par. 15 (c),indent (iv) of the New Urban
Agenda (2017) A/RES/71/256.

8ADEQUATE, SAFE AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
AND BASIC SERVICES, AND
UPGRADE SLUMS1
SDG 11 and the New Urban Agenda represent
a significant step forward in the promotion ofequal rights and opportunities in cities andother human settlements. This is ‘with a viewto progressively achieving the full realizationof the right to adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standardof living, without discrimination […]’.2
The outcome assessment of Habitat III
highlighted the severe urban inequalities
that result from a market-led response to
housing challenges. Today, over 100 million
people are homeless and 881 million people
live in slums. Meanwhile, worldwide realestate and housing markets have turned into
speculative assets that fuel a spiral of social
inequalities and exclusion.
Despite a decrease in the proportion of
the urban population living in slums (from
39% in 2000 to 30% in 2014), the absolute
number of residents residing in precarious
and unhealthy conditions continues to grow
(African countries risk tripling their slum
population by 2050).3 Urban residents in bothdeveloped and developing countries facegrowing problems accessing adequate andaffordable housing and suffer displacements
and evictions at unprecedented rates.4

The multiple roles of housing andservices in meeting the SDGs

LRGs face the unique challenge ofaccommodating 4.2 billion urban inhabitants
over the next decade and planning thesocial, economic and spatial integration of
more than 2.5 billion new urban dwellers
by 2050.5 Pressure is particularly acute incities in Asia and Africa, where 90% of urban
population growth is expected to occur.
In 2016, housing accounted for 70% of
urban land use, attracting a large share offinancial investments and defining where
and how people live, work and play. Thishas major implications in terms of spatial
segregations, patterns and socio-economic
inequalities (Goal 10) within and between
cities.

Although not a panacea, access to land
rights and the right to housing and basic
services are generally the first line ofdefence and resilience-building against
extreme poverty in risk-exposed areas,
creating a strong fabric and solidarity
between cities.
Moreover, access to adequate housing is
at the core of the promise to ‘leave no one
behind’ and the effective implementation ofthe ‘Right to the City’ in development policies.
This is a firm commitment of LRGs, within
the framework of the Bogota Commitments
adopted in Quito in 2016.6
Building on the lessons of the MDGs’ life
cycle, Indicator 11.1 — as with all the SDGs —is now universal, relevant for both developing
and developed countries. It also recognizes thataccess to adequate housing depends on a setof interrelated conditions including availabilityof services, affordability, habitability, accessibility and cultural adequacy.
Moreover, the SDG framework and its
targets are also interdependent. For example,
progress towards Target 11.1 influences andis influenced by poverty alleviation (SDG
1), access to basic services such as waste
collection (SDG 11.6), to clean water andsanitation (SDG 6), and to electricity (SDG 7).
In turn, these have an impact on the overall
health of the population.
Furthermore, patterns of residency have amajor influence on planning for responsible
consumption and production of goods andservices (Goal 12). Housing strategies —whether institutional reforms of the right tohousing (SDG 16), entitlement or upgrading— must also consider gender mainstreaming(SDG 5). In summary, housing policies cannot
be addressed sectorally but as part of urban
and city policies as a whole.

The challenges of housing in local
governance, territorial and urban
planning and localizing financing

In the past decade, many national
governments have enshrined the rightto housing in their national legislation,others have agreed it is a government’s
responsibility and, in some cases, courts
have adopted inclusive interpretations. Key
to this is acknowledgement of the different
contexts in which people find themselves
and the progressive realization of this rightat the national level, but also the inherent
diversity of governance arrangements,

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

political competences and human andfinancial resources.
One of the main challenges is the governanceof policies and programmes to support
adequate housing. Although often designatedan LRG responsibility, in a sample of 60
countries, housing and utilities represented
only 8.8% of total LRG expenditure.7
Globally, the trend is for centralized andsectoral decision-making processes in theregulation of housing and property markets
and subsidized programmes. Competences
and powers appear to overlap or compete,
hindering the autonomy of LRGs to promote,protect and be accountable for adequate
housing.
Moreover, as was recognized in the Addis
Ababa Action Agenda,8 decentralization of
housing responsibilities is rarely matched bytechnical and financial support. In fact, it isoften delegated to the regional rather thanthe municipal level. A first step to planning,financingandbuilding
partnerships
towards the ‘localization’ of the SDGs is
acknowledging the importance of local
leadership. While there are innovative
projects involving local government in housing
strategies, for example in Bangladesh andIndia, these do not adequately take accountof local governments constraints to plan anddeliver basic services.
A further challenge is the move fromsectoral and top-down financing to more
efficient investment and management
across all levels of government that reflect
the true picture of housing needs. At Habitat
III, it was estimated that USD 929 billion wasneeded to improve the housing conditionsof nearly one billion people living in slums
or inadequate housing. This figure does notaccount for the 100 million homeless and72 million displaced people settled in urban
areas.
Unprecedented large-scale investments
are being made by national governments witha strong sectoral orientation and often a focus
on economic development and job creation.
But this sectoral investment framework has
been limited to the upgrading of targetedareas or the construction of new residential
areas. In many cases it has little regard forhuman rights, provision of basic services,mobility and density, the financial capacityof local actors to maintain housing stock,social cohesion and the value of real-estateover time. Moreover, the commodificationof housing has prioritized regeneration

projects in high-value city areas, resulting in
the eviction of urban poor households.
At the household level, the challenge ofaffordability is two-fold. First, for both urban
tenants and home owners it is an income
issue, since for low-income households
housing is the second most important
expenditure after food. Second, the amountspent on decent housing is also aboutlocation and access to public services.
Although some efforts have been made,the reality is that most of the population

A first step to planning, financing andbuilding partnerships towards the‘localization’ of the SDGs is acknowledging
the importance of local leadership

Municipal Market in São Paulo, Brasil (photo by Marcos Nozella, flickr.com)

49

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

50!

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

resort to incremental and informal housing,which places a greater strain on sustainable
development financing strategies. Moreover,new expansions convert rural areas into
urban land. The generated land addedvalue is critical for financing the extensionof infrastructure for basic services andminimizing the environmental footprint ofurban growth. Much still can and must be
done to adapt strategies to communities'
resources and realities.
Though not comparable, housing shortages
and speculative practices are also a problem
in European countries. In 2016, 11 countries9
registered an alarming 6% annual growthrate in national house price indices, which
is likely to mask considerable variations inregional house price levels between capitals,
their peripheries, intermediate cities andsmall towns. In this regard, affordability
is also measured in terms of being able toafford the mortgage.
Prohibitively high prices globally translate
into more socio-economic segregation and

BOX 4.1.

‘MAKE THE SHIFT’ AND THE TEN PRINCIPLES OF A
RIGHTS-BASED HOUSING STRATEGY
UCLG, along with UN Office of the United Nation HighCommissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), has joined the newmulti-stakeholder international movement, ‘Make the Shift’,
led by the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing and the Cityof Barcelona. This campaign recognizes that global challenges
to the right to housing require a comprehensive human rightsbased approach.
Several UN Special Rapporteurs on Adequate Housing havestressed that ‘the effective implementation of the right toadequate housing cannot be achieved without the proactive
involvement of local and sub-national governments.’ The latest
report, adopted in March 2018, provides various examples
of how LRGs, in partnership with other stakeholders, areprogressively implementing each of the ten principles for arights-based housing strategy listed below:
1. Based in law and legal standards 2. Prioritize those mostin need and ensure equality 3. Comprehensive and wholeof-government 4. Rights-based participation 5. Accountablebudgeting and tax justice 6. Human rights-based goals andtimelines 7. Accountability and monitoring 8. Ensuring accessto justice 9. Clarify the obligation of private actors and regulate
financial housing and real-estate markets 10. Implement
international cooperation and assistance.10

gentrification. LRGs in cities such as
Barcelona (Spain), Amsterdam (Holland),New York (United States) and Montevideo(Uruguay) among others, are taking a standagainst gentrification (see Box 4.1.).
The other major issue is how to plan
effectively for inclusive and resilient
societies. Available data indicate that
Africa, Latin America and Asia have madeprogress in improving the living conditionsof urban households. But their approach to
housing and service delivery has often been
piecemeal, undermining any attempt toaddress accessibility to job, infrastructureand services more holistically at the urban
level.
This, together with urban sprawl, is costly
for LRGs and urban dwellers, who abandon
new neighbourhoods in large numbers due
to difficulties accessing employment andthe affordability of even partial services onland that was formerly sub-divided and notpart of the city’s formal infrastructure andservices. This has been the case for example
in Angola, Brazil, China, Ethiopia and Mexico.
The existence of planning instruments
such as Master Plans does not guarantee theachievement of local public goals. LRGs facenumerous barriers when using conventional
urban management and planning tools,
as they lack control over the various
critical dimensions in policy-making (seeTarget 11.3), financial strategies and data
availability. On the one hand, for example,
about 13% of African capitals have private
land registered or mapped by LRGs that
often don’t have adequate records of theirmunicipal assets;11 whilst on the other, cities
in high-income countries still know very
little about the number of housing vacancies
in their territory. In Europe, the averagevacancy rate is around 18% including bothvacant dwelling and second homes.12 In
Canada, the recent census shows that since2001, the number of empty units has tripled
and doubled in Toronto and Vancouver
respectively. This is strongly correlatedwith short-term rental solutions for mass
tourism, speculative investments and/or
unused second homes.
Having the technical capacity to ensure
quality construction of housing is also achallenge. While many national developers
do not have the resources to meet quantitativeneeds, international partnerships often
result in costly imports of materials, more
speculation over bankable projects and less

51

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

community involvement. Furthermore, theregulation of building codes often only takes
into account standardized solutions that are
not well adapted to local environmental andcultural contexts and may induce negative
impacts in the long term, such as the loss of
traditional know-how.
Uncoordinated plans and sectoral policies
in settlement upgrading, transportationand local economic development have
led to incomplete regeneration, isolated
neighbourhoods, massive speculation (often
correlated with tourism opportunities), andeviction of long-term tenants in favour oflarge-scale developments.
Finally, the International Scientific
Conference on Cities and Climate Change
in Edmonton in March 2018 pointed tothe urgent need to rethink housing andinformality. Informal settlements are often
located in areas where high risk of disease,accidental fire, natural hazards and pollution
concentrate. This is a particular challenge
for LRGs, which often do not provide themost appropriate response. However, some
progress has been made.

How are housing and basic services
policies changing?

Innovative local approaches to housing
policy are shifting away from individual
entitlements implemented by central
government entities, towards coordinatedarea-focused policies through multilevelgovernance (MLG) that include the private
sector and empower communities inplanning and financing mechanisms. Thisevolution is strongly correlated with the
improvement of local democracy and with
political, administrative and financial
decentralization more generally.
As highlighted in the follow-up to the
UN ECOSOC Forum on Financing forDevelopment, LRGs are more efficient thanother administrative levels at coordinating aterritorial and partnership-led response tosustainable development and its objectives.
Their policies need to be included in an
enhanced coordinated financing strategy
that incorporates other tiers of government
and international donors with access to amore diverse source of development finance.
In terms of improving institutional andregulatory frameworks, many LRGs withlegal and fiscal powers are stipulating thatdevelopers ensure a minimum proportionof new affordable housing units for social
purposes. This mechanism, sometimes
enforceable through national legislation,
has been implemented in many cities such as
London (United Kingdom) where the figure
is 25%. In Plaine Commune (France), thelocal government is more ambitious than thenational legislation and requires 40% of total
housing stock to serve social purposes.
Furthermore, cities such as Vancouver(Canada), Paris (France) and São Paulo(Brazil) among many others, took enforceable
measures against unoccupied dwellings.
Vancouver, in particular, is currently
implementing a new tax on empty homes (1%of the asset value) to discourage this practice.
According to the latest census, about 4.6% of
the houses stood ‘empty or underutilised formore than 180 days in 2017’ in the city.13
With regards to planning, several improvements should be mentioned. In China,
where ambitious housing and housing financeprogrammes are underway, municipal
governments have a key role in implementing
affordable housing policies that are consistent
with central government guidelines. Local
governments also manage land inventories
and set housing regulations. The 2020 target
is 35% of the urban population in subsidizedor rental housing, compared with 7% in 2010.
Latin America also shows considerable
progress in devolving responsibility for the
implementation of housing programmes
to local governments, even in highly
centralized countries such as Chile.
Programmes that best demonstrateoverall neighbourhood improvement werehighlighted in the run-up to the New Urban
Agenda. For example, Favela Bairro in Rio deJaneiro (Brazil) or Mejoramiento Integral deBarrios in Medellin (Colombia) are entirely
designed and financed by municipalities.
They bring improvements to wide sectionsof the community, as well as urban services
essential for households to achieve a goodstandard of living in the city.
Arguably the most profound change inplanning housing policies has been theimplementation of a rights-based approach.
National and local governments are also
shifting perspective away from the viewthat ‘illegal’ settlements can be reclaimed
and bulldozed, understanding that a largepart of the city’s population, workforce
and local economic activity is located in
informal settlements, albeit in risk-prone
areas such as river banks (see below 11.5).

According to the Eurostats
Macroeconomic Imbalance
Procedure Scoreboard, theseare Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Hungary, Latvia, Malta,
Austria, Portugal, Romania,
Slovakia, Sweden and the UK.

910
Report of the Special
Rapporteur on adequate
housing as a component of theright to an adequate standardof living. A/HRC/37/53
11
Denninger K (2018) For
billions without formal land
rights, the tech revolution
offers new grounds for hope.
Retrieved from World Bank
Blog Development Talk.
12
FEANTSA and Fondation
Abbé Pierre, An Overview of
Housing Exclusion in Europe
2015.
13This data was released in thepress, based on the report of
the Council of Vancouver. Last
consulted on 25 May 2018:https://www.theguardian.
com/world/2018/mar/08/
vancouver-declares-5-ofhomes-empty-and-liable-fornew-tax.

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

52!

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

In practice, there are hundreds of cities ofall sizes where LRGs work with grassroots
organizations and federations in informal
settlements. The first step is to improveparticipatory processes and social cohesion.
As a result, the city benefits from timely dataand stronger community organizations that
attract social capital to their neighbourhoods.
Practices such as participatory mapping
conducted by the Zimbabwe HomelessPeople’s Federation have led to in situ
upgrade plans being developed by the Local
Board of Epworth. Similarly, the Kenyan
Homeless People’s Federation establisheda more participatory process (Target 11.3) inupgrading schemes in Mukuru and Huruma
with the local government of Nairobi.
Given the challenge to integrate households
into the formal market, the second step isto support community-led initiatives suchas savings groups. Members of Slum/Shack Dwellers International and the Asian
BOX 4.2.

CITIES FOR ADEQUATE HOUSING - LOCALGOVERNMENTS FOR THE 'RIGHT TO HOUSING' AND
THE 'RIGHT TO THE CITY'
The 2018 High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) of the United
Nations to follow up on SDG Goal 11 took place in the 50th
anniversary year of the publication of Le Droit à la Ville (Henri
Lefebvre, 1968) and two years after the New Urban Agenda of
Habitat III (Quito, 2016).
Signatory cities together with Leilani Farha, Special Rapporteurof the United Nations on Adequate Housing took part.
The HLPF addressed the growing issues that threaten theequity and sustainability of our urban model. These included
real-estate speculation, the financialization of housing,touristification of historic neighbourhoods, socio-spatial
segregation of the outskirts, forced evictions without offering
alternative solutions, housing precariousness, homelessness,
urban sprawl and informal urban enlargements without therequisite facilities or infrastructure.
During the Forum of Local and Regional Governments (LRGs),
cities called for action to ‘put the right to housing and the rightto the city at the centre’, based on the following five principles:
1. More powers to better regulate the real estate market.
2. More funds to improve public housing stock.
3. More tools to co-produce public-private community-driven
alternative housing.
4. An urban planning that combines adequate housing withquality, inclusive and sustainable neighbourhoods.
5. A municipalist cooperation in residential strategies.

Coalition for Housing Rights currently workwith LRGs, their associations and networks inover 30 countries. Interestingly, the majorityof savers and savings group managers are
women, whose active participation ensuresthat their priorities and concerns areintegrated into key incremental investments
such as sanitation or planning safe public
spaces.
Transform the Settlements of the Urban
Poor in Uganda (TSUPU) is an example ofanother initiative where five secondary
cities are supported by an MLG frameworkthat includes both the national governmentand LRGs. This was then extended to thecountry’s 14 main secondary cities, ensuring
the urban poor participate in planning anddecision-making processes. In Kenya,
the Akiba Mashinani Trust supports thesavings schemes and housing programmesof the Kenyan Federation of Slum Dwellers(Muungano wa Wanavijiji). Both these
institutions provide a platform for community
networks in the cities in which they operate
to work with local government to map slums,
identify vacant land and negotiate housing
projects (both in-situ and relocated).
Lastly, there is much room for improvementin municipal asset management. Cities in
Uruguay have vast experience creating links
and solidarity within their territories. For
decades, national and local governments
have financed and encouraged housing
production through the well-known Housing
Cooperatives for Mutual Assistance, inorder to mediate the issue of land andprevent commodification and speculative
valorization of social housing production.
Similarly, the experience of Community Land
Trusts in Brussels or New York has been
instrumental in prioritizing use value overexchange value and looking at housing as ahuman right rather than a commodity.
In Barcelona, the Provincial Councilof Barcelona, has designed the Housing
Debt Mediation Service14 with the aim ofprotecting people at risk of losing theirhome through personalized legal advice in
restructuring their debt. Moreover, the City
Council signed an agreement with the Sareb,
the company in charge of management ofassets that resulted from the restructuringof the banking system, in order to reclaim
the temporary return of 255 vacant units forurgent housing needs. A similar example canbe found in Ireland, where the National AssetManagement Agency identified 6,575 vacant

53

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Roofs in the Raval district, Barcelona, Spain (photo by Andrea Ciambra)

units owned by the banks and was able towork with local authorities to allocate 2,526
of them for social housing purposes.

Local actions addressing local andglobal agendas

Almost every aspect of housing needs thestrong engagement of local governments(usually ward, district and municipal level)
who are closest to the population, moreaccountable to them and able to collaborate
with them to generate local resources for
local solutions
The SDGs commit to ensuring access for
all to adequate, safe and affordable housing
and basic services and to upgrade slums. In
addition, the commitments and goals within
the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Frameworkand the New Urban Agenda include many
issues relevant to housing. But too little
attention is paid to how these ambitious
goals and commitments will be addressed,
by whom, and with what funds.
We can see the benefits in many countriesof transferring or sharing responsibilities forthe implementation of housing programmes
to local governments, especially where there
is adequate financing and technical support
from the central or regional government(s).
City governments that have developed strong
partnerships with grassroots organizations
and federations for upgrading, new house
construction and access to urban services,
have all achieved convincing results.

The way forward

The Right to Housing needs to be at thecentre of the urban agenda. Housing should
no longer be regarded as a sectoral issue.
Urban housing policies must be seen in acomprehensive way and conceived as city
policies. LRGs must be placed at the heart oftheir implementation.
As such, housing policies and programmes
need to shift away from sector-centred
programmes financing individual entitlements
and implemented by central government
entities, towards area-focused policies
implemented by local governments that seek
to finance integrated programmes designed
to improve the living conditions of the entire
urban population.
The public sector needs to increase
investments in housing policies. However,
housing policies need to draw on resourcesfrom individuals/households and community
organizations (including their savings andtheir capacities to contribute to upgrading)and private sector enterprises (e.g. forbuilding materials, small loans and rental
housing) as well as ward and municipal levelgovernment and higher levels of government.
Co-production of public-private-communitydriven housing should be encouraged.15
Strong commitment to ‘slum’ upgrading
is essential, recognizing how much thiscan help meet many of the SDGs, as well
as how much ‘slum’ residents and theirorganizations can contribute. Addressing all
identified constraints on housing provision or
upgrading is key, e.g. increase the supply andreduce the cost of serviced land for housing;
expand high-quality public transport
integrated into expanding serviced lots withgood access to employment and services;change inappropriate land use and building
regulations and mobilize what financial
support there is to support this.
To facilitate ‘co-creation’ is necessary toincrease the options for enabling new waysof owner or user organization, such as
cooperative user-units that will co-createneighbourhoods, especially in central areas
with increased density and limited landavailable.
Finally, all urban governments need toconsider how to build resilience to the changes
that climate change will or may bring. Muchof this is achieved by informal settlement
upgrading and land-use management. It
is also important that housing, and all thesectors that influence housing, incorporate
measures to contribute to low-carbon cities.

14
The SIDH is a joint initiativeof the Housing Agency ofCatalonia, in collaboration
with municipalities, county
councils and lawyer guilds.
More information online at:https://www.diba. cat/es/web/
benestar/sidh.
15
Drawn from Cities against
Gentrification; Manifesto for
the Right to Housing and theRight to the City, New York,
16th July 2018.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

54

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

11.2

A SAFE, AFFORDABLE,ACCESSIBLE AND
SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTSYSTEM FOR ALL16
Cities play a critical role in several aspectsof effective and sustainable mobility. These
range from the provision of safe, affordable,
accessible and sustainable transport systems
for all to improving and guaranteeing roadsafety.
Lack of access to transportation, especiallyin peripheral urban areas in developed
countries and marginalized neighbourhoodsindeveloping
countries,
frequently
aggravates economic and social isolationand segregation. However, with sufficient
support cities can promote inclusive andintegrated urban planning and transport
policies and transform their transportsystems. Public transport is central to thesepolicies, enhancing access for all and giving
particular attention to the rights of women,
youth, people with disabilities, older persons
and other vulnerable groups.

Efficient
mobility
systems
reducecongestion, accidents, noise, pollution andgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,17 at thesame time facilitating access to education,jobs, markets and a range of other essential
services to ensure ‘no one is left behind’.
Accordingly, seven SDGs are linked tosustainable mobility, either explicitly throughtransport-related targets, or via crosscutting dimensions of sustainable transport
in urban and territorial policies.18

Trends in expanding public transportand SDG 11.2

The 2017 Global Mobility Report19 finds that
SDG 11.2 is still far from being met. From2001 to 2014, a combination of higher transit
use and a rapid growth in urban populations
led to a 20% rise in demand for public
transport.20
Currently, daily trips via public transport
account for approximately 16% of daily urban
movement, walking and cycling approximately
37%, and private motorized transportation 47%— about three times that of public transport.
By 2030, the target date for the SDGs, it isestimated that the number of daily public

FIGURE 4.1.

16
We want to acknowledge theUnion of International Public
Transports (UITP) for theircontribution to this section.

See for reference: https://www.itdp.org/a-global-highshift-scenario/.
17

18
Global progress in reducing
GHG emissions (SDG 13), forexample, can also be achieved
via SDG 11.2. A high shift
scenario to public transport,
walking and cycling would
eliminate about 1.7 gigatonsof carbon dioxide (CO2)annually - a 40% reduction ofurban passenger transport
emissions.

The report is producedby the Sustainable Mobility
for All (SuM4All) initiative, aworldwide consortium of over
50 leading organizations in thetransport sector. It assesses
progress on sustainablemobility around the world.
The document is available
at: https://openknowledge.
worldbank.org/bitstream/
handle/10986/28542/120500.
pdf?sequence=5.

Billions

EVOLUTION IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT JOURNEYS IN SAMPLE
COUNTRIES

250

18.4 bn-52%
12.5 bn-14%
15.9 bn+19%
36.1 bn+17%

49.6 bn
14.5 bn
13.3 bn

41.9 bn+11%

30.7 bn

25.6 bn+51%

37.7 bn

19

20
38 countries were
scrutinized.

87.0 bn+147%

17.5 bn
35.1 bn

China

Bazil & Turkey

East Asia

Western Europe

North America & ANZ

Eastern Europe

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

0

Eurasia (RUS+UKR)

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

transport trips could increase by 50%,
reflecting both the projected growth in urban
population and an increase in the number oftrips made daily by each urban resident.21
This increase would primarily be indeveloping economies, where approximately
90% of global population growth will occur
in the coming decades. Cities in developing
countries are in fact already struggling tomeet increasing demand for public transport,with insufficient investment to finance thisgrowing need.
Figure 4.2 shows that a business-as-usual
scenario consistent with 20th century trends
would imply a change in urban transport
patterns and a significant shift from walking
and cycling to private motorized vehicles.
Public transport would see only a small
increase of its market share, while thenumber of trips on private motorized vehicles
would grow by almost 80%, making SDG 11.2
unattainable.
Alternatively, doubling the share of public
transport usage worldwide, and keeping
walking and cycling stable, would make itpossible to decouple urban mobility growthfrom growth in its societal and environmental
costs — the UITP PTx2 scenario.22
The modal split resulting from the PTx2
scenario would be more balanced, with urban
trips being shared almost evenly between
public transport, walking and cycling, andprivate motorized vehicles. The premise is
not to reduce the number of trips made by
private vehicles but rather to keep those atcurrent levels (about 3.5 billion trips per day)and to ensure all extra mobility would be
provided by sustainable modes of transport.
In doing so, this would allow us to meet thecontinuously increasing demand for urban
transport while decreasing per capita urban
transport emissions by 25% (on a global
average).
For these scenarios to be viable, decisionmaking will need to consider the inherent
heterogeneity of transport and mobility indifferent contexts. Consistency between
LRGs’ competences, powers, regulation andlicensing, and the inevitably diverse methodsof funding of such services, will be essential
for SDG 11.2 and several other targets of the2030 Agenda, the National Urban Agenda,
and the Paris Climate Agreement to be
met. Funding methods include user tariffs,
subsidies or co-funding via national, regionalor local government or cross-subsidies.23

FIGURE 4.2.

EXPECTED SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE SHARE OF
TRANSPORTATION MODES.
Daily Trips (billions)

55

12
10

3.6

8
6

6.2

3.5

4.2

4
2
0

2.8

3.6
3.6

1.2

1.5

2015

2025 (BAU)

Public Transport

Non-motorized

2025 (PTx2)
Private motorized

Source: UITP PTx2 Scenarios.

As an example, the rapid growth of cities
in Africa has created a highly fragmented
public transport system with generally weak
public infrastructure. Most commuters havestill to walk long distances to access public
transport and often on unsafe, inadequate
roads. Those commuters who can pay for
public transport rely heavily on buses, midi/
minibuses, taxis and motorcycles, andother means of informal transportation.
Rail commuting services are generally only
available in a few major African cities.
Informal and formal transit are in constantcompetition, often leading to massive
congestion and serious safety and pollution
issues. Informal transportation has also hada huge impact on urban transit in the regionsof Latin America and Asia. Furthermore, inAfrica, up to 80% of public transport users
rely on informal transport while SDG 11.2
refers only to formal provision, highlighting
the urgency of calibrating global agendas
with the actual demands and resources of
LRGs on the ground.

Policy responses to expanding public
transport

The UN Secretary General’s High-Level
Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport
has recommended progress in three key
areas to guarantee sustainable, accessible
and inclusive transport. These are policy
development and implementation, financing,21
Based on research by UITP,
available at this address:
http://www.uitp.org/MCD.
22
See online at this address:
http://www.uitp.org/strategypublic-transport.
23
Even in regions with anestablished tradition of public
transport services, local
governments are confronted
with structural difficulties
to fund municipal transportcompanies adequately.
In certain contexts, subnational governments
contract private, public ormixed companies to manage
services delivery. In othercontexts, even though local
governments maintain controlof public transport services(e.g. in Eurasia), central orregional governments havenonetheless been able toimpose limits or control
regulation by establishingmaximum fares or regulating
the issuing of licences fordifferent types of passenger
transportation.
24
In Latin America, the formaltransport sector is often
managed by a small numberof large operators (public,
private, and/or a combinationof both). The rest of the sector
is occupied by numerous
small private operatorsand frequently overlaps
with informal provision. In
most cities in Africa, Asiaand Latin America, small,informal modes of public
transport (by minibus,
scooter, tricycle and sharedtaxis) are central to transport
services. In Latin America,in the general population up
to 30% of journeys are madeon informal transport, anda much higher proportion in
low-income groups.

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

56

25
UN SG’s High-Level Advisory
Group on Sustainable Transport,
Mobilizing Sustainable Transport forDevelopment, 2016.
26
According to the City Survey
developed by the LSE’s Going
Green initiative, 63% of all policy
tools used for urban mobility are
implemented by city governments.
27
Curitiba was the first city todevelop a Bus Rapid Transit system
in 1974. Curitiba’s BRT systemmodel has already been replicatedin more than 150 cities worldwide.
80% of travellers use the BRT
system and it carries around 2
million passengers per day.
28
Over the last decade, about 30%
fewer vehicles have accessed
London’s (United Kingdom) city
centre, and 20% fewer in Lyon
(France).
29
Jakarta (Indonesia), for instance,
has been organizing ‘car-free’days to promote environmental
awareness since 2014; SãoPaulo (Brazil) and Paris (France)
conducted similar initiatives.
30
In London, since theimplementation of the Congestion
Charging Scheme, vehicle delays
have reduced by 26% inside thecharging zone and the bus fleet
and ridership have increased
significantly. The scheme hasdeveloped a net revenue of GBP
120 million, which by law has to be
spent on transport improvements
in London for the ten years after
implementation.
31
Helsinki (Canada) aims to makeit unnecessary to own a private carby 2025. Over the past two years,
residents have been able to use an
app to plan and pay for all modesof public and private transport
within the city – be it train, taxi,
bike, carshare or bikeshare.
32
Through its Restructuring
Plan for Public Transport in the
Metropolitan Region of Belo
Horizonte, the city opted for theestablishment of an integrated
urban transport network. This
combines buses, undergroundtrains and an inter-neighbourhood
system with direct, circular andperipheral lines.
33
UN SDG’s High-Level Advisory
Group on Sustainable Transport,
p. 21. The first ‘bicycle highway’,for example, was launched in 2012
and allows commuters to link thecentral district with the peripheryby bike. The city’s ambitious policy
links transportation strategies
with the promotion of renewableenergyto become neutral in termsof CO2 emissions through a series
of innovations and a climate
plan. The city already reduced its
emissions by 21% between 2005
and 2011 (C40 Cities, Copenhagen:
CPH climate plan 2025).

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

and technological innovation.25 Local
governments have tremendous potential tocontribute to this, given how many transportsector policy instruments are within theirjurisdiction.26 These include road safety,
cycle and walking paths, density promotion,bus rapid transit schemes,27 traffic-freezones,28 ‘car-free days’,29 congestion-pricing
schemes,30 and shared-mobility platforms
to reduce reliance on private transport
and address urban pollution,31 alongside‘nationwide’ measures such as fuel taxes andenhanced rail infrastructure.
In many cases, Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plans (SUMPs) have provided local authorities
with a clear framework for implementationof sustainable urban transport systems.
Brazil has made urban mobility plans a legal
obligation for 3,300 cities and a precondition
for receiving transport infrastructure
financing; and the Ministry of Cities has
provided technical and financial assistanceto many cities developing their own urban
mobility plans.32 Copenhagen’s ‘long-term
vision’, for example, ‘is that at least one
third of all driven traffic in the city should
be made by bicycle, at least one third by
public transport, and no more than one thirdby car’.33 In Dubai, the Roads and Transport

Authority is aiming for 20% of total trips to be
by public transport by 2020 and 30% by 2030
– thus doubling the share of 15% in 2015. In
terms of national efforts to pursue this goal,
Malaysia, for example, has set a nationwide
goal to achieve a public transport target of
40% of all trips in urban areas by 2030.34
On the other hand, public transport
operation and capital investment costs havealso grown significantly in the last decadedue to increased demand, higher quality
expectations from customers, and the growing
cost of production (chiefly labour and energy).
LRGs usually fund most of the gap between
commercial revenue and operating costs.
In developed economies, this represents
on average of about 50% of public transport
operating costs.35 There is no ideal specificratio of financial support to fare revenue,
but successful approaches combine thedevelopment of a proper revenue strategy,
the earmarking of local charges for public
transport and partnerships with private
investors.36 In addition, new technologies
may need new financing models. For
instance, considering the high entry barrier
to electric bus systems, new business andfinancing models are needed to help cities
and operators to invest in these cost-effective!

BOX 4.3.

DIGITAL TOOLS TO BRIDGE THE FORMAL-INFORMAL
DIVIDE: 'WHEREISMYTRANSPORT'
WhereIsMyTransport is an open digital platform that provides information
on formally and informally run transport services in emerging cities.
Launched in August 2016, it supports 20 cities in ten countries across
Africa and the Middle East in providing better information about mobility.
Participating cities include Cape Town and Durban in South Africa, Beirut
in Lebanon and Accra in Ghana.
It centralizes all forms of mobility data in a platform that anyone canbuild on to provide transport information (e.g. feed digital signage atstops), develop software products (e.g. mobility apps for transport
users), or analyse metrics to improve transport provision (e.g. as a toolfor city transport planners).
It works with transport operators, cities and governments to deliver
innovations that make mobility services easier for citizens to use and canintegrate data from even the most rudimentary operators.
In 2017, it mapped the entire informal transport sector of Cape Town
using specially developed tools, Cape Town thus becoming the world’s
first city to delineate formal and informal transport and make data
openly available.

57

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

low-emission alternatives.37 This includes
models such as joint procurement between
transit agencies to bring down the upfront
costs, and also leasing models separating
the battery from the bus.
Finally, technological improvement anddevelopments in transport and mobility
have affected policy through sustainable
andlow/zero-emission
vehiclesandsystems, geo-localized services, usage flow
and itinerary tracking, or travel and roadbehaviour sensorization. Innovation has
increased accessibility, affordability, service
rationalization, and safety (of both users andother citizens). Global cooperation frameworks
among cities have also helped significantly inthis regard. ICLEI’s Eco-Mobility Alliance andCities for Mobility and UITP’s Expert Working
Groups are good examples of these trends.
Sustainable mobility has been an area in which
metropolitan cities are most likely to exchange
best practices and expertise with each other.38
Ultimately, lack of availability of dataand indicator inadequacy remain among
the biggest barriers to achieving SDG 11.2.
Currently there is no data at the international
level and few national statistical agencies
are collecting information on the ‘official’
SDG indicator, i.e. ‘the proportion of the
population that has convenient access topublic transport’.39 Proxy indicators, easily
aggregated and regularly reported bypublic transport authorities and operators
at the local level (e.g. passenger journeys,mode share, vehicle-km of public transport
vehicles, length of public transport lines or
the number of public transport stops perarea) would be more useful to measure SDG
11.2 implementation, especially for cities
with low data collection capability.40

The way forward

SDG 11.2 and sustainable mobility andtransport are not attainable unless more
integrated approaches, urban policies
and public transport systems, enhanced
governance frameworks, short and longterm planning, capacity-building, andengagement of all stakeholders are
systematically put in place. Decentralized
framework, coordination between transport
and territorial planning institutions, clear
and accountable contractual relationshipbetween local governments and service
provider, mixed and localized financing
instruments are critical levers.

Urban policies and public transportsystems must be developed in an integrated
way in order to achieve maximum impact.
Such integration needs to happen on twolevels. At the policy level, joint policy designis essential to deliver a consistent urban
mobility system, with urban planning andtransport decision-making integrated so as
to build more compact cities and favour mixed
land use, as a way to increase accessibility.
On a practical level, improved coordination
among different transport modes will create
more appealing, efficient and user-friendly
transit systems, and positively spill over interms of shaping better user behaviour, andfavouring sustainable, collective and public
transit over polluting or inefficient private
options. All this can only happen under acomprehensive and well-defined urban
mobility strategy — inevitably supported byvisionary leadership, technical awareness andthe strong backing of political will across alllevels of governance and institutional design.
Existing urban public transport services,moreover, need sufficient funding just to
maintain current service levels and quality:
large-scale investments will be required in
the future to upgrade and modernize existing
infrastructure and fund new projects,
notably in fast-growing cities.41 In many
places around the world, public spending
has shrunk, threatening public transportfunding: to help ensure dependable andsufficient funding for public transport, newfunding avenues also need to be explored.
These include congestion and road pricing,parking and similar charges as part ofa diversified toolbox, complemented byinnovative sources, e.g. land-value capture
programmes, green bonds and transitoriented development (TOD) grants, fuel/carbon taxes and other climate-compatible
financial instruments.
Service and technology innovation is key
to offering customers a top-quality mobility
option and an enhanced journey experiencethat can help to reduce accidents, improveaccess and the environment. Ultimately,
the capacity of the sector needs to grow if it
wants to respond to the ever-growing needsof urban citizens.
Addressing the data gap is also essential
and UITP is launching a reporting tool thisyear for the public transport sector to track
operational performance data on SDG 11.2
to support national reporting and policy
development.

34
SPAD – The Land Transport
Commission of Malaysia, 2013:
National Land Public Transport
Master Plan.
35
See also: http://www.uitp.org/
sites/default/files/Financing%20
public%20transport.pdf.
36
The rail-plus-property
development business model has
been successfully implemented
in Hong Kong as a means ofinternalizing the added external
economic benefits along therailway corridor for subsidizing
railway construction andoperations. This has substantiallyrelieved the burden on governmentand released more public funds forother social welfare uses.
37
See also: https://about.bnef.com/
blog/electric-buses-cities-drivingtowards-cleaner-air-lower-co2/.
38
Case study references of
Guangzhou and Shanghai (China),
Jakarta (Indonesia), Rio deJaneiro (Brazil), and Shiraz (Iran)and workshop presentations areavailable online: http://www.
metropolis.org/agenda/urbantransportation-policy-training.
More information on Metropolis’
International Training Institute(MITI) is available online at: http://seoulmiti.org/. In May 2017, UITP’s
Global Public Transport Summit
attracted 2,500 participants from 84
countries to exchange best practicewith international experts on public
transport up-scaling for SDG 11.2
implementation. https://uitpsummit.
org/summit2017-edition/.

The UN Statistical Commission
has proposed that for SDG 11.2,
access to public transport isconsidered convenient when
an officially recognized stop is
accessible within a distance of 500m
from a reference point such as ahome, school, workplace, market,
etc. However, the capacity to reportsuch an indicator at the local levelis currently very limited and cannot
easily be aggregated up to thenational level. See also: https://
unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/files/
Metadata-11-02-01.pdf.

39

40
UITP was identified by the UN
Statistical Commission to address
the data gap and has embarked
on a project to develop a global
reporting tool directly frompublic transport authorities andoperators, useful for local, national
and international reporting
as well as other international
reporting frameworks (e.g. theGlobal Tracking Framework of the
SuM4All initiative).
41
Currently, global capital
investment in public and privatetransport is between USD$1.4
trillion and $2.1 trillion annually(see also: https://www.wri.
org/sites/default/files/The_
Trillion_Dollar_Question_II_
Tracking_Investment_Needs_in_
Transport_0.pdf), but promoting
a more sustainable low-carbon
pathway for urban transport will
depend on how future capitalis invested. According to theseestimates, if cities were to be built
around public transport, it would
reduce urban infrastructure capitalby more than USD$3 trillion overthe next 15 years (see also: https://
newclimateeconomy.report/).

58

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

11.3

42
We want to acknowledge
the contribution of Professor
Vanessa Watson, School ofArchitecture, Planning andGeomatics, University ofCape Town, South Africa, as
well as the inputs provided
by Prof. Tom Coppens,
Faculty of Design Sciences,
University of Antwerp(Belgium), Puvendra Akkiah(City of Durban, South Africa)
UCLG Committee on Urban
Strategic Planning, Regina
Rau (former planner city ofPorto Alegre, Brazil).
43
In the 2018 flagshippublication, Leading change– Delivering the New Urban
Agenda through Urban and
Territorial Planning, UN
Habitat defines planningas ‘a decision-making
process aimed at realizing
economic, social, cultural,and environmental goals
through the development of
spatial visions, strategies
and plans and the applicationof sets of policy principles,
tools, institutional andparticipatory mechanisms
and regulatory procedures’(https://unhabitat.org/
books/leading-changedelivering-the-new-urbanagenda-through-urbanand-territorial-planning/).
This definition fully reflects
the one developed in the
UCLG Policy paper on
urban strategic planning– Local Leaders preparing
for the future of cities
published in 2006 (https://
issuu.com/uclgcglu/docs/
urbanstrategic).
44
See UN Habitat (2015), The
International Guidelines on
Urban and Territorial Planning:https://unhabitat.org/books/
international-guidelineson-urban-and-territorialplanning/.
45
See Berrisford S andP McAuslan (2018), Reforming
Urban Laws in Africa: apractical guide. African
Centre for Cities, UN Habitat,
Cities Alliance and Urban
Landmark.
46
MIT Center for Civic Media,
available online at thisaddress: https://civic.mit.edu.
47
Frost & Sullivan, ‘Strategic
Opportunity Analysis of the
Global Smart City Market’.
48
Govela, ‘City Changer Labs
and Digital Civics.

INCLUSIVE AND
SUSTAINABLE URBANIZATION — PARTICIPATORY,INTEGRATED AND
SUSTAINABLE PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT IN ALL
COUNTRIES 42“People are not justinactive recipients ofgoods and services.
Instead, they serve
as real contributors
in the creation of
improved, humanized
cities.”Mpho Parks Tau,
The Voice of Mayors, Metropolis 2014
Traditionally, city planning has focusedon confining urban sprawl and regulating
land use through the application ofnorms and regulations.43 Today, theworld needs to accommodate one million
new urban dwellers per week, urban
sprawl has become far more common,
informality the dominant form of access toemployment and housing in many regions,and commodification of urban goods andservices is gaining ground. Thus, planningshould concentrate mainly on guiding urban
development, integration and infrastructure
provision. Regulation remains important,but new forms of planning are essential toadapt to the new global context and addressconcerns such as climate change, social andeconomic inclusion, spatial justice, genderand resilience.
Innovating in planning means being
proactive rather than regulatory. National
governments must play a key role in creating
the appropriate institutional environment(legalandregulatory
frameworks),
supported by adequate National Urban

Policies (NUPs). LRGs must be the promotersand key actors of these planning innovations,facilitating participatory approaches, withthe possibility to experiment and innovate
as ‘labs’ of new practices to support
sustainability and inclusiveness.
Global North countries, and more recently
Eastern European countries, have evolved
over the years towards more decentralized,
participatory and ‘market-friendly’ formsof planning, operating through multilevel,
multi-sectoral and more networked systemsof governance, linking planning and action
through development strategies. In many
global South countries such reforms havebeen slow and for different reasons planningremains relatively centralized, top-down,
bureaucratic, open to political opportunismand patrimonialism, and hampered by lackof capacity and resources. However, there
are some global South countries which havemade important planning innovations.
The SDGs and the New Urban Agenda
offer a real opportunity to reform andstrengthen the planning role of LRGs
and their linkages to various levels andnetworks of governance, including citizen
participation. The basic principles adopted
by the UN Governing Council of UN Habitatin 2015 44 define guiding principles for urban
and territorial planning within this global
framework.

Decentralization, or giving cities
the power to act

Clearly, the capacity of cities to plan
in a participatory and inclusive way isstrongly determined by the effectivenessof decentralization already in place
in a country. In both North and SouthAmerica as well as in European countries,
decentralization of governance and planning
has strongly enabled LRGs to develop
flexible and strategic forms, and innovative
approaches to mainstream local priorities.
In Eastern Europe, following the fall ofauthoritarian governments, certain powers
were devolved to sub-national governments
but in many cases, local self-governanceremains limited. The region’s intermediarycities face big challenges, the phenomenonof ‘shrinking cities’ accounting for thepersistence of top-down master planning,
weak implementation at the LRG level andlittle control over market-driven urban
development.

59

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

In Africa, planning systems remain highly
centralized with urban planning laws mainly
inherited from colonial times and primarily
under the control of a central government
department. Some governments havecommitted to decentralize these laws. But
new laws have often been written and not
approved, or the necessary changes havenot been made to urban governance andland management legislation.45 Similarly
in Asia, countries are in slow transition
between older systems of top-down service
delivery and newer decentralized systems
for development policy and planning. A lackof clarity on devolved competences leads to
weak planning capacities.
For effective planning, LRGs need clear
definition of responsibilities, adequate
human and financial resources as wellas capacities and powers to enforce local
decisions. Worldwide, those cities with thepower to act have institutionalized formsof citizen and community participation.
Communities in particular have the potential
to provide local knowledge and information
to improve the management of basic services
to reach populations and neighbourhoods
left furthest behind.
An important stimulus to positive reforms
and cultural change in planning comesin the form of strategic planning. This ispart of the overall objective of promoting
integrated development by combining
urban policies with economic development
and management strategies. In manylarger metropolitan areas, strategic plans
have become important tools to achieve a
longer-term framework for managing theirdevelopment. The preparatory process
engages many actors, promotes dialogue,
and places key issues on the agenda ofdecision-makers, which can contribute to thestrengthening of city governance. It offers an
opportunity to plan collaboratively througha participatory approach that includes local
stakeholders and civil society.

Participation and inclusive
approaches to planning

Broad-based consultations and citizen
participation in local planning are key
conditions for ownership and further
implementation of agreed strategies.
Worldwide, the trend is to increase
stakeholder participation in local governanceprocesses. Instruments of participatory

democracy can create ‘virtuous circles’ ofengagement between citizens and institutions
through different mechanisms and channels(e.g. neighbourhood committees andassemblies, open town council meetings,
councils for the elderly and youth, referenda,
e-democracy, participatory budgets andplanning, among others). The participationof citizens through digital instruments is amore recent development, and the conceptsof ‘Civic Media’,46 ‘Smart Citizen’,47 and‘Digital Civics’48 are already gaining ground.
Latin America has undoubtedly playeda pioneering role in the development ofparticipatory procedures in local planning.

!

BOX 4.4.

EXAMPLES OF THE EVOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKCity Strategic Planning was initiated in Barcelona in thenineties, but later spread to many cities across the world. The
City of Johannesburg, for example, sought to create a strategy
to rethink the nature of local governance. The Joburg 2040:
Growth and Development Strategy (GDS) is both an aspirational
document that defines the type of society Johannesburg seeks
to become by 2040, and a long-term planning instrumentwith a set of strategic choices to guide the city’s development
trajectory. It lays the foundation for multilevel, multi-scalarand integrated responses to the city’s urban challenges
The Plan de ordenamiento territorial (POT) was the planninglaw first developed in Colombia that later influenced laws
in Ecuador and Bolivia. It emphasized and amplified themultidimensional and integrated nature of (spatial and socioeconomic) planning, and contributed to the decentralization offunctions, highlighting the fiscal opportunities associated withthis process. That said, it has taken decades for the technicaland political capacity of municipalities to match this.
Decentralization can have negative effects. Long-term
choices can sometimes give way to short-term interests thatare politically more profitable for local governments. This has
been the case in many countries in Europe and North America
where, for example, there has been a prolific development of
shopping centres with little heed to environmental concerns.
Learning from different experiences from Latin America
and South Africa, countries such as Mozambique have sincereformed their planning laws, but municipalities still haveproblems implementing land-use management and regulation
and, even more challenging, establishing a property tax
system from scratch.

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

60

49
In 2018, there are morethan 3,000 experiences ofparticipatory budgeting listed
in cities across 40 countries.
50
In Mumbai, for example,
those with class and caste
privileges have benefited mostfrom the opportunities offeredby participatory democracy.
Zérah MH (2009) Participatory
Governance in Urban
Management and the Shifting
Geometry of Power in Mumbai.
51
http://www.citiesalliance.
org. Cities Alliance is a global
partnership of development
agencies, governments,
NGOs, LGAs, foundations,private sector and knowledge
institutions. It provides direct
operational support to urban
governments and serves as aninternational platform for all
partners to engage, learn andshare knowledge, expertiseand resources in support of acommon vision and advocacy.
52
For more information,
see the webpage of theInternational Observatory on
Local Democracy: https://oidp.
net/en/.
53
See UN Habitat, International
Guidelines on Urban and
Territorial Planning – Towards
a compendium of inspiring
practices. Available at: http://
backend.aesop-planning.eu/
uploads/gpean/un-habitat/ig_
utp_towards-a-compendiumof-inspiring-practices.pdf.
54
For more information, see
http://www.citiesalliance.org/
Tunisia-CP-page.
55
See Cabannes Y (2018),
Highlights on some Asian andRussian Participatory Budgeting
Pioneers, DPU, IOPD, Kota
Kita Foundation. Available at:https://www.oidp.net/docs/
repo/doc362.pdf.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Braziland
Bolivia
institutionalized
participatory processes and Brazilian cities
were responsible for well-known innovations
such as participatory budgeting.49 In spite ofthis, planning is still often technocratic andsectoral and fails to deal with structuralinequalities50 and citywide issues; andin some cities the property development
sector plays an increasingly dominant role(for example during the Rio Olympic Games
in 2016).
In Africa, highly centralized and top-downplanning systems tend to be less consultative.
Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) such as
Slum/Shack Dwellers International haveplayed an important role in promoting
community participation, particularly of
informal economic actors. They have also
demonstrated the benefits of fostering
the leadership of women in co-producing
information, as has been the case in Kenya,
South Africa and Uganda (See Section 11.1).

!

BOX 4.5.

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT
FORUMS IN 14 INTERMEDIARY
CITIES IN UGANDA
In the past ten years in Uganda,
at the initiative of Cities Alliance,51
Municipal Development Forums havebeen set up in the country's 14 main
medium-sized cities. The forums— bringing together public, privateand local stakeholders to support
the elaboration of city development
strategies — are now a benchmark
for participation in Uganda, and arebeing institutionalized as part of new
regulations on national urban policy.
Increasing dissemination of participatory budgeting practices is also aclear sign of growing participation in
local planning processes. According to
the Observatory on Local Democracy(OIDP), more than 700 African municipalities currently rely on participatory
budgeting.52

Other participatory planning experiences,such as City Development Strategies, havefostered the inclusion of vulnerable groups
in defining urban strategies in Ouagadougou(Burkina Faso) and Douala (Cameroon).
These have yielded interesting results interms of consensus-building and funding
opportunities for follow-up investments.53
Participation in planning processes has also
gained ground in the Maghreb countries.
Morocco introduced such provisions in 2010,
requiring cities to design strategic plans in
a participatory way. In Tunisia, the National
Federation of Tunisian Cities recently
engaged in the development of participatory
urban strategies in nine inland secondary
cities, drawing on the experiences of thecities of Sousse and Sfax.54
In Southern Asia (excluding India), there
is little provision for participation by elected
representatives or citizens in planning
preparation. In East and South-eastern Asia,
democratic traditions are weak and top-downplanning dominates. However, new practices
are emerging for example in Vietnam or incities such as Chengdu (see Box 4.6.). In somecountries federations of the urban poor —such as the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights— are the most likely route to participation.
Likewise, master planning in Eastern
Europe is strongly driven by professional
planners and often property development
interests, with very limited citizen
consultation. Most states have however
introduced legislation which includes theprovision for participation.
In upper middle-income countries, formal
procedures for participation and stakeholder
involvement have existed for some time,
although these have been criticized forbeing ‘tokenistic’ rather than empowering.
Organized interests through lobbying andadvocacy (which may be profit-driven) canplay an important role in planning decisions.
A growing number of cities have adopted
participatory budgeting, open consultations,transparency portals and city labs — asignificant evolution towards increased
citizen participation and, at times, cocreation of the urban future.
Also in Europe and mainly because of anincreasing body of environmental legislation,
citizens have more judicial instruments tocontest spatial planning decisions, which
in turn increases the accountability of theplanning system.

61

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Policy coordination between national
and local level – a work in progress

Functions relevant to planning are usually
spread across several departments and tiersof government, as well as private and civilsociety sectors, and urban and rural areas.
Horizontal and vertical policy integration
is vital to shaping the development of any
territory, guiding action at the political leveland providing strategic direction through ashared vision. However, this rarely happens.
In upper middle-income countries,
planning coordination and integration
generally work quite well. In urban areas,
they are often placed under the authorityof specialized departments or agencies(such as the urban planning agencies inFrance in many big cities) with politicaland executive powers. Integration also
occurs through bottom-up collaboration
between municipalities on strategic issues.
Conversely, top-down attempts to create
new metropolitan governments havefrequently been politically and operationally
cumbersome, with voluntary cooperation
between municipalities in many cases
proving more effective.
However, coordination between local,
regional and national levels remains adifficult exercise everywhere despite thedifferent modalities that have been promoted
in recent decades (e.g. bi-lateral State-City— Contrat de ville or Metropolitan Planning
Contracts in France). Inspired by theseexperiences, other countries have also
developed contracting practices between
different levels of government (Colombia).
In Europe, shared planning, comprehensive
dialogue and joint financial responsibilities
seem to be the keywords for the future ofnational-local cooperation across levels ofgovernment, as part of the definition of newnational urban policies.
In Eastern Europe, the transition fromold to new state forms has confused roles
and responsibilities, causing fragmentationand limiting the state’s ability to control orcoordinate with the private sector. In mostcountries, vertical coordination is further
hampered by an intermediate level ofregional institutions involved in planning (lesscommon in those countries that are now EU
member states) and horizontal coordinationis poor.
Meanwhile, many Eastern and Southeastern Asian countries are in a slow
transition from older systems of top-!

BOX 4.6.

OBSERVATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF INNOVATIVEPARTICIPATORY EXPERIENCES
During the last three years in Vietnam, UN Habitat has
worked to strengthen participatory processes to elaborate
development strategies in five medium-sized cities, in supportof the mission of the Association of Cities of Vietnam (ACVN).
In one Chinese mega-city, Chengdu, participatory budgetingis being practised every year in more than 2,600 villages andlocalities and 1,400 neighbourhoods. Since 2008, over 100,000
projects budgeted for by citizens have been implemented.55
Participatory budgeting is only a small part of the local
budget and has a limited impact on local planning. In the
U.S., some organizations have started to talk instead about‘alternative budgeting’. This approach analyses budget
priorities and raises questions from civil society, rather thanpromoting participation in all non-essential decisions. Oneof the arguments is that in the U.S., local budgets are highly
racialized. This means expenditures on police and prisons are
high, and on infrastructure and development they are low inpoor areas with ethnical divides.
Barcelona City Council developed a digital infrastructure
called Decidim.barcelona that allows different types ofparticipatory processes to happen online. The Strategic
Plan 2015 of the city and ten districts combined face-to-faceand digital participation. More than 10,000 proposals werereceived and over 400 meetings took place around the city.
The platform uses free software and has been adapted andimplemented by more than 30 governments and organizations.

down service delivery and newer systemsof decentralized development policy andplanning. In countries such as Vietnam,
planning and budgeting tend to fall under
separate ministries, and there is little
integration between plans (spatial, socioeconomic and developmental).
In Africa, where most countries experienceurban spatial fragmentation, the situation ismore challenging. However, some countries
such as South Africa are experiencing
progress. Building on the Integrated
Development Plan introduced in 2000,
the country is currently developing a new
Integrated Urban Development Framework(the ‘IUDF Implementation Framework
Plus’) to achieve policy, plan and budget
coordination at LRG levels and guidemanagement of urban areas. The Gauteng

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

62

56
OECD/UN Habitat define
NUP as the coherent set ofdecisions from a governmentled process of coordinating
various actors for a common
vision that will promote moreproductive and resilient urban
development.
57
According to the latest datafrom the NUP database, of
the 150 countries developing
urban policies at the national
level, 73 are in the processof implementation, 23 havereached the monitoringand evaluation phase, 24
are in the feasibility phase,
18 in diagnosis, and 16 informulation, illustrating a
recent increase in interest in
developing or renewing NUPs.
(OECD, 2017).

We want to acknowledge the
UCLG Committee on Culture
for their contribution to thissection.
58

59
Duxbury, N.; Hosagrahar,J.; and Pascual, J. (2016), Why
must culture be at the heart ofsustainable development?
60
Martinell, A. (2014),
Cultural life, local life, article,
Barcelona: UCLG / Global
Taskforce of Local andRegional Governments.
61
To consult the Agenda 21
for Culture (2004), the Policy
Statement Culture: Fourth Pillarof Sustainable Development (2010)
and the ‘Culture 21: Actions’toolkit (2015) see the UCLG
Committee on Culture website:www.agenda21culture.net.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

City Region, for example, bears witness
to the important preconditions for spatial
coordination set by the IUDF.
Other African countries have followed
suit, for example the urban development
programme of Burkina Faso. A pilot project toharmonize multiple urban planning schemes
was launched in the medium-sized town of
Tenkodogo with encouraging results, but theexperience now needs to be streamlined andexpanded. Similarly, in Zambia integration
efforts need more resources and capacity
than is currently available.
Brazil’s creation of the Ministry of Cities andthe National Council of Cities in 2003 stands
out among efforts to improve coordinationin many countries in Latin America. It
was established to coordinate vertical andhorizontal urban development and led tounprecedented investment in social housing
units and slum upgrading programmes.
Overall, effective NUPs and institutionalframeworks are critical to sustainable andintegrated urban development and strong
national and regional development planning(SDG 11.a).56 ‘A NUP does not replace
local urban policies, but complements
them to create the necessary condition forsustainable development’.57 However, ina majority of countries, NUPs are still at avery early stage and improved collaboration
across different levels of government andother stakeholders will be imperative toensure these are feasible and to support
their implementation at a later stage. Basedon the LRG survey collected for this report,
this is still far from being the case.

The way forward

Since planning is a product of the political,
economic and social system within which
it is embedded, there can be little chanceof a quick ‘technical’ fix. Broader politicaland institutional reform is an essential
precondition in those parts of the world where
it is weak and ineffective. Strengtheningof LRGs is a critical part of this and key toimplementing the SDGs, and in particular the
New Urban Agenda and SDG 11.3.
To facilitate participatory urban planningand promote integrated urban and territorial
approaches, the urban and territorial planninglegal framework and regulations need to berevised and updated. This includes support
to CSOs and NGOs that are able to promotebottom-up and participatory planning incontexts where decentralization and local
democratization is partial and/or weak.
Moreover,a
globalinitiativeisrecommended to improve local (in-country)
ability to produce qualified professional
planners and researchers. The LRG
associations can be instrumental to facilitate
access to leadership training and preparationin planning and financing in this matter.
Infrastructure and service planning mustbe aligned with land assembly and releaseto guide economic and spatial expansion,
especially where there are pressures for
growth.
Mechanisms to produce and maintainreliable sub-national data to inform andmonitor planning need also to be developed.
Horizontal integration (joined-up planningand governance) should be promoted,
which necessitates coordination of a rangeof municipal departments and involves
stakeholders.
Where they do not already exist, national
urban policies (NUPs) must be developed as
an overall framework for multi-scalar andcoordinated planning. Intergovernmental
frameworks that adequately empower,
fund and incentivize LRGs to implement
integrated urban and territorial planningmust be established.

11.4

CULTURE AND HERITAGE
FOR MORE SUSTAINABLE,
INCLUSIVE AND OPEN
CITIES AND SOCIETIES58

SDG 11.4 addresses the need for greater
efforts to protect the world’s cultural andnatural heritage. This is one of the most
explicit references to cultural aspects inthe 2030 Agenda, together with those foundin SDGs 4.7, 8.3 and 8.9. Even if they are still
relatively low-profile, the 2030 Agenda
represents a significant step forward in
the extent to which cultural aspects are
considered and included in sustainable
development agendas. By comparison, theMDGs adopted in 2000 made no precise
references to cultural dimensions and only
during implementation were these explored
and addressed.

63

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

This progress is consistent with thegrowing recognition of the importance of
cultural aspects, including heritage, insustainable development as well as the
specific implications these may have at
the local level.59 Cultural rights are often
exercised at the local level.60 Accordingly,
local governments have a significant role inthe design and implementation of cultural
policies. Since the adoption of Agenda 21
for Culture in 2004, LRGs have advocatedthe strengthening of local cultural policies
and participatory governance frameworks
connected to sustainable development.
The 3rd UCLG World Congress, held in
Mexico City in 2010, adopted a Policy
Statement entitled ‘Culture: Fourth Pillar of
Sustainable Development’. There followed
the espousal of the ‘Culture 21: Actions’toolkit in 2015 which allowed cities acrossthe world to share a common framework
for the operationalization of culture in theirapproach to sustainable development,
enabling them to innovate, evaluate andexchange their policies and programmes.61
In the coming years, improvement of
indicators and data collection mechanisms— in particular relating to culture — willbe essential. To this end, in 2017 and 2018
UNESCO convened two Expert Workshops
on Measuring Culture in the SDGs. These
focused not only on SDG 11.4 but also otheraspects, with the aim of proposing national
and local indicators and methodologies
which adopt a broad thematic approach.
Indeed, evidence collected by LGAs andnetworks in past years suggests that
cultural aspects will play a pivotal role in
the achievement of the 2030 Agenda, even
where the connection between the culturaldimension and the SDGs is only implicit. In
2018, the UCLG Committee on Culture will
present two specific outputs to highlight
this commitment – the document ‘Culturein the SDGs: A Guide for Local Action’, and
the Agenda 21 for Culture Good PracticeDatabase (see Box 4.8.).

Cultural and heritage policies insupport of integrated and inclusive
cities and communities

Countless cities and territories have set
up and promoted policies to safeguard andenhance heritage and other cultural areas.
The brief overview of initiatives that follows
illustrates this commitment.

!

BOX 4.7.

CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT IN CULTURE
AND THE SDGs
Several international civil society networks haveactively campaigned for the acknowledgement that
culture is a significant component of sustainable
development, providing evidence of this in theirown work. In the field of heritage, the work of theInternational Council on Monuments and Sites(ICOMOS) is notable. Through its research, capacitybuilding and advocacy efforts, ICOMOS has developeda range of tools and recommendations to contributeto the implementation of Target 11.4. Similarly, theInternational Federation of Library Associations
and Institutions (IFLA) has put forward tools andrecommendations to help libraries implement the2030 Agenda. ICOMOS, IFLA and UCLG were among
members of ‘The Future We Want Includes Culture’
campaign, which advocated stronger inclusion ofculture in the 2030 Agenda.

BOX 4.8.

ILLUSTRATING THE LINKS BETWEENCULTURE AND THE SDGs
The UCLG report ‘Culture in the Sustainable
Development Goals: A Guide for Local Action’ (2018)
identifies connections between cultural aspects andall the SDGs. These are illustrated with examples
from cities across the world. They emphasize theimportance of decentralization, localization andparticipatory governance, and highlight participationin cultural life, cultural liberties, heritage anddiversity as fundamental values in their own right aswell as enabling factors for other areas of sustainable
development.
The UCLG report draws on over 130 examples ofculture and sustainable development collected by the
UCLG Committee on Culture. These are accessible
via the Agenda 21 for Culture Good Practice Database(http://obs.agenda21culture.net). Examples are indexedby the 17 SDGs, the nine thematic commitments ofCulture 21 Actions, and a set of keywords.

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

64

62
For more information,please see: http://
whc.unesco.org/en/
globalstrategy/.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Protecting tangible and intangible cultural
heritage can become a driver of bottom-up
policy coherence led by LRGs and involving
increased participation of citizens and civilsociety. Several cities, such as Regensburg(Germany), have adopted World Heritage
management plans62 and been successful
in involving local citizens and integrating
cultural heritage in policy areas such asurban planning, economic development andtourism. Others, including those mentioned
here, have increased their efforts towards
the integration of heritage protection in otherareas of policy-making.
In the context of urbanization — whichputs pressure on heritage assets — it isparticularly important for cities to protect
cultural heritage and position culture as a key
element in the renovation of historic centres
and inclusive urban planning. Cities suchas Cuenca (Ecuador) have acknowledged
and promoted cultural assets and rights,
leading to effective policies of inclusive urban
planning and regeneration. The culturaldimension of sustainable development is now
acknowledged in the other policy areas that
support it. Citizen involvement is particularly
important to ensure that heritage also retains
its contemporary relevance.
The cultural dimension can also be linked
to poverty reduction (SDG 1) and decent
employment (SDG 8) and be mainstreamed
into a long-term vision of local sustainable
development. The Shire of Yarra Ranges(Australia), for example, was able to reconcile
urban attractiveness with inclusiveness.
Local governments mobilized local socialand economic stakeholders to shift
tourism policies towards decent economic
opportunities for local artists and creative
businesses. Under local leadership, Yarra
Ranges attracted funding from state andfederal governments to improve cultural
facilities, while at the same time protecting its
cultural and natural heritage, implementing
effective employability mechanisms andpromoting a dynamic understanding of
citizens’ needs.

Local governments are determined tobe laboratories for testing effective andappropriate cultural solutions

The example of Pekalongan (Indonesia),
identifying itself as the ‘City of Batik’, is also
a compelling story of how local governments
can foster women’s social and economic
empowerment through cultural policies.
In 2011, the city decided to invest in theeconomic potential of its cultural heritage,
the Batik sector, where 60% of the workers
are women. This strategic decision helped
promote decent work, empower women
and, through them, improve the wellbeingof their households. It also raised municipal
finances, generating increased capacity for
public authorities.
In UCLG’s Bogotá Commitment (2016),
LRGs acknowledged culture as a vitalelement of citizenship and co-existence.
It recognized cultural diversity as aprerequisite for innovation, co-responsibility
and the peaceful resolution of internaland external conflicts. Post-conflict cities,
such as Medellín (Colombia), explored theconnections between cultural heritage, social
inclusion and cohesion goals. Several otherlocal governments have implemented local
cultural policies that have been instrumental
for gender equality and the recognition ofvulnerable groups and their cultural rights(e.g. Afro-Colombian indigenous communities
or internally displaced people, among others).
Awareness-raising on diversity andinclusion, the promotion of interculturaland intergenerational dialogue, and theintegration of cultural aspects in educational
and lifelong learning strategies arefundamental to achieving this goal. Cities
such as Gabrovo (Bulgaria) have adopted
policies fostering knowledge transfer fromlocal rural communities to urban areas,
including the 'Welcome to the Village'
project, which enabled children to learn
from older persons living in rural areas.
Likewise, the city of Jeonju (South Korea)
has included the appreciation of traditional
culture in education and lifelong-learning
programmes, helping both children andadults understand the importance oftraditional buildings, intangible heritage andother cultural dimensions of housing.
Local governments are determined tobe laboratories for testing effective andappropriate cultural solutions to global
problems, acknowledging their positive impact
and sharing the lessons learned. In 2016, thecity of Timbuktu (Mali) was the recipient of thesecond edition of the International Award UCLG
— Mexico City — Culture 21, acknowledging its

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

leading role and the contribution of its culturaldimension in the achievement of the SDGs.
Timbuktu presented the outstanding, lasting
results of its strategy of socio-economic
and urban fabric reinvigoration in the city,much-needed after its occupation in 2012
and 2013. The initiative strengthened local
cultural heritage, defended citizens’ freedom
to maintain their cultural practices, andpromoted culture as a strategy for resilienceand sustainable cohabitation.
Finally, there is a clear link between
cultural protection and the preservation of
ecosystems on land and in water (SDGs 14
and 15). Traditional knowledge connectedto the preservation of natural resources
has been acknowledged by some local
governments and deserves further attention.
The Seed Swap Festival in Seferihisar (Turkey)
and the Ha Long Ecomuseum (Vietnam), forexample, are unique cultural experiences that
promote land and water preservation. The
former allows local producers to maintaintraditional, low-cost agricultural practices,while also raising awareness about the needto preserve sustainable food production andconsumption. The province of Jeju (South
Korea) has committed to preserve thecustom of haenyeo (women divers) as an ecofriendly sustainable fishing practice, rooted in
traditional knowledge. Through preservationand promotion of such heritage, Jeju has also
raised women’s status in the community.

The way forward

The following proposals are drawn from city
practices in alignment with the commitmentsof the Agenda 21 for Culture to reinforce thecultural dimension as the fourth pillar of
local, national and international sustainable
development strategies.
The priority is to develop capacitybuilding programmes targeting all relevant
development actors (local governments,
CSOs, private actors, development agencies,etc.). The exchange of good practice on
culture and local sustainable development
must be fostered by local governments and
CSOs at national and international level.
Participatory mechanisms in local cultural
policies and programmes must be adopted,
enabling the cultural rights of all citizens to
be exercised, recognizing the important role of
CSOs and ensuring transparent, accountablepolicy-making.
To better integrate culture in local
sustainable policies, local governments

shouldpromoteappropriate
crossdepartmental collaboration to design,
implement and evaluate policies andprogrammes where cultural aspects intersectwith the economic, social, educational andenvironmental dimensions. At the same time,
it is important to integrate a ‘cultural impact
assessment’ mechanism which allows forthe preliminary consideration of the potential
cultural implications of measures adopted indifferent areas, such as urban regeneration,transportation and mobility, and economic
development.
Important evidence must be collected on the
explicit and implicit references made to cultural
aspects (tangible and intangible heritage,
creativity, diversity, etc.) in national, regional
and local sustainable development strategies,
designed in accordance with the SDGs.
Lastly, it is essential to establish appropriate
data collection and research mechanisms
which contribute to a better understanding of
the synergies between cultural aspects andother areas of sustainable development.

Haenyeo woman diver in Jeju, Republic of Korea (photo by Austronesian Expeditions, flickr.com)

65

66

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

11.5

MAKING CITIESSUSTAINABLE AND
RESILIENT: PROGRESS ON
DISASTER RISK REDUCTION(DRR) AND RESILIENCEBUILDING AT THE LOCALLEVEL63
Urban disasters are escalating, with a rising
human and economic cost.64 It is estimatedthat disasters cause annual losses of USD
314 billion in the built environment alone.65
SDG 11.5 focuses on reducing the number ofpeople killed or affected by urban disasters,
and on substantially decreasing the direct
economic costs relative to the global Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) caused by disasters.
This includes those that are water-related,focusing particularly on protecting the poorand people in vulnerable situations.
LRGs’ role in addressing disaster risks
has been increasingly acknowledged ininternational commitments, in particularin the Sendai Framework which clearlyhighlights their part in Disaster Risk
Reduction (DRR) strategies.66 LRGs havehuge responsibilities to ensure resilienceto protect the health, safety and wellbeingof their residents, as well as promotesustainable development in their territories.
In practice, LRGs act in key areas suchas urban planning (SDG 11.3), transport(SDG 11.2), energy efficiency (SDG 7.3), andstrategies to prevent climate change and thegreenhouse effect (SDG 15).
Resilience is the ability of a person,
community or city to adapt to changing
conditions and to withstand shocks while
maintaining essential functions. It cannot
be achieved without the involvement ofpublic institutions — at all levels — and local
stakeholders. Being the nearest level to local
communities, LRGs also have significant
responsibilities in reducing the social andeconomic impacts of disasters on vulnerable
populations living in hazard-prone areas, bypromoting social housing (SDG 11.1).
The Making Cities Resilient Campaign iscoordinated by UNISDR. Alongside otherinitiatives developed by LRG networks (e.g.
ICLEI, UCLG), partners (100 Resilient Cities)
and UN agencies (UN Habitat resilience
programme) (see Box 4.9.), it promotes
disaster resilience-building in cities by raisingawareness among LRGs and providing tools,
technical assistance, city-to-city support
networks, and learning opportunities.67

Floods in Bangkok (photo by Brigitte Leoni, UNISDR, flickr.com)

The effort to strengthen local
capacities

It is essential to ensure that there is sufficient
capacity to address urban crises at the local
level so that LRGs can increase their urban
resilience and implement DRR strategies
at every stage — i.e. in their mitigation,
preparedness, response and recovery. ‘Areabased approaches’, tailoring responses to thespecific local contexts, is central.
In 2017, a UNISDR study of 151 local
governments in different regions of theworld highlighted the gap between power
and responsibility. On average, 88% of
local governments are ‘fully or partially’
responsible for undertaking risk analysis
within their administrative boundaries, while
only 28% of local governments report having
the ‘full’ technical capacity to undertake DRR
actions and 25% of local governments report‘not having’ adequate and capable technicalcapacity to undertake risk analysis.68

67

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs!

BOX 4.9.

CITIES’ RESILIENCE INITIATIVES
Making Cities Resilient (MCR) Campaign:
Coordinated by UNISDR, the MCR Campaign
supports sustainable urban development bypromoting resilience activities and increasing
local level understanding of disaster risk.
Launched in 2010, the campaign’s principal
target groups are mayors and local
government leaders of cities and towns
of different sizes. A ten-point checklistof essentials for making cities resilient
serves as a guide against which cities canmeasure their commitment to improving
their resilience. Since 2015, the Campaign
has entered a new phase with augmented
focus to support the local implementationof the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction while the long-standing advocacy
for disaster risk management and reduction
also continues. The Disaster Resilience
Scorecard for Cities69 and other tools weredeveloped for local governments to assess
the progress of disaster resilience-building.
The results of this assessment help prioritize
actions towards risk-informed development.
The campaign is supported by UN Habitat,
other UN organizations, the World Bank, theEuropean Union, The Asian Development
Bank as well as LRG organizations (UCLG,ICLEI and CityNet).
Resilient Cities: Created by ICLEI in 2009,
Resilient Cities held its 9th Congress in Bonn
(Germany) in April 2018.70 ICLEI defines
resilience strategies as those that focus on atleast three components: climate resilience/
adaptation, other natural disasters (e.g.
earthquakes) and human-induced disasters.
In 2017, 155 LRGs reported their climate
adaptation or integrated plans as either
completed or in progress at the 'Carbon
Climate Registry’.71 In addition, 217 cities
use the CRAFT72 tool to report their climate
hazards and risks in compliance with the
Global Covenant of Mayors. Collectively,
these reporting entities have announced
more than 2,000 climate adaptation actions,
70% of which were funded by local resources.
Urban Resilience Programme (URP):
Launched in 2016, URP is based on work
started in 2012 under the City Resilience
Profiling Programme (CRPP). CRPP has
been active in 20 countries and goes beyond
conventional approaches to ‘risk reduction’,encompassingthespatial,physical,functional and organizational dimensionsof any human settlement. URP projects
and activities are organized across threemain ‘pillars’: 1) technical cooperation, 2)
advocacy, and 3) knowledge. UN Habitat
hosts the Urban Resilience Hub which pools
the contribution of partner cities, academia,
governments, international organizations
and other resilience champions. The MCR
Campaign is a partner of the Hub, as wellas RESCCUE, Risk Nexus Initiative, Urban
Resilience Institute, Post-Disaster Housing
and the Global Alliance for Urban Crises – allof which connect the Hub with the main cities
networks (UCLG, ICLEI and C40).
100 Resilient Cities (100RC): 100RC was
created by the Rockefeller Foundation in
2013. 100RC supports the adoption andincorporation of resilience to include not justthe shocks – earthquakes, fires, floods, etc. –but also the stresses that weaken the fabric ofa city on a day-to-day or cyclical basis. Cities
in the 100RC network are provided with theresources necessary to develop a roadmap
to resilience using four main pathways: 1)
establish a Chief Resilience Officer in the city
government, 2) support the development ofa Resilience Strategy, 3) access solutions,services, providers and partners fromprivate, public and NGO sectors, and 4) joina global network of member cities to sharelearning and best practice.
Global Alliance for Urban Crises: This isa large platform bringing together over 65
institutions, encompassing humanitarianand development agencies, academic
bodies, LRG networks and professionals;
and arose as a result of consultations held
for the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS)in May 2016. It implements initiatives infour areas: 1) tailoring the humanitarian
response to the urban context, 2) developing
or working on rosters of experts, 3)building the evidence base of specificcharacteristics of protracted displacement
in urban areas and cost-effective responses
for the protection of vulnerable people
and infrastructures, and 4) ensuring thaturban resilience-building incorporates
components on resilient response andrecovery. 73

63This section wasdeveloped by UNISDR and
UCLG.
64
Malalgoda C,
Amaratunga D, and Haigh
R (2016), Overcoming
challenges faced by local
governments in creating aresilient built environment
in cities, Disaster Prevention
and Management: An
International Journal, vol.
25, pp. 628-648.
65
UNISDR (2017), How To
Make Cities More Resilient
A Handbook For Local
Government Leaders.
66

In its paragraph 48, p. 26.

Johnson C and BlackburnS (2014), Advocacy for
urban resilience: UNISDR’s
Making Cities Resilient
Campaign, Environment and
Urbanization, vol. 26, pp.
29-52.
67

68
UNISDR, Study on LocalLevel Authority and Capacity
for Resilience, September
2017.
69
See also: https://www.
unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/toolkitblkitem/?id=4.
70
See also: https://resilientcities2018.iclei.
org/.
71
These 155 cities andregions constitute around
15% of all reporting entities
at the Carbonn Climate
Registry. See also: www.
carbonn.org.
72
See also: http://www.
c40.org/programmes/
climate-risk-adaptationframework-and-taxonomy.
73
See also: http://
urbancrises.org/.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

68

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

Similarly, the analysis of the Disaster
Resilience Scorecard for Cities (Scorecard)in 2018 reflects the progress made by
local governments towards the Sendai
Framework targets, as well as SDG 11.5
and 11.b.74 Overall, as shown in Figure 4.3.,‘resilient urban development’ is the area
showing most progress (1.56),75 followed by‘risk identification’ (1.52), ‘enhancement of
ecosystems’ protective functions’ (1.49) and‘disaster risk governance’ (1.46).
For example, a growing number of cities
have committed to take actions to implement
effective DRR strategies. Some LRGs suchas Aqaba (Jordan) or Potenza (Italy) havemainstreamed DRR into their local plans.
Viewed as a model city for ‘localizing DRR’,
Aqaba is currently using a risk-sensitive
approach to identify the most exposedand vulnerable areas and update its Land
Use Master Plan. Similarly, Potenza hasdeveloped a Territorial Coordination Plan,approved in 2013, to incorporate directives
and recommendations on disaster risk
mitigation and support local actors to develop
and promote actions that lead to resilience.
Conversely, the UNISDR study finds that‘financial capacity for resilience’ (1.02) andsecuring a substantial budget for DRR are theareas that need most improvement.76 LRGs
have limited knowledge of how to attract
resilience investment. Incentives to support
resilience-building or use of insurance asa risk transfer mechanism are noticeablyrare in almost all cities. Only 39% of local
governments have a financial plan that allows
for DRR activities with a ring-fenced budget.
Studies highlight a disproportionately highallocation of disaster-related funds going torelief and reconstruction, while those that arefor mitigation and risk reduction are much
lower by comparison.77 Moreover, as the caseof Port-au-Prince (Haiti) shows, failure to
support fiscal capacities of secondary cities
and build a resilient system of cities increases
the pressure on the capital city and, over time,
hampers its capacity to deal with emergency
situations.78
Greater urban resilience requires more
efforts to build local institutional capacity. The
Scorecard assessment reveals relatively low
institutional capacity in the following areas:
data-sharing among relevant institutions;availability of training courses covering risk
reduction and resilience issues for all sectors;
and access to skills and experience to reducerisks and respond to identified disaster
scenarios. However, all regions are proactively
seeking to enhance their knowledge andlearn from other local governments facing
similar challenges. For example, as part ofits strategy to measure the city’s resilience
performance, Lisbon Municipality (Portugal)
implemented a web dashboard with a GIS
approach to centralize data in order to better
monitor its resilience processes.
Lastly, LRGs are important partners for
implementing initiatives to address the
FIGURE 4.3.

OVERALL PROGRESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN DISASTER RESILIENCE AND RISK REDUCTION (BY REGIONS)

3
2
1

AfricaAmericafr
In

Arab Statesil dbe b ac
tt k
er

Bu

al
et
ci
So

na
tio
itu
st
In

Asia

as
t
r e r uc
si tu
l ie rnc ale
Pan r e
d pa
re r
sp at
on ion
se

ty
ci
ca

ap
lc

os
ec
al
ur
at

N

pa

ac

te
ys

pm
lo
ve
de
n

ba
Ur

it y

m

t
en

it y
ac
ap
lc
ia
nc

na
Fi

en
id
sk
Ri

Go

ve

tif

ic

rn

at

an

io

ce

n

0

69

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

post-disaster effects. Some have developed
specific tools that have been shared by LGAs
and networks (see Box 4.9.). For example,
the city of Stepanavan (Armenia) usedthe Local Government Self-Assessment
Tool (LGSAT)79 to create a City Resilience
Taskforce for assessing the city’s disaster
resilience. The municipality was able toidentify gaps in its management capacityand develop a detailed City Resilience Action
Plan which was later mainstreamed into thecitywide development plan.

Building a resilient local ecosystemof actors

Furthermore, LRGs need support fromlocal actors to create communities resilient
to disasters and better able to address
emergency needs. The New Urban Agenda
explicitly mentions the role of LRGs andother urban actors — public and private— in supporting at-risk communities andthose prone to ‘recurrent and protracted
humanitarian crises’.80 In this regard, theisland of Lanzarote (Canary Islands), which
is at risk from a variety of natural hazards
such as storms and flooding, elaborated
its 2020 Sustainable Development Strategy
on the basis of an assessment of current
vulnerabilities and challenges. More than 200
people and 33 different sectors were involved.
The exercise enabled the municipality todevelop eight Local Action Plans.
When it comes to engaging with private

sector businesses and employers for disaster
resilience, the Scorecard assessment showsmost cities rank low. However, some progress
can be seen in strengthening the capacities
of vulnerable groups and social networks,
reflecting greater engagement on the part oflocal governments to ‘leave no one behind’.
Encouraging the proactive involvement of‘crisis-affected populations’ has been oneof the strategies that some cities — such as
the District of Rimac in Lima (Peru) — havedeveloped. The municipality has engaged ina participatory DRR building process to help
people identify seismic risk factors in theirdistricts. This community mapping allowed
the municipality to increase its capacity in risk
identification and get citizens involved in risk
plans and programmes.
Lastly, prioritizing local municipal leadershipin finding appropriate solutions to urban crises(in line with development plans) is an issue
particular to SDG 11.b’s implementation. Thistargets the substantial increase in the numberof cities implementing integrated plans towards
inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation andadaptation to climate change and resilience
to disasters. The Scorecard indicates that, on
average, 85% of participating LRGs have plansthat offer full or partial compliance with the
Sendai Framework. However, only 12% of LRGs
are implementing a fully integrated DRR planin accordance with the Sendai Framework andall ‘Ten Essentials’. In contrast, 15% of local
governments do not have any plans in thisregard (see Figure 4.4.).

74
The analysis is based on the
Scorecard assessments of 169
cities from Asia (51), Americas(48), Africa (50), and Arab States(20), completed in 2017-2018. The
Scorecard is structured aroundthe ‘Ten Essentials for Making
Cities Resilient’ (MRC Campaign).
The initiative was supported by
the European Commission.
75‘Resilient urban development’is a part of the ‘Ten Essentials
for Making Cities Resilient’of the
MRC Campaign. It refers to the‘built environment’ according
to building regulations andcontext-specific scenarios.
This ‘essential’ includes land
zoning and management,risk-aware planning, design
and implementation of newbuildings, neighbourhoods andinfrastructure, and availability
and application of building codes.
76
Gaillard J.C. and Maceda E.A.
(2009), Participatory threedimensional mapping for disasterrisk reduction, Community-based
adaptation to climate change, vol.
60, pp. 109-118.
77
Malalgoda C, AmaratungaD, and Haigh R, overcoming
challenges faced by local
governments in creating aresilient built environment incities, Disaster Prevention andManagement: An International
Journal, vol. 25, pp. 628-648,
2016.
78
UNDESA, UNCDF (2017),
Financing sustainable urban
development in the Least
Developed Countries.
79
LG-SAT is the predecessor
version of the Disaster Resilience
Scorecard for Cities developed
under the MRC Campaign.
80
Global Alliance for Urban Crisis(2016), Habitat III: the New Urban
Agenda Key Messages.

FIGURE 4.4.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESILIENCE PLANS

No plans / compliance
Plans offering par}al compliance with Sendai Frameworkand covering some of the Ten Essentials

15%

20%

Stand-alone DRR plan complying with Sendai Framework
and addressing all of the Ten Essentials
Fully integrated DRR plan, full Sendai Framework 		
compliance and coverage across all of the Ten Essentials

23%

6%

6%

54%
61%

57%

63%

12%
12%

17%
6%

10%
4%

Overall

Asia

Africa80%
10%30%America

10%
Arab States

70

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

The way forward

In order to achieve SDGs 11.5 and 11.bat the local level, the following actions
can contribute to support LRGs inunderstanding disaster resilience andstrengthening it governance, preparedness
and financing, with the aim to prevent,reduce impact and 'build back better'. The
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) dimension
should be integrated in local development
plans, policies and budget, including
fiscal incentives, with clear roles andresponsibilities within the local government(e.g.
monitoring,risk
management,
enforcement of city regulations, etc.). Local
governments should conduct periodical
participatory assessments to identify
the most common disaster risks and themethods to reduce their impact, updatingrisk-mapping. It should also develop early
warning systems in high-risk areas. Building
codes and zoning regulations should be
updated and better enforced to improve
rehabilitation and reconstruction standards.
The staff in charge of local DRR strategy
need to regularly receive capacity-building
training.
Local disaster risk governance must
be strengthened through coalitions oflocal actors including public and private
partners. Awareness-raising exercises
are necessary to ensure a better citizen
response to disasters, particularly fromchildren in schools. Communities andrelated agencies should be more involved
in risk assessments and identification ofvulnerabilities. Lastly, they should be partof the drafting of the Intervention andEvacuation Plan, receive briefing sessions
and participate in exercises to ensure
better response to disasters
More efforts are necessary to identify
traditional and alternative funding for
DRR. Different tiers of governments
should set up coherent mechanisms at
the local level as well as financial and tax
incentives to encourage the private sector
to invest in risk reduction. New investment
opportunities include investing in green andblue infrastructure. Moreover, stakeholders
should find innovative and responsible ways
to increase viable insurance opportunities.
Lastly, all stakeholders, in particular
LRGs should support the implementationof the ‘Ten Essentials for Making Cities
Resilient’ checklist (MRC Campaign).

11.6

THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT OF CITIES, AIRQUALITY AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT81
Reducing the environmental impact of cities is
inextricably linked with improving air quality
and waste management. In 2014, 9 out of
10 people in urban areas were breathing airthat did not meet the WHO safety standard
for particulate matter (PM2.5). Less thanhalf the waste generated is currently being
collected and appropriately processed, andup to two billion people do not have accessto solid waste collection.82 In view of thesechallenges, it is no surprise then that the2030 Agenda contains four sub-goals that
explicitly mention the management of air
pollution and solid waste: SDG 3.9, SDG 11.6,
SDG 12.4 and SDG 12.5.
These targets have profound transdisciplinary ramifications that transcend
individual goals. Improper waste management
and increasing air pollution can havecatastrophic health consequences (SDG
3). Man-made greenhouse gas emissions,from the housing sector and black carbon
emissions — a major component ofparticulate air pollution — as well as poor
waste management have a significant impact
on climate action (SDG 13) and life on land
(SDG 15). Poor waste management also
compromises water sources (SDG 6) andcontributes to ocean pollution (SDG 14). Local
public policies based on reducing air pollution
should encompass a border perspective,
highlighting their interaction with other
SDG dimensions. Providing sustainable andefficient urban services, such as housing(SDG 11.1), transportation (SDG 11.2), energy
services (SDG 7.3), green and public spaces(11.7), as well as promoting sustainableconsumption and production patterns (SDG 12)
and sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems(SDG 15) are some of the fields in which local
and regional governments can address air
pollution challenges in urban areas.

71

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

FIGURE 4.5.

Paying special attention to air quality

In 2016, the number of premature deaths
worldwide caused by ambient (outdoor) air
pollution in cities and rural territories wasover 4.2 million, whilst 3.8 million deaths
were attributed to poor and inefficienthousehold energy-use practices such as
solid fuels and kerosene for cooking. SubSaharan Africa, most of Asia and Oceania(excluding Australia/New Zealand), have thehighest mortality rates from air pollution.
Alongside climate change mitigation, an
increasing number of cities are committed
to developing actions to reduce air
contamination. One of the most visible
commitments by cities on the world stage is
The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate
and Energy,83 which has more than 7,600
cities and towns participating. The initiative
has contributed to establishing standardized
measurements to assess the impact of cities’
actions regarding GHG emissions and air
quality improvement in urban areas.
Metropolitan cities have already establishedtools for monitoring air pollution and someof them have adopted Action Plans for
Air Quality. In general, these plans have astrong focus on transport pollution, including
measures to tackle inefficient fossil fuelcombustion from motor vehicles (e.g. avoiding
polluting vehicles), a ban on diesel cars (Oslo Norway), electric public transport, permanentor temporary traffic restriction policies,
traffic-free zones, alternate day travel, ‘carfree days’, congestion pricing schemes, aswell as alternative mobility modes (cycling
networks) and use of new technologies toreduce traffic congestion (see SDG 11.2). It
is worth mentioning cities such as Athens(Greece), Beijing (China), Bogotá (Colombia),
Jakarta (Indonesia), Manila (the Philippines),
Madrid (Spain), Mexico City (Mexico), New
Delhi (India), Paris (France), Rome (Italy) andSão Paulo (Brazil) among others.
To improve air quality, an integrated
and multi-sectoral approach is needed todevelop consistent public policies oriented
towards the improvement of quality of life forall. Reducing urban pollution also requires
adequate urban planning and upgrading
infrastructures and services. Cities such as
Beijing, for example, began to take targeted
actions to control air pollution, relocating
polluting industries from the urban coreareas (more than 1,200 polluting plants
had been removed by the end 2016). Others
reduce the operations of more polluting
industries during the peaks of pollution.

PROPORTION OF THE URBAN POPULATION LIVING IN AREAS
THAT MEET THE ANNUAL WHO AIR QUALITY GUIDELINE VALUEFOR PARTICULATE MATTER OF LESS THAN 2.5 MICROMETRES(PM2.5), 2014 (%)
Australia and New Zeeland

100%

Oceania50%(Excluding Australia and New Zeeland)

Europe and Northern America

50%

40%

Latin America and the Caribbean

60%

15%

85%

Central and Southern Asia

100%

Eastern and South Eastern Asia

100%

Sub-Saharan Africa

100%

Nothern Africa and Western Asia

100%

WORLD

10%
0

Meets WHO air quality guidelines

90%
20

40

60

80

100

Does not meet WHO air quality guidelines

At the same time, cities look to grow green
spaces. Edmonton (Canada), for example,
has developed the Urban Forest Management
Plan to ensure a sustainable managementof the city’s urban forest, while reducing
energy costs and improving air quality for its
inhabitants. A comprehensive plan was also
adopted in Buzau municipality (Romania),
where the development of an inventory of
GHG emissions has contributed to reducing
and monitoring energy consumption of publicbuildings such as schools.
Some cities of the Global South are
moving towards promoting the use ofmodern cooking fuels or renewable energy
to reduce indoor and outdoor air pollution.
Indeed, local governments can be very
effective in supporting public awarenesscampaigns on the benefits of clean cooking,proper use and safety. The emergence ofalternative, smaller, decentralized energy
systems are creating new opportunities
for local governments to address locally
distributed energy services in partnershipwith communities and small enterprises.
Rooftop solar can provide economic
development opportunities for cities throughthe creation of local businesses and jobs.
Since November 2014, the city of Bengaluru
in the state of Karnataka (India) has been

81
We want to acknowledge
the International Solid Waste
Association (ISWA) for theircontribution to this section:
Antonis Mavropoulos,
President, and Aditi Ramola,
Technical Director.
82
ISWA-UNEP (2015). Global
Waste Management Outlook,
Summary of Decision-Makers.
83
See also: http://impact.
globalcovenantofmayors.org/.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

72

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

encouraging the growth of rooftop solar PV
systems through the implementation of anet-metering policy.84
Housing conditions also have an impact
on health in terms of building siting andland use, choice of construction materials,
design features, ventilation and energy.
The housing sector is responsible forapproximately 19% of GHG emissions andapproximately one third of black carbon
emissions. Local governments havedirect responsibilities in monitoring andenforcing building standards. In Shenzhen(China), the municipal government has
promulgated rules requiring specific green
building standards for affordable housing
projects in the city.

Current trends in waste production
and management

At the global level, developing anddeveloped countries face very different
challenges in waste management. In highincome countries, which account for half of
all waste generated, close to 100% of waste
is collected and between 95% and 100%is under controlled disposal.85 In middleincome countries, significant progress has
been made in the past few years, with around
64% of waste collection coverage in lower-

FIGURE 4.6.

PROPORTION OF POPULATION SERVED BY MUNICIPALWASTE COLLECTION, 2017

Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and withadequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated
Europe and Northern America

96.0%

Eastern and South Eastern Asia

85.0%

Latin America and the Caribbean

73.9%

Nothern Africa and Western Asia

70.5%

World

65.2%

Oceania

48.4%(Excluding Australia and New Zeeland)

Small island developing states

47.2%

Landlocked developing countries

46.3%

Central and Southern Asia

41.3%

Sub-Saharan Africa

40.5%

Least developed countries

39.3%
0

20

40

Source: UN Statistics Division, OurWorldinData.org

60

80

100

middle income countries and 82% in upper
middle-income countries. Nearly two thirds
is sent to landfill and the remainder to open
dumps. Although low-income countries
generate relatively little household waste,
median collection coverage is still around50%. In lower-income countries, waste
disposal is often in the form of uncontrolled
dumpsites with open burning. It is estimatedthat at least three billion people worldwide
still lack access to controlled waste disposal
facilities.86 Figure 4.6. offers an analysis byregion. There is also enormous variation inservice provision across and within cities,
especially between slum and non-slumareas.
In the Global South, some of the main
challenges are: i) lack of availability of data
pertaining to waste generation, processing,and disposal; (ii) open dumping and burningof waste; (iii) weak governance issues; iv)
lack of sufficient funds to adequately address
the waste problem, and an unwillingness
or inability on the part of citizens to pay for
waste management; and (v) formalizing theinformal sector, thus providing informal
sector workers with workplace safety,
secure and adequate pay and a dignified
livelihood. On the other hand, in high upper
middle-income countries, where waste
management is usually well-developed andwhere per capita consumption of resources
is much higher, a significant challenge forwaste governance is to find ways to reduce
unnecessary consumption and waste, andto implement the 3R (or 4R) — reduce,reuse, recycle (and recover) — paradigm
with maximum efficiency. In these countries,
where a large amount of municipal solid
waste is recyclable and the volume ofmaterials subject to recycling is large, evena small improvement in the efficiency of therecycling process can pay major dividends,
both economically and environmentally (seeexamples below).
In terms of the governance of waste
there are several facets, including thelaying down of institutional, financial andplanning frameworks, waste legislation
and regulations, and implementation.87
While national governments typicallyplay a central role in waste legislation
and regulation, the responsibilities for
waste management are often assigned
to sub-national governments. Their role,
however, can vary widely depending on
the decentralization frameworks in each

73

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

country. As a public service that requires
the effective coordination and integrationof several actors and stakeholders, and theseamless integration of local and nationallaws and policies, waste management raises
several issues for MLG. The UN International
Guidelines on Decentralization and Accessto Basic Services calls for the clarificationof roles and responsibilities in theorganization and delivery of basic services
and for partnerships between stakeholders,within a framework of decentralization.
The increasing complexity of waste
management — related to urban expansion,
rising waste generation, economies of scale,technological changes, etc. — has opened
the way to different management models.
Public management (either in-house, sharedor via public utilities) could be combined withoutsourcing different parts of services to theprivate sector. Furthermore, implementationof waste management often involves intermunicipal partnerships or different levelsof government (municipalities, counties,
regions). For example, in Brazil, sub-national
government authorities are responsible forthe implementation of waste management
legislation, while in St. Lucia a national-levelsolid waste management authority has this role.

Rethinking waste management as aprecondition for sustainable cities

SDG 11.6 refers to waste management since
it addresses the environmental impact of
cities. There have been numerous initiatives
at the local level to adapt waste management
technologies, processes and externalities
to the requirements of sustainability andresilience. These have implications for thedevelopment of ‘cradle-to-cradle’ systemsof waste management, as well as the linkage
between sustainable waste treatment
and the circular economy. San Francisco(United States), for example, has achieved
selective waste sorting for 80% of its total
waste production through its tax system, as
well as financial incentives to lower waste
production. One of the measures introducedby the city is a compulsory and wellestablished organic waste recycling systemthat produces compost for the region’s
farmers. In Geneva (Switzerland), where theconcept of the circular economy has alreadybeen included in the canton's constitution,a collaborative platform was developed toallow enterprises to exchange methods

and resources on the circular economy.88
Where waste services are sporadic or
inaccessible there are several examples
of initiatives at the local level involving
citizens collaborating outside existing waste
management structures. For example, in
the Indian cities of Delhi and Bengaluru,
entrepreneurs have founded collection
services using mobile apps whereby theycollect certain waste streams directly fromhouseholds on demand and pay the citizens
for the waste. In several low and middleincome countries, the informal sector plays
a significant role in providing collection
and recycling infrastructure for selective
waste treatment, which can affect the urban
geography of public service provision. As
cities and municipalities develop their waste
management plans, they should be aware of
the impact of their policies on the informal
sector and should strive to include them intheir plans.

Inclusion through effective waste
management and the challenge of
informality

Waste management accessibility, affordability and quality significantly impact bothcity and territory inclusiveness. Whenwaste services are provided informally —without sufficient guarantees in terms ofhealth, environmental protection, governanceand licensing — both socio-economic
marginalization and segregation grow. Many
LRGs are promoting strong collaborations
with informal workers and local actors,
including grassroots associations andthe private sector. The quality and extent
of service provision can also impact thesocial dimension of adequate public service
delivery. In several cities around the world
where municipalities struggle to provide
adequate waste collection and management
services, the informal sector plays a very
important role in managing the waste of thecity.89 There are examples of partnerships
betweenwaste
pickers
andlocal
governments in many cities in the Global
South (Dhaka in Bangladesh, Manila in thePhilippines, and different cities in Brazil,
Peru, Mexico and South Africa) where, forexample, formal solid waste collection
systems collect recyclables separately andthen provide these to waste pickers in sorting
centres (see Box 4.10.). This system hasdeveloped further by waste pickers forming

84
World Resources Report(September 2017), Powering
Cities in the Global South:
How Energy Access for All
Benefits the Economy and theEnvironment, Washington, WRI.
85
According to Eurostat, theEU recycled or composted
45% of its municipal waste
in 2015, up from 25.3% in
2000. Eurostat, Sustainable
development the EU, Monitoring
Report 2017 edition.
86
ISWA-UNEP (2015) chapter
3. Hoornweg, Daniel; BhadaTata, Perinaz. (2012). Whata Waste: A Global Review ofSolid Waste Management,
Washington, DC, World Bank
reported that the averagecollection in high-income
countries is around 90%, in
middle-income countries 75%,
and in low-income countries
41%. UCLG, GOLD III (2014),
Basic Services for All in an
Urbanizing World.
87
The Strategic Planning
Guide for Municipal Waste
Management has createda theoretical frameworkwith six ‘institutional
functions’ involved in a waste
management system, namely
the regulator, policy-maker,
planner, client, operator andrevenue collector. Wilson,
D.C., A. Whiteman & A. Tormin(2001). Strategic planningguide for municipal solid waste
management, World Bank.
Washington, DC, U.S., www.
worldbank.org/urban/solid_
wm/erm/start_up.pdf.
88
See also: http://www.
economiecirculaire.org/. See
also UCLG, GOLD IV (2016), CoCreating the Urban Future.
89
Scheinberg, A., Wilson, D.C.,
Rodic-Wiersma, L. (Eds.).
2010. Solid Waste Managementin the World’s Cities: Waterand Sanitation in the World’s
Cities 2010. United Nations
Human Settlements Program(UNHABITAT).

74

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

their own organizations (and in somenations national federations), for example
the Recyclers Association of Bogotá, whichmeans they can bid for contracts from local
governments for solid waste collection,
recycling, and managing waste collection
from public places. Recognizing thatworkers in this sector tend to represent
the most marginalized in society, there areseveral initiatives worldwide to incorporate
them into the formal sector, providing themwith facilities they would otherwise lack.

!

BOX 4.10.

PARTNERSHIPS WITH WASTE PICKERS: THE
EXPERIENCE OF BELO HORIZONTE (BRAZIL)AND QALYUBEYA (EGYPT)
Belo Horizonte (Brazil) implemented a social policy toimprove the structure of informal employment and raise
the standard of living of the urban poor, which at thesame time led to the development of an Integrated Solid
Waste Management (ISWM) strategy. In the 1990s, local
legislation was changed to promote the collection ofrecyclables by cooperatives of informal waste pickers.
Seeing that a partnership would further improve theirproductivity and help meet both environmental andsocio-economic goals, the city decided to further
integrate the informal sector into municipal waste
management. This helped achieve the four main
objectives of the ISWM namely, to increase the recyclingof waste and encourage social inclusion, job creation andincome generation. Since the introduction of this policy,
management of the waste sector has substantially
improved. In 2008, around 95% of the urban population
and 70% of the population in informal settlements(favelas) received a collection service. In 2013, around
600 waste pickers worked for these cooperatives, which
had a total of 80 sorting warehouses.90
In Qalyubeya Governorate (Egypt), local governments,
in cooperation with international agencies and the private
sector, have developed an integrated system of solid
waste management to encourage citizen and corporate
participation in reducing waste and improving the working
conditions of waste pickers through formal contracts.
Since 2012, approximately 80% of waste collection is
now undertaken by waste pickers and collectors throughformal contracts with the city council, which has led tobetter working conditions and increased employment
opportunities for the urban poor.91

Preserving local competences:the challenge of adequately funding
waste management

Waste management is a key elementof LRGs’ competences. Maintaining anefficient, affordable, accessible andsustainable service in this field comesat significant financial cost. Funding andpreserving the service’s inclusivenessand sustainability represents a significant
challenge for many administrations. Whilst
progress has been made in tariff collection
and financing, subsidies from local,
intermediate and national governments
continue to be vital for a majority of LRGs,
particularly in developing countries. In
high-income countries, waste collection
and management represent around 10%of local budgets (a larger part is financed
from tariffs), whereas in middle-income
countries they represent around 40%92 andin low-income countries 80%-90%. It should
be noted, however, that some cities manage
to balance the budget of their services.93
Affordability is a significant constraint onmunicipal solid waste management services
in lower-income countries. Short-term
solutions must be financially sustainable,
and aspirations must be tailored to what isaffordable.

The way forward

The following policies and actions havebeen identified to support LRGs in reducing
the environmental impact of cities. The firsturgent step is to eliminate open dumping
and burning of waste at the local level.
Effective waste governance depends on
institutional frameworks being in place.
Empowered LRGs with adequate institutional
and technical capacities can ensuresustainable integrated waste management.
Vertical and horizontal coordination between
local, regional and central governments
should be improved. To ensure enforcement,
the roles of legislator and regulator (enforcer)
should be separate from one another.
To improve the efficiency and effectivenessof LRGs and public providers it is necessary
to support human and technical resources
and implement modern management
systems and technologies. Coordinatedservice provision in metropolitan areas andbetween neighbouring local governments cancontribute to ensuring universal coverage.

75

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

All stakeholders should be engaged
in planning and monitoring access to,and quality of, services. The role playedby small-scale and informal workers,
particularly in informal settlements, isoften critical and needs the support of LRGs
and service providers to better coordinate
service delivery and avoid gaps in provision.
An adequate business model andfinancing mechanisms can ensure longterm financial viability to guarantee
universal coverage and sustainable
management of municipal waste systems.
However, in lower-income countries
an increase in current levels of publicfinancing remains essential.
There is an imperative to reduce theamount of waste generated by tackling the
problem at source following the R principles
reduce, reuse, recycle, redesign, and remanufacture. The best way to manage
waste is to include prevention actions
upstream. When applying the concept of thecircular economy to waste management, it
is essential to close the material circle toensure that recycling and energy recovery
are compatible, since there are limits torecycling and at this point energy recovery
needs to be considered.
Globally, there are no definitive figures onwaste generation per capita and this must
be addressed in light of the global goals
and their requirements.94

11.7

UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO
SAFE, INCLUSIVE AND
ACCESSIBLE GREEN AND
PUBLIC SPACES95
The cities’ public spaces have assumed
great relevance in the global agendas, inparticular the SDGs and the New Urban
Agenda, as they are primarily areas forexchange, urban life, social inclusion andcitizenry. The 23rd Governing Council of
UN-Habitat adopted a specific initiative toaddress the issue of public space.96 Many
charters and toolkits designed and adopted

by LRGs encourage stakeholders to lookbeyond the target of allocating 30% of land
to streets and sidewalks and 20% for open
green spaces and public facilities. Despite
this, several cities are still well below thesetargets.97
In contrast to many other areas of urban
policy, public spaces are entirely the
responsibility of local governments, either
officially or by default. They provide a uniqueand tangible opportunity for governance andare therefore potential levers of change inour cities. The interrelated issues of safety,
inclusiveness and accessibility engage LRGs
to drive development at the local level andpromote the ‘Right to the City’, in particular
for women and children, older people andpersons with disabilities.98

Trends in upgrading green andpublic spaces

There has been a worrying trend in the
decline in the stock of public spaces incities, both in developed and, more critically,
developing countries. Land is being lost
either for real-estate speculation or by
privatizing public properties as a means ofraising finance. Privatization of public spaceis also on the increase as many LRGs lackfunds for operation and maintenance. A
lack of adequate policies and regulations on
urban parcelling has resulted in densificationof the city without due environmental andsocial balance. The ever-growing complexityof contemporary cities, with segregation,
unsafe dynamics and uneven distribution of
public resources to name a few, has a direct
impact on public spaces — spaces that areneeded to cope with the current challenges
cities are facing.
Public and green spaces play afundamental role in strategies for genderequality (SDG 5), to facilitate mobility(SDG 11.2), for mitigating and adapting to
the effects of climate change (SDG 13), as
well as helping reduce the risks posed bynatural hazards (SDG 11.5) and threats topublic health (SDG 3). As examples show,
the potential of green belts is increasingly
being used in many city projects. Green
areas are useful for introducing walking
and cycling lanes, creating incentives touse other forms of urban mobility andpromoting citizens’ health and overall
urban life quality.

90
Philipp Rode and Graham
Floater (2013), Going Green.
How Cities Are Leading the next
Economy.
91
See also: http://
policytransfer.metropolis.
org/case-studies/integratedcommunity-based-solidwaste-management.
92
See also: http://www.
worldbank.org/en/topic/
urbandevelopment/brief/solidwaste-management.
93
Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata(2012). See also: UCLG, GOLD
III (2014).
94

UNEP and ISWA (2015).

We want to acknowledge
Regina Rau, architect andurban planner, former directorof planning of the city ofPorto Alegre (Brazil), for her
contribution to this section.
95

96
Resolution 23/4 on
Sustainable Urban
Development through Accessto Public Spaces, followedby the creation of a Global
Programme on Public Space.
97
Among the charters, theInternational Charters for
Walking was adopted bymembers of UCLG at the
Rabat World Congress in 2013;
UCLG also contributed to thesecond edition of the Charterof Public Space dealing withthe creation and managementof these areas (2015). The
Culture 21 Action Toolkit
and the Global Public Space
Toolkit also provide key policy
insights.
98
These examples arepresented in the UCLG Public
Space Policy Framework (2016).

SDG 11

Sustainable Cities
and Communities

76

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Public spaces such as plazas, streets,parks and inner block areas are increasingly
being appropriated by users, either by
spontaneous community movements, or
through local government incentives andrecreational programmes. The success ofsuch activities is testimony to the need forcommunity life and a sense of belonging
and identity which is somehow lost in thecontemporary urban world, especially in big
cities. Another interesting development isthe use of public buildings, such as libraries,
museums and city councils, to develop
organized activities open to the public (seeSection SDG 11.4).

Examples of alternative policies
to public spaces

In recent years we have seen a remarkablerise in the number of cities, particularly in
the Global South, that have managed to use
public space as a key lever of change forurban development. Cities are using public
spaces to make their environment safer andcrime-free, to improve mobility and accessto basic services, to stimulate economic
activities, to preserve historical and cultural
assets or to facilitate urban renewal andinclusiveness.
New modalities of planning are being
developed to create and protect public
spaces. For example, in the Province ofSanta Fé (Argentina), the regional planning
office uses ’Basic Plans’ to support
medium-sized cities with limited technicaland/or regulatory instruments with urban
development
processes
andensureterritorial equality through the adequate useof public space. The Basic Plan programme
was implemented in the city of Santa Fé,
capital of the province, and in five other cities
to ensure a territorial balance.99 Likewise,
the Provincial Council of Barcelona hascreated Urban Green Strategic Plans100 to

In recent years, we have seen a remarkablerise in the number of cities, particularly in
the Global South, that have managed to use
public space as a key lever of change forurban development

increase the surface area and the quality ofgreen in the 311 municipalities it includes.
In cities that bear the scars of spatial andethnic segregation, such as Johannesburg(South Africa), public spaces reconnect
urban areas to recreational spaces and allow
for freedom of movement. As a result of thespatial legacy of Apartheid, parks and public
facilities were all concentrated in higherincome neighbourhoods, while townships
remained dense areas with almost no open
green spaces. The ‘Corridors of Freedom’illustrate this new vision of making public
space inclusive, particularly in poorer areas,
and improving living conditions in former
townships. While Apartheid policies createdthe green areas between townships for the
purposes of segregation, the 'Corridors ofFreedom' look to link them.
A critical dimension of SDG 11.7 is ‘safe
and inclusive public spaces’. All over theworld women and girls are subject to sexual
harassment and violence in many forms
when using public spaces. Public policies
should promote, from the design phase,the reduction of gender inequalities.
Vienna (Austria) and Delhi (India) illustrate
how studies and citizen participation canlead to identifying the need for gendersensitive policies to reduce urban violence
and inequalities in both sports and leisureopportunities of public spaces. An audit in
the city of Delhi (2013) concluded that poor
lighting, lack of well-maintained public
toilets and no pavements on the streets
make women and girls feel unsafe in publicsurroundings. By reducing the numberof dark areas in public spaces, the city
contributed to a reduction in crime and otherunsafe situations for women. In Vienna, twoparks in the fifth district were rearranged andredesigned in a participatory way, integrating
proper lighting and clear and open common
areas. The city now intends to improve parks
in all 23 city districts following genderspecific guidelines, which demonstrates thetransferability of such policies.
Public facilities are levers for equal accessto culture and leisure space for all. In 1998
Bogotá (Colombia) introduced an initiative
called Biblored Capital Network of Public
Libraries, comprising three complementarylevels of libraries: metropolitan, local andneighbourhood, all in different districts ofthe city. The network is a key part of the city’s
development strategy to create a new social
fabric offering cultural, recreational and77

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

educational places (including computers
and access to the Internet) with free accessfor citizens.
To overcome the precarious natureof public spaces in slums and informal
settlements, the city of São Paulo (Brazil)
developed a strategy to improve public
spaces in informal settlements. This
redefined the nature of public areas andcreated a new concept of architecture andplanning in such settlements in order toexpand their social and cultural functions.
The policy accommodated a wide rangeof activities and events accessible to all
residents. The initiative has inspired thecity of Durban (South Africa) to adapt its
housing policy programmes to deliver not
only residential units to the poor, but alsomeaningful public spaces to inspire thedevelopment of community life.
Finally, safe, accessible and green spaces
play a fundamental role in strategies for
mitigating and adapting to the effects ofclimate change, and they also help to reduce
the risks posed by natural hazards andthreats to public health.101 This has been
proven by resilience strategies in cities hit
by earthquakes. In Kathmandu (Nepal),
residents found safety in all 83 open spacesof the Kathmandu valley.
There is also a growing trend to use
public spaces as sustainable drainage
systems, solar temperature moderators,
cooling corridors, wind shelters and wildlife
habitats. The city of Melbourne (Australia),
for example, coordinated its Urban Forestry
Strategy (SDG 15) and Open Space Strategy
to manage extreme hot weather. The
objective is to cool the city’s temperature by
up to 4°C by 2040 and to reduce energy use
and carbon emissions (SDG 7) as a result.
It was also able to increase permeabilityof the streets, increase rainfall capture
and improve the efficiency of municipal
irrigation systems.102

The way forward

The percentage of open public spaces inbuilt-up areas needs to be preserved andincreased. The average share of built-up
areas dedicated to open space for public
use must increase and public spaces
should become accessible and safe forall. Robust regulation is needed to protect
public spaces as part of urban policies. It isimperative to develop and enforce laws andregulations to preserve and protect public
space and ensure that it is well managed.
Public space should be developed or reevaluated as part of city-wide strategies.
Public space development should be seen
as a driver of sustainable, inclusive andequitable cities. It could also be a lever for
local economic development opportunities
for small and medium enterprises — e.g.
public markets — to become active in theurban economy, and foster rural-urban
linkages and shorter economic circuits. It
must be registered as a municipal asset
and investments must include funding for
its operation and maintenance.
Partnerships need to be built with
communities, civil society, entrepreneurs
and academia. People need to be given
the power to act and civil society cancomplement the actions of LRGs by taking
ownership of public spaces and supporting
their ongoing maintenance. Gender equality
is a central dimension of public space. It
is imperative to improve the safety andcomfort of women and girls in public
spaces and enable their participation in
public life. Quality public spaces such as
libraries and parks can supplement housing
as study and recreational spaces for theurban poor, promoting social inclusion.
Moreover, it is vital to ensure the mobility
and inclusion of the elderly and thosewith physical disabilities so that they canparticipate. Lastly, contributing to the safety
and physical activity of children and young
people must be a priority.

99
These cities are Las
Toscas, Sunchales, Santo
Tomé, Casilda and Villa
Cañas. See also: https://desarrollourbanoyterritorial.
duot.upc.edu/ca/content/
plan-base-en-ciudadesintermedias.
100
See also: https://verd-urba.
diba.cat.

Safe, accessible and green spaces play a fundamental rolein strategies for mitigating and adapting to the effects ofclimate change

101This issue was highlighted
in the IIED and IIED America
Latina paper prepared for the
IPCC, March 2018.
102
See also Metropolis policy
transfer platform: https://policytransfer.metropolis.
org/case-studies/4-c-coolermelbourne.

78

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Ensure availability
and sustainable
management of waterand sanitation for all

SDG 6Clean waterand sanitation
844 million people around theworld still lack basic access towater services, 2.3 billion people
lack access to sanitation, and892 million people continue topractice open defaecation.

“Safe and clean waterand sanitation is ahuman right, essential
to the attainment ofdecent living conditions
and all other humanrights”
UNGA Resolution A/RES/64/292

79

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Overall, progress in achieving SDG 6 isdifficult to assess accurately due to limited
data, particularly at the sub-national level.
The sharp increase in demand for waterand sanitation linked to urban growth,compounded by the effects of climatechange leading to urban warming, puts greatpressure on LRGs. The 2018 UN Secretary
General Report on progress towards the
SDGs mentions that 844 million people lackeven basic access to water services levelof access to water services and 2.3 billion
people still lack access to basic sanitation.103
Without additional effort and partnerships,
universal access to basic sanitation will not
be achieved by 2030.104
Safe and clean water and sanitation is ahuman right, essential to the attainment ofdecent living conditions and all other humanrights.105 At a global level, rural areas lag
the furthest behind, particularly in Central
Asia, Southern Asia and Sub-SaharanAfrica. Coverage in cities, including in Least
Developed Countries (LDCs), is higher due
to shared sanitation facilities such as pit
latrines. Regions such as Latin America
have made progress in the last two decades
through slum and neighbourhood upgrading
programmes. Still, most of the deficits arestill concentrated in informal settlements,
and urban sprawl (formal and informal)
remains a key challenge to protecting
water-related ecosystems.
In Asia and Sub-Saharan African there has
been a decline in access to such services inurban areas, leaving the population exposed
to waterborne diseases and vulnerable
to hazards.106 Given that almost 90% of
urban population growth is happening inthese regions, this challenge needs to beaddressed urgently. Even where countries
are on track to achieve the SDG 6 targets,there are disparities between and withinregions and cities. The monitoring systemdoes not include data on the extent of waterand sanitation provision by city or district.
Despite the limited data available globally,
there is evidence of growing inadequacies
in urban areas, especially in informal
settlements.
There is an urgent need to achieve SDG
6 in an increasingly urbanized world, asa prerequisite to achieving SDG 11 andthe ‘Right to the City’ as outlined in the
New Urban Agenda. It has a strong and
immediate impact on health (particularly
children’s health), access to education andsustainable food policies. There is also aneed to achieve a rights-based approachto sustainable urban development, withinclusive solutions building on efforts toachieve gender equality and reduce socioeconomic and spatial inequalities.

The challenge of managing waterand sanitation

Cities do not function in isolation. The
availability of water, and access to it, dependon the natural resources, ecosystems, river
basins and city systems they are embedded in.
Thus, the governance of water and sanitation
policies involves a wide range of actors
at central, intermediate and local levels.
Coordination across levels of governmentand sectoral agencies is required to design
consistent development plans.107
In many regions, LRGs are responsible
for the provision of basic services, including
potable water and sanitation, while central
governments are responsible for regulation
and bulk water supply. While responsibility
is often assigned to local governments(at least officially), their delivery role has
evolved in the last few decades. The rangeof management models varies considerably
between countries. With some exceptions,in a majority of countries in Europe, Eurasia,
Latin America and North America, as wellas in OECD countries in the Asia-Pacificregion, urban water and sanitation services
are usually managed by public authorities
through public utilities or special purpose
authorities, generally owned by local orregional authorities.108 In Sub-SaharanAfrica, for example, 35% of LRGs are in
charge of water delivery.109 In many subregions, the use of private operators throughcollaborations between the public andprivate sector has been promoted.
However, the promise of more PublicPrivate Partnerships (PPP) in middle andlow-income countries has not been fully
realized,110 and new models are now being
implemented to try to reduce the complexityof arrangements for LRGs and increasetransparency and accountability to citizens.
A recent study also highlights the needfor further research on the re-emergenceof ‘re-municipalization’, which presents
clear opportunities in terms of politicalleadership.111
Sustainability in water and sanitation
also implies the adoption of integrated

103
See ECOSOC (2018), Progress
towards the Sustainable
Development Goals, Reportto the Secretary General.
E/2018/64.
104
UN Water (2018) SDG 6
Synthesis report on Water andSanitation (unedited version
available).
105
Resolution A/RES/64/292.
United Nations General
Assembly, July 2010.
106
UN Water (2018) SDG 6
Synthesis report on Water andSanitation (unedited version
available).
107
OECD (2015), Principles onwater governance, http://www.
oecd.org/cfe/regional-policy/
OECD-Principles-on-WaterGovernance-brochure.pdf.

UCLG, GOLD III (2014) provides
a regional assessment of thelocal public provision of basic
services. In Europe, public
provision remains dominant,either direct, in partnershipwith other public authorities or
through public undertakings(except in France and in Englandand Wales). The water market
is highly fragmented. Tens of
thousands of private operators
provide water and sanitation tojust a quarter of the European
population. In Eurasia –Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Ukraine,
Belarus and Russia – watersupply and sanitation providers
are owned by municipal andhigher-tier governments. In
Latin America, around a third ofcountries have direct municipal
systems for water supply andsanitation, in the form of local
public companies providing
services in urban areas (i.e. over
2,000 in Mexico, 200 in Ecuador,
50 provincial level municipal
service operators in Peru,
and 14 municipally owned orcooperative operators in Bolivia).
Regional governments also play
an important role in providing
water services in Argentina,
Chile, Brazil, Mexico andVenezuela. In other countries,
national utilities dominate (Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay
and Uruguay).

108

UCLG, GOLD III (2014). Abouta third of African countries(primarily Francophone)retain a single national water
utility, and the remaining two
thirds (primarily Anglophone)have undertaken some formof decentralization to local
jurisdictions. Hundreds ofutilities have been established bycentral governments to collectand distribute bulk water.

109

110
Philippe Marin (2009),
Public-Private Partnerships for
Urban Water Utilities – A Review
of Experiences in Developing
Countries, PPIAF/World Bank,
Washington.
111
A full list of 267 case studies
of water re-municipalization isavailable in Reclaiming PublicServices: How cities and citizens
are turning back privatisation(2017), edited by Satoko
Kishimoto and Olivier Petitjean
available at www.tni.org/
reclaiming-public-services.

SDG 6

Ensure availability
and sustainable management ofwater and sanitation for all

80

112
In most Latin Americancountries, water resource
management can involve
river basin organisations,
local and regional
decentralized units ofgovernments, as well as
central and regional water
agencies. See Akhmouch,A. (2012), Water Governancein Latin America and the
Caribbean: A Multi-Level
Approach, OECD Regional
Development Working
Papers, 2012/04.
113
ADB (2017), Meeting Asia’s
Infrastructure Needs. Thisestimate is based on 2015
prices and includes climateadjusted policies.
114
World Water Council(2018), Start with Water,
putting water on local action
agendas to support globalchange.
115
According to UN Water,worldwide, municipal
distribution networks accountfor 12% of withdrawals.

See also: http://www.
iclei.org/fileadmin/
PUBLICATIONS/
Case_Stories/1._LEDS/ICLEIUrbanLEDS_case_story_Rajkot_2016.pdf.

116

117
These examples arepresented in Evans
Banana, Patrick Chikoti,
Chisomo Harawa, Gordon
McGranahan, Diana
Mitlin, Stella Stephen,
Noah Schermbrucker,
Farirai Shumba, and Anna
Walnycki, Sharing reflections
on inclusive sanitation,
Environment and Urbanization
Vol 27, Issue 1, pp. 19-34,(2015).

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

urban management, including an intermunicipal or metropolitan approach, aswell as a territorial perspective rather thana strictly sectoral approach. Failure to take
immediate action to build a more collaborativeand inclusive framework at the appropriate
territorial level will lead to a deterioration in
the environment that will be hard to reverse.112
The New Urban Agenda estimates thatbuilding sustainable cities and communities
will require USD 7.5 trillion investment inwater infrastructure by 2030 to meet existing
deficiencies and cope with future demand. In
the Asia-Pacific region alone, it is estimatedthat more than USD 800 billion will be necessary
for the period 2016–2030 to respond to waterand sanitation issues in the region.113 In thiscontext, clearly the mobilization of increased
financial resources is vital. But, as UN Water
points out, the establishment of innovative
institutional arrangements between all actors
involved, and the strengthening of the technicaland organizational capacities of LRGs or theirfacilities, should also be major priorities.114

How policies are changing

The challenge in implementing an effective
rights-based approach is to balance costeffectiveness with the inclusion of diversity. An
increasing number of cities around the world
view wastewater as a resource, including afinancial one. The aim has been to find social
and technical solutions based on long-term
strategies to localize financing and develop
domestic resources, including communityled funds. This has increased efficiency by
reducing losses in municipal distribution
to households,115 enforcing fiscal and tariff
policies and leveraging wastewater reuse toplan the most efficient sewage systems.
Cities are also held directly accountable in
the event of water stress. This has been thecase in Brisbane (Australia), Cape Town (South
Africa), São Paulo (Brazil), Rome (Italy) andJakarta (Indonesia), among others. Moreover,Jakarta developed a Water Management
Strategy for 2030, which included a project
to reduce urban flooding and improve water
storage capacity. This initiative led to therelocation of around 3,000 inhabitants awayfrom the reservoir banks, transforming theminto parks and public open spaces.
Many LRGs are struggling with ill-defined
responsibilities and a lack of resources toimprove inadequate infrastructures andinsufficient technologies. In the context

of current trends in urban development,
secondary cities in LDCs face these challenges
the most.
An increasing number of cities are investingin water capture through green infrastructure,experimenting with permeable pathways,
urban agriculture and improved forestry plans(SDG 15). China, for example, is investing in
adapting urban infrastructure in 30 ‘sponge
cities’, for example Shanghai and Nanning. The
goal is that by 2020, 80% of China’s urban areas
will absorb and reuse at least 70% of rainwater.
In 2015, the city of Rajkot (India) installed a
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System(DTS) in the Jilla Garden neighbourhoods inorder to reduce the number of inhabitants notconnected to existing sewage infrastructure(which stood at 40%). When not connected
untreated sewage is discharged intoneighbourhood streams, which flow into the
Aji River, posing ecological harm both to thesurrounding communities and biodiversity.
Today, the system treats sewage from 236
households, saving 4,000 kWh of electricity(SDG 7) and reducing GHG emissions by 15 t CO2e
per year (SDG 11.6).116
With regards to inclusion of diverse
needs, LRGs have a key role in enabling
experimentation. The co-production of contextspecific solutions is at the heart of realizing
a rights-based approach that encompasses
all diverse needs — density patterns, gender,
people with disabilities, specific knowledgeof indigenous people, among others — andprovides affordable solutions over time.
Gender challenges are particularly
important when it comes to access to cleanand safe water and sanitation. Women andgirls literally carry the burden of water
scarcity, walking long distances (more thanthe 30-minute threshold of the SDG indicator)
to reach collective facilities. Making these
trips, they are exposed to the risk of physicalviolence and exhaustion due to the weight
and the heat. Improving access to water andsanitation is often the tipping point for girls
attending primary and secondary schools.
Personal hygiene, particularly for women, isalso a key issue, as is helping them accesspublic spaces and employment while avoiding
recurrent public shame and fear.
In many low and middle-income countries,
where infrastructure for basic services takes
a long time to reach poor neighbourhoods
and informal settlements, many inhabitants
depend on informal providers or community
provision. The role of local governments

81

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

in regulating and overseeing these small
providers is crucial because of potential
consequences for human safety and theenvironment. Upgrading programmes in
informal settlements is key to improving basic
service provision and increased coverage forurban populations; and local governments
can support and collaborate with NGOs,
communities and small providers todevelop affordable alternatives in theseareas. In this context, LRGs in partnershipwith communities such as members of
Shack/Slums Dwellers International, havein many cases been successful in reducing
the gaps in provision and finding affordable,
safe and sustainable solutions. Innovative
sanitation projects have, for example, beentested in Chinhoyi (Zimbabwe), Dar es
Salaam (Tanzania) and Blantyre (Malawi),
demonstrating the significant potential ofthese collaborative approaches.117
Water also provides opportunity for moreinternational collaboration among LRGs. The
Oudin-Santini Law, adopted in 2005 in France,
illustrates how decentralized cooperation
can improve access to water and sanitationby allowing French LRGs to dedicate one
percent of their water and sanitation budget
to international development programmes inrelated fields.

resources and promotes integrated urban
water practices and energy efficiency,
making use of technology when possible.
• Strengthen water governance throughcooperation between different institutional
levels and the management capacities
of LRGs to improve universal affordable
access to water and sanitation.
• Strengthen and increase decentralized
funding and innovative finance mechanisms
for water and sanitation projects to address
the existing deficits in provision andincreased demand in urban areas.
• Promote urban water resilience throughplanning risk and climate change adaptationand mitigation strategies and protection ofsensitive areas.
• Supportmechanisms
guaranteeing
minimum access levels (social tariffs,
cross-subsidies and safety nets) to makebasic services affordable to all members ofsociety.
• Improve the collection and improvementof local data on water service access andquality, to identify local needs and priorities
and monitor service delivery.

There has been some progress since LRGs
approved the Istanbul Water Consensus in2009 in the spirit of promoting sustainable
development and the cultural, historic andtraditional values of water. In 2015, the DaeguGyeongbuk Water Action for Sustainable
Cities and Regions was adopted, calling on
stakeholders to establish closer links between
water management and urban planning designand development, as well as other relevant
sectors of urban management. The mostrecent declaration made by LRGs and theirassociations and networks during the 2018
World Water Forum in Brasilia puts forward
the following critical recommendations:• Promote sensitive integrated water
practices, taking into account basic humanrights and services as well as genderapproaches, putting sanitation and accessto quality water at the top of the water
agenda.
• Bring forward legislation that enables
fair, efficient and sustainable use of water

Chinhoyi Caves, Zimbabwe (photo by Aristocrats-hat, flickr.com)

Political commitment of LRGs towater and sanitation

82

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Ensure access toaffordable, reliable,
sustainable and modern
energy for all

SDG 7
Affordable andclean energy
Cities account for about 70% of
global energy consumption andrelated greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.
3 billion people are still cooking
with polluting fuel and stove
combinations.

“Progress in every areaof sustainable energy
falls short of whatis needed to achieveenergy access for all
and to meet targets forrenewable energy andenergy efficiency”
UN Secretary General Report 2017

83

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Today, cities account for about 70% of global
energy consumption and related GHG
emissions.118 LRGs have a critical role to playin shifting the world to a more sustainableenergy mix, capable of supporting humanand economic development in the longterm. Access to affordable, reliable andsustainable energy is a cross-cutting issue
that has implications for human development
across a range of SDGs,119 including poverty
eradication (SDG 1), health (SDG 3), gender(SDG 5) and decent job creation (SDG 8). Overthe next two decades, the vast majority ofurban growth is expected to be in developing
countries and, in many places, demand forenergy is already outpacing supply. Creating
an enabling environment to support clean
energy generation, improve energy accessand enhance resource efficiency is crucial
for both the long-term wellbeing of urban
populations and for reducing global GHG
emissions.

Ensure universal access toaffordable, reliable and modern
energy services (SDG 7.1) andincrease the share of renewables inthe energy mix (SDG 7.2)

Many factors that influence energy accessand affordability are outside the scope of
LRGs’ control, particularly when national
authorities control energy generation andgrid infrastructure. However, LRGs typicallyhave greater influence on local policies
related to electrification coverage, subsidy
or incentive programmes that promoterenewable energy systems and energy saving
or efficiency regulations.
The overall reliability of energy isoften dependent on redundancy within agiven energy system or availability of thedecentralized generation technologies thatserve as primary or back-up sources ofenergy.120 Cities and LRGs are helping to drive
decentralized energy generation models.
For example, in April 2016, San Francisco
became the first major U.S. city to approve
legislation requiring rooftop solar on newbuildings. The legislation requires solar
panels or solar water heaters to be installed
on top of all residential and commercial
buildings below ten storeys in height. The
city mandate is a significant expansion ofexisting state law requiring all new buildings

to make 15% of their roof surface area
‘solar-ready’. The legislation has been in
effect since 1 January 2017 and will assist
the city in its ambitious goal of meeting 100%of its electrical demand through renewablesources.121
Because LRGs often do direct service
provision for underserved populations,they are in a unique position to identify
synergies between clean or efficientenergy programmes and inclusivity. For
example, in Buenos Aires (Argentina), thecity’s environmental protection agency has
provided solar thermal heaters to CSOs thatprovide shelter to homeless people. The
programme also provides training in installation and maintenance to plumbers andlocal staff. This project aims to decrease theenergy costs for organizations working withvulnerable groups, promote environmental
education, and increase social inclusion
through professional and technical training
courses, while also promoting renewableenergy and reducing GHG emissions.122
Although there is a global shift towards
more local energy systems, nationaland state governments continue to havean important role to play in financing,
operating and regulating energy supply.
First, national governments should create
the wider political environment that allows
the private sector (including both financiersand developers) to invest confidently inrenewable energy projects. This requires
regulatory certainty and transparent pricing
models. Second, national governments
can improve the project economics ofrenewable energy investments by putting inplace a substantive and transparent set of
fiscal incentives and targets. For example,
national governments may offer higher
feed-in tariffs for renewable technologies
than for conventional energy systems.
Algeria, Brazil, Germany and Thailand,
among others, introduced feed-in tariffs
for solar photovoltaic panels, which helped
producers achieve economies of scale andtechnological learning. Today, rooftop solar
PV is often economically attractive without
subsidies.
Though demand for clean, renewableenergy sources is increasing worldwide,123
LRGs are playing a greater role in driving
demand to the levels necessary to meet both
energy needs and climate goals.

118
We want to acknowledge
the joint contribution by
C40 and the Coalition for
Urban Transitions: Alfredo
Redondo, Claire Markgraf,
Sarah Colenbrander, Markus
Berensson, and Emmanuelle
Pinault. ICLEI also
contributed to this section.
119
African Progress Report(2015) Power, people, planet- Seizing Africa's energy andclimate opportunities.
120
IEA, Energy Access
Outlook (2017) From Poverty
to Prosperity.
121
C40 Cities Climate
Leadership Group (2018).
C40 City Success Examples.
http://www.c40.org/case_studies.
122

Ibid.

See also: International
Energy Agency (2017).
Renewables 2017: Analysis andForecasts to 2022 Executive
Summary. IEA Market Report
Series. <https://www.
iea.org/Textbase/npsum/renew2017MRSsum.pdf>.
123

84

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

SDG 7

Ensure access to affordable,
reliable, sustainable andmodern energy for all

Double the global rate of
improvement in energy efficiency(SDG 7.3)!

National or state governments are typically
responsible for introducing building codes.
This can systematically enhance energy
efficiency across a region, including smallerurban areas that might not have the capacity
to design and enforce ambitious efficiency
standards. Building codes in China andIndia, for example, are helping to reduce
both the energy bills and carbon footprintsof all new construction. Where the building
stock is already largely established, as inEurope, national governments can play a keyrole in improving access to low-cost capital.
This can incentivize households and firms toretrofit buildings to improve their efficiency.

BOX 4.11.

CITIES MAKING PUBLIC COMMITMENTS ON CLIMATEAND ENERGY
Cities are also linking into global movements that promote bothclimate and energy considerations. For example, the Global
Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (GCoM) is a climatefocused initiative with nearly 7,600 city and local government
signatories. Each signatory to GCoM commits to taking action
on mitigation, adaptation, and access to sustainable energy.
Recognizing that cities around the world are at different stagesof development and face different energy-related needs,
actions that cities take may differ from region to region andrequire different metrics to measure progress. For example,
some may focus on addressing lack of adequate energy accessfor low-income residents while others may choose to commit
to improving per capita electrification, increasing the share of
renewables in a local energy mix, advocating for energy reform
at different levels of government and other actions that seek toensure a more sustainable future.
100%RE Cities & Regions Network133 brings together leading
cities, towns and regions that are driving the transition towards
100% renewable energy in a global community of practice inorder to facilitate peer learning and accelerate progress. The
network is built on ICLEI´s engagement with the International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA),134 REN21 Network,135 andLocal Renewables Conference since 2007136 and connects to the
Global 100% Renewable Energy Campaign.137 In addition to its
pioneering 15+ cities and regions including Vancouver (Canada)
and Tshwane (South Africa), the Network also supports nationaland regional initiatives, for example Japanese cities committing
to 100%RE138 or 150 U.S. Mayors endorsing 100% Clean Power.139

National governments have an even more
important role to play in introducing
efficiency standards for vehicles, lighting
and appliances, as these policies can bedifficult to enforce at the city scale.
Where national governments have notintroduced or enforced efficiency targets,
LRGs can also influence energy efficiency
through policy interventions. Green public
procurement policies in buildings andtransport are particularly important at themunicipal scale, as this strategy can build
local capacities to deliver more efficient
options.
The adoption of efficient building codes andregulation of appliances often has the added
benefit of reducing energy costs. Somemunicipal governments have made thesetypes of regulation a key part of their energy
strategies. For example, in 2012, Seoul(Republic of Korea) introduced One Less
Nuclear Power Plant, a programme whichaims to increase energy independence,
renewable energy generation and energy
efficiency. To date, Seoul has saved energy
equivalent to one nuclear power plantby requiring new buildings to generate
up to 20% of their energy consumption;
the establishment of a civic fund for the
expansion of solar power generation; 100%
LED lighting deployment for public buildings
by 2018, and low-interest loans for building
retrofits available to tenants and contractors
as well as dwellers.124
Other cities have found the use of smart
technologies key to monitoring and tracking
their progress. Cape Town (South Africa)
initiated energy efficiency improvements
in municipal buildings in 2009, and has
implemented a smart metering programme
to verify the resulting electricity savings. By
2015, the city had installed about 500 smart
meters within municipal facilities but stillfound it challenging to manually extract,
analyse and monitor all the data from thesemeters for reporting purposes. In 2015, thecity’s internal departments collaborated
to integrate all municipal information andelectricity data systems to develop an
automated energy management system, the‘SmartFacility’ application. This interprets
the facility’s electricity consumption data ina friendly, accessible manner, illustrating
the data on a dashboard for internal end
users and the public.125
Some cities have developed monitoring models that push local actors towards energy-

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

smart behaviour change. For example,
Singapore requires annual mandatory
submission of building information and energy
consumption data for commercial buildings.
It uses this data to perform benchmarking
exercises and shares the results with building
owners so that they know how well theirbuilding is performing. In 2016 the city went
further and introduced voluntary disclosureof building energy data for the first time. In late2017, Singapore received ministerial approval
to update the regulation to require mandatory
public disclosure of building information andenergy consumption data, citing successful
examples of this in cities such as Boston,
Washington D.C., San Francisco (U.S.) andTokyo (Japan).126
LRGs around the world are making public
commitments to provide more sustainable,
secure and affordable energy in theirjurisdictions. For example, many Länder inGermany are making energy a top strategic
priority. Baden-Württemberg has devised
a strategy for climate protection and energy
supply up to the year 2050, aiming for a 50%
reduction in energy consumption, an 80%
quota for renewable energy sources anda 90% reduction in emissions of GHGs.127
In the Netherlands, water authorities are
striving to be energy neutral by 2025, anda national network of 29 regions has been
established to allow cooperation between
local authorities, network operators andcompanies in regional energy strategies.
Vancouver (Canada) was one of the first in
the world to issue a detailed plan in 2014 toachieve 100% renewable energy by 2050 —part of a wider city plan to cut GHG emissions
by 80% by 2050. The plan includes three
approaches: reduce energy use, increase
the use of renewable energy and increase
the supply of renewable energy across thecity. It calls for electricity, thermal energy
and transportation to be renewable by 2050
and has just adopted the intermediate goal of
55% renewable energy by 2030.128
As part of the strategy to double therate of efficiency improvements under
Sustainable Energy For All, the Building
Efficiency Accelerator (BEA)129 supports
public commitments at the city, regionaland national levels. As of 2017, the BEA had
reached out to more than 250 cities andregions such as Santa Rosa (Philippines),
with support from city networks such as
ICLEI and C40, together with 70 businesses,
national governments and NGOs. It provides
tools, expertise and technical capabilities to
sub-national governments who commit to
implementing and reporting on measuresdesigned to improve efficiency.130
Another example is the Global District
Energy in Cities (DES) Initiative,131 launchedin September 2014 as the implementing
mechanism for the Sustainable Energy
for All (SEforALL) Energy Efficiency
Accelerator Platform. The DES Initiative isa multi-stakeholder partnership and poolof expertise that promotes the transfer ofpolicy, finance and technical know-how,engaging with more than 45 champion
cities,132 such as Gothenburg (Sweden),which utilizes energy from the Gota Riverfor cooling and biogas for heating.

124
See also: C40 Cities Climate
Leadership Group (2018). C40
City Success Examples. http://
www.c40.org/case_studies.
125

Ibid.

126

Ibid.

More information on
regional energy policies andactions in Baden-Württemberg
is available online at thisaddress: http://energiewende.
baden-wuerttemberg.de/en/all-articles/basics/
energy-transition-in-badenwuerttemberg/.
127

128
See also: C40 Cities Climate
Leadership Group (2018). C40
City Success Examples. http://
www.c40.org/case_studies.
129
See also: http://buildingefficiencyaccelerator.
org/.
130

Ibid.

See also: http://www.
districtenergyincities.org/.
131

132

Ibid.

See also: http://www.iclei.
org/index.php?id=3339.
133

134
See also: http://www.irena.
org/.
135
See also: http://www.ren21.
net/.
136
See also: http://www.localrenewables-conference.org/
freiburg-and-basel-2018/
home/.
137
See also: http://www.
go100re.net/.
138
See also: http://www.
iclei.org/details/article/
japanese-cities-and-regionsrally-behind-100-percentrenewable-energy.html.
139
See also: https://www.sierraclub.org/
compass/2017/09/milestone150-mayors-endorse-100clean-energy.

Construction site at night, Singapore (photo by Kai Morgener, flickr.com)

85

86

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Ensure sustainableconsumption andproduction patterns

SDG 12
Sustainableconsumption andproduction

The many supply chains thatconnect cities mean that GHG
emissions reductions in otherparts of the country and aroundthe world will reduce the GHG
emissions of cities and vice versa.

“Achieving Goal 12
requires a strong
national framework forsustainable consumption
and production that is
integrated into nationaland sectoral plans [...]”UN SG Report 2018

87

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Cities and territories are key to achieving
sustainable patterns140 of production andconsumption. Given that in high-income
consumer cities, GHG emissions are largely
driven by consumption patterns, a growing
number of LRGs are now taking action topromote sustainable public procurement andsustainable lifestyles among their residents.

Understanding the carbon footprintof consumption in cities andterritories (SDG 12.2)141

Cities rely heavily on the supply of imported
goods and services from outside their
physical boundaries. The GHG emissions
associated with these supply chains are
significant, particularly for LRGs in Europe,
North America and Oceania.
Using a consumption-based approach, it ispossible to capture direct and life-cycle GHG
emissions of goods and services (including
those from raw materials, manufacturing,
distribution, retail and disposal) and allocate
GHG emissions to the final consumers of
those goods and services, rather than to theoriginal producers of the GHG emissions.
Utilities, housing and capital (business
investment in physical assets such as
infrastructure, construction and machinery,transportation, food supply, and government
services) contribute most to consumptionbased GHG emissions, although withsignificant regional variation.
Given the complexity of global supply chains,
the production of goods and services in a
specific location is often driven by consumer
demand elsewhere. Cities are centres of bothproduction and consumption. Therefore,
emissions of which local governments are
directly responsible increase substantiallywhen one takes into account the extent towhich local consumption contributes toemissions. When switching to a consumptionbased approach, some high-income, service
economy cities in the Global North see anincrease in emissions by as much as 400%.
LRGs are therefore starting to include theconsumption-based perspective when planning how to reduce their total climate impact.

Consumption-based emissions are driven
by complex factors such as the carbon
efficiency of global economic supply chainsand consumer behaviour that is beyond thereach of any individual local government.
However, LRGs, and particularly large cities,
are focal points for the global consumer
economy, and decisions taken in theselocations have the potential to reverberatearound the world. For example, most of
the consumption-based GHG emissions of
79 cities analysed by the C40 Cities Climate
Leadership Group are traded: almost
two thirds of consumption-based GHG
emissions (2.2 out of 3.5 gigatonnes of CO2)
are imported from regions outside the cities.
This highlights that consumption activities ofresidents in a local government area has asignificant impact on the generation of GHG
emissions beyond its boundaries. Throughcollaboration between LRGs, as well as
through partnerships between LRGs, industry
and civil society, LRGs can take action toincrease the resource efficiency of production
as well as the nature of consumption.

Taking action to reduce
consumption-related GHG emissions

The first step in managing consumption
emissions is to measure them. It is therefore
crucial that LRGs map their consumptionrelated emissions. Once an LRG has a firm
understanding of the source of consumptionrelated emissions, it can take adequate
actions through strategic measures such assustainable public procurement, consumer
information, standards, labels, taxes andsubsidies.
The many supply chains that connect cities
mean that GHG emissions reductions in otherparts of the country and around the world will
reduce the GHG emissions of cities and viceversa. It is crucial therefore that the focus
is on collaboration, knowledge-sharing andlearning between cities, and between local
and regional authorities and their nationalcounterparts. LRG networks can facilitate
these outcomes by identifying both cityto-city and territory-to-territory linkages,

When switching to a consumption-based approach, somehigh-income, service economy cities in the Global Northsee an increase in emissions by as much as 400%140
We want to acknowledge
the joint contribution by
C40 and the Coalition for
Urban Transitions: Alfredo
Redondo, Claire Markgraf,
Sarah Colebrander, Markus
Berensson, and Emmanuelle
Pinault. ICLEI also contributed
to this section.
141
See also: C40 (2018).
Consumption-based GHG
emissions of C40 cities.

SDG 12

Ensure sustainableconsumption andproduction patterns

88

142
See also: http://www.
greendeals.nl/english/greendeal-approach/.

See also: http://urbact.eu/
diet-green-planet-0, http://
urbact.eu/agri-urban.
143

144
See also: http://www.
oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/
default/files/10yfp-sppprinciples.pdf.
145
See also: http://web.unep.
org/10yfp/programmes/
sustainable-publicprocurement.
146
See also: http://iclei-europe.
org/topics/sustainableprocurement.
147
See also: http://glcn-on-sp.
org/home/.
148
For more information, see
the Dutch Public Procurement
Expertise Centre as well as theInvestment agenda 'Towards
a sustainable Netherlands'
IPO, VNG and the Associationof Water Boards, published in
March 2017.
149
See also: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Fhd9yy1MlVfxUjzfjDXK743vCVaaEO/view.
150
See also: http://
talkofthecities.iclei.org/
dunedin-new-zealand-hasdivested-from-fossil-fuelshere-is-why-and-how/.
151
See also: http://www.iclei.
org/details/article/berlinbecomes-7th-western-city-todivest-from-fossil-fuels.html.
152
See also: http://www1.
nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/
news/022-18/climate-actionmayor-comptroller-trusteesfirst-in-the-nation-goal-divestfrom#/0.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

in terms of the supply and consumption of
goods and services. With this knowledge,
local governments and other stakeholders
can work together and coordinate efforts(e.g. further research, better policies,
joined-up action for greater impact) to
reduce consumption-related GHGs.
While LRGs may not have much direct
influence over the carbon intensity of power
used in the manufacturing process of animported product, or whether that productis transported by train or truck, as end users
and centres of innovation and change, they
do have many opportunities to transform
residents’ lifestyles into more sustainable
ones to help reduce consumption-based
GHG emissions. This can be achieved througha combination of resource productivity
strategies and consumer policies, targetingcarbon-intensive consumption categories
and life-cycle phases with the highest
emissions, and supporting shifts in
consumption to goods and services withlower emissions, including through public
procurement.

Promoting sustainableprocurement and lifestyles in cities(SDG 12.7 and 12.8)

Many LRGs are already implementing
measures to reduce supply chain GHG
emissions. To accelerate and scale
such efforts, however, requires greater
understanding of how LRGs can mosteffectively target transboundary GHG
emissions. This will vary between authorities
depending, amongst other factors, on theirconsumption-based GHG emissions profile,
governance structure and ability to act.
In the Netherlands, the new Green Deal
Sustainable GWW of 2017 gathers LRGs,
national government and the private sector,
and commits them to reusing building
and demolition material by processing it
into filler material in groundwork, roadand waterways construction. The NoordHolland province, for example, wants tomake its real-estate, infrastructure and 700
km of provincial roads completely circularin terms of replacement and maintenance.
It has agreed that by 2030, use of primary
raw materials will be reduced by 50%, there
will be clean bus transport by 2025 and by
2020 CO2 emissions will be reduced by 20%
compared to 1990.142

Copenhagen (Denmark) is supporting
circular economy approaches based on
analysis highlighting that transition toa more efficient use of resources has
economic benefits, while reducing the city’s
carbon footprint. Key considerations for the
local government are better understanding
how residents eat, what they buy, how they
live and transport themselves. Amsterdam(the Netherlands) is also a pioneer ofthe circular economy and has tied otherconsumption-based
policiesto
thisconcept. At the moment, the city is running
23 circular economy approaches and has
updated its waste strategy and deepened
its understanding of waste streams, whilst
improving metropolitan collaboration on thecircular economy in order to tackle material
streams at a larger scale.
In Madrid (Spain), the local government has
found that consumption-based emissions areuseful when evaluating policies and actionplans focused on, for example, responsible
consumption, environmental taxation andthe environmental footprint of products.
Since 2017, the city has had an action planon Sustainable Consumption, focusing onfive strategic areas: food and drink; energy,transport and waste; an ethical approach tofinance and insurance; tourism, recreationand culture; and other assorted goods andservices. At the scale of medium-sized cities,
the municipality of Mollet del Vallès (Spain)
is another example of promoting responsible
consumption and production of food for
local canteens through the ‘Diet for a Green
Planet’ and ‘Agri-Urban’143 initiatives. Bothare developed within the framework of the
URBACT programme of the European Union.
Oslo (Norway) is developing a new climate
strategy in 2018 for reducing consumption. It
will assess measures that can contribute toa reduction of Oslo’s total carbon footprint.
The city is also promoting a programme onlife-cycle emissions in, for example, building
materials and has initiated action to offer
more vegetarian meals in canteens acrossthe Norwegian capital.
Paris (France) is looking at upstream
emissions from energy consumption andemissions associated with food, construction
and transport outside Paris, including
aviation. The goal is to reduce out-boundary
emissions by 75% by 2050, compared to thebaseline year of 2004. Furthermore, thecity has developed a sustainable food plan

89

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

that aims to save 17,000 tCO2 /year by using
public procurement to increase the shareof sustainable food in the city’s municipal
canteens. A carbon menu application allows
people to find out the emissions produced bytheir plate of food. London (United Kingdom)
has also opted to focus its consumptionrelated policies on food, since so little of what
Londoners consume is produced in the city, as
well as set targets for reducing waste.
In Stockholm (Sweden), the city governmentis providing more vegetarian food in schools,
together with disseminating information on
consumption-based emissions to residents.
Beyond the food sector, the city has also
performed life-cycle analyses of construction
materials and building processes to develop
a better understanding of embodied energy
within the built environment.
Portland, Oregon on the west coast of
the U.S., has developed an analytical modelusing economic data on final demand fromhouseholds, governments and businesses,
to improve local governments’ understandingof consumption-related emissions. Basedon that deeper analysis, an effort to reducethe city’s total carbon footprint is underway.
Local climate action aims to promote lowcarbon consumption choices: repair, reuse,rent, share durable goods, along with themandatory deconstruction of older homes.

Advocating an end to fossil-fuelsubsidies (SDG 12.c)

LRGs take action not just locally to achieve
SDG12, but also collectively at the global
level to achieve Target 12.c. Through the‘Urban 20 Joint Statement’ supported by C40
and UCLG and published in April 2018, 20
Mayors from the G20 countries have calledon their national leaders to end fossil-fuelsubsidies by 2020.149
Pioneering local governments have also
been actively involved in promoting thedivestment of investments away from fossil
fuels. Following the examples of Dunedin (New
Zealand)150 in 2014 and Berlin (Germany)151
in 2016, New York City (U.S.)152 announced in
January 2018 a goal to divest pension funds
from fossil-fuel reserve owners within five
years. This would make it the first major U.S.
pension plan to do so. New York City is alsofiling a lawsuit against five of the largest
fossil-fuel companies, seeking damages tohelp protect the city from climate change.

!

BOX 4.12.

SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC PROCUREMENT (SPP)INITIATIVES
Sustainable Public Procurement (SPP)144 is defined
as a process whereby public organizations meet theirneeds for goods, services, works and utilities in a waythat achieves value-for-money on a whole life cycle
basis, in terms of generating benefits not only to theorganization but also to society and the economy,
whilst significantly reducing negative impacts on theenvironment. The 10 Year Framework Programme(10YFP) on SPP145 is a global multi-stakeholder
platform that supports the implementation of SPP
around the world. The programme builds synergies
between diverse partners to achieve the SDG target
on SPP.
Procura+ and Global Lead City Network on
Sustainable Public Procurement
Since 1996, ICLEI has been promoting andimplementing the principles of SPP among its
members, particularly in Europe.146 These efforts
have been led primarily by early pioneers such as
Kolding (Denmark), Gothenburg (Sweden), Zurich(Switzerland), and Barcelona (Spain) and extended
to recent achievers such as Helsinki (Finland) and
Ghent (Belgium). The process in Europe is progressed
through Procura+ initiatives, including networks,
forums, platforms and annual conferences. In
April 2015, ICLEI launched the Global Lead City
Network (GLCN) on Sustainable Procurement,147 incollaboration with Seoul Metropolitan Government,
extending this to 14 other cities worldwide. The
most recent efforts from the GLCN network include
Warsaw (Poland) purchasing 130 new e-buses (10%of Warsaw’s fleet) – the largest project of its kind inCentral and Eastern Europe - and Malmö (Sweden)
starting to chair the Procura+ Network in Europe.
Socially responsible procurement
In late 2016, dozens of municipalities, provinces, water
boards and ministries signed the Socially Responsible
Procurement Manifesto 2016-2020, whereby they
voluntarily aspire to higher environmental standards.
Together, municipalities, provinces and water boards
spend EUR 28 billion per year on investments,
procurement, maintenance and tenders. As part of thecommon investment agenda, they have now committed
to opt wherever possible for energy neutral, climate
proof and circular solutions, starting in 2018.148

90

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Protect, restore andpromote sustainable useof terrestrial ecosystems –halt biodiversity loss

SDG 15
Life on land
In 2015, forests covered about
4 billion hectares or 31% of
the world’s land area.
The rate of forest loss has
been cut by 25% in the period
2000-2005.

“Cities and regions
directly influence thecondition and preservationof terrestrial ecosystems
and communities. Today,
around 1.6 billion people
directly depend on forests
for their livelihood,including indigenous
communities”

91

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

In collaboration with local, national andsupranational stakeholders, LRGs can help
preserve and restore life on land, throughterritorial planning, awareness-raising andefforts to enhance resilience

Cities and regions directly influence thecondition and preservation of terrestrial
ecosystems
and communities. Today,
around 1.6 billion people directly depend
on forests for their livelihood, including
indigenous communities. Biodiversity is abroad concept, cutting across many other
SDGs. All forms of life depend uponbiodiversity for their existence.153 Globally,
74% of the poor are directly affected by landdegradation.154
It is well-recognized that biodiversity andecosystems generate, mediate and underpin
numerous resource flows into cities such as
food, water, energy, health and livelihood
needs. The correlation between local,
regional and sustainable development has
been acknowledged in the SDGs and the New
Urban Agenda, with a special focus on urbanrural interlinkages and value chains. Public
policies on biodiversity conservation are key
contributors to improvements in water quality(SDG 6), reducing the environmental impactof cities (SDG 11.6), but also strengthening
urban resilience to climate change (SDG 13).
Based on their different responsibilities
and capacities and in close collaboration
with local, national and supranational
stakeholders, LRGs can provide a holistic
view of how to preserve and restore life
on land, through territorial planning,awareness-raising and efforts to enhance
the resilience of forests and combat landdegradation. In this regard, they can help
localize SDG 15’s targets by focusing on
the areas of forestry, desertification andbiodiversity. These also reflect the global
agendas derived from the Earth Summit in
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992.

Policy initiatives to protect urban
ecosystems and promote sustainable
use of terrestrial resources

This shift towards planning for ‘urban
green growth’ is imperative, not only tosecure sustainable ecosystem services andresource flows, but also to ensure resiliencein the face of climate change. In recent years,
various global agreements such as the
UN Convention to Combat Desertification(UNCCD) and the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity, as well as spaces such as the UN
Forum on Forests, have acknowledged
and institutionalized the participation of
LRGs. The Global Partnership on LRGs
and Biodiversity proposed in 2007 is one of
the most successful cases for engagementof LRGs in global processes. It provides
support to cities’ sustainable managementof biodiversity resources, and assistance tothem to implement practices coordinatedwith national, regional and international
biodiversity strategies and agendas.
In 2017, this international dialogue evolved into
concrete collaborations. This was ahead of
the release of the UNCCD flagship publication‘Global Land Outlook’ which contained a
specific chapter on urbanization.156 These
collaborations include:• a dedicated session by ICLEI and the
UNCCD Secretariat at the 2017 Resilient
Cities Congress,157 which also saw therelease of ICLEI´s Briefing Sheet158 on
land degradation and cities, integrated
sustainable land management, guidelines
for compact city planning and smart
growth, landscape level approach andrural-urban partnerships as potential
options for local governments to address

153
We want to acknowledge
the contribution of ICLEI and
nrg4SD for this section.
154
See also: https://www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/
biodiversity/.
155
See also: http://www.fao.
org/sustainable-developmentgoals/indicators/forestarea/en/.
156
See also: https://globalland-outlook.squarespace.
com/the-outlook/#the-bokk.
157
See also. http://
resilientcities2017.iclei.org/
index.php?id=1102.
158
See also: http://www.iclei.
org/briefingsheets.html.

SDG 15

Protect, restore andpromote sustainable useof terrestrial ecosystems

92

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

resilience, food-water security andmigration challenges of desertification incities and regions;• specific consultations hosted by UCLG159
and UNCCD Secretariat as part of D'A2017— Désertif'Actions 2017 International
Summit160 of non-state actors on landdegradation and climate change in local
territories, organized by Association Climate
Chance in Strasbourg on 27-28 June 2017;• the first Minister-Mayor Roundtable161 at the
UNCCD 13th Conference of Parties in Ordos,
China, in September 2017, which included
the Mayors of Bonn (Germany), Strasbourg(France), Quelimane, (Mozambique) andOrdos (China) as speakers.

!

BOX 4.13.

INTERACT-BIO

159
See also: https://www.uclg.
org/fr/node/27530.
160
See also: https://www.
uclg.org/en/media/news/
international-summit-nonstate-actors-desertificationand http://www.desertifactions.fr/.
161
See also: http://enb.iisd.
org/desert/cop13/12sep.html.
162
See also: http://www.
cbc.iclei.org/project/bsapguidelines/.
163
Nrg4SD, Government ofQuébec (2016), Sub-national
governments in action forbiodiversity. Case studies.
164

Ibid.

INTERACT-Bio is a four-year project
designed to improve the utilizationand management of nature within
fast-growing cities and surrounding
regions. It aims to provide expanding
urban communities in the Global South
with nature-based solutions and theirassociated long-term benefits.
Supported by the International
Climate Initiative (IKI) Fund of theGerman Government (BMU), theproject will be implemented in ninecities and their regions in Brazil,
India and Tanzania to support
mainstreaming biodiversity intocore
sub-national
government
functions. These include spatialplanning, land-use management,
local economic development andinfrastructure design.
This will set participating cities
and regions on a more resilientand sustainable path. As well as
contributing to SDG 15.5, the project is
expected to provide a concrete practicalexample of the implementation of SDG
11.a, and demonstrate good practicefor synergies across SDG 11, 13 and 15.

In 2010, at the UN International Year on
Biodiversity in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture,
Japan, the Aichi/Nagoya ‘Declaration on
Local Authorities and Biodiversity’ wasadopted and the ‘2011-2020 CBD Plan of
Action on Cities, Local Authorities andBiodiversity’ established. This strategicplan defined 20 ambitious targets,collectively known as the Aichi Biodiversity
Targets. These demonstrated the tangible
contributions LRGs can make through local
actions. These were presented by the SubNational Governments Advisory Committee
to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The ‘Nagoya Plan of Action’ was further
supported by additional initiatives such asSingapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity, Cities
and Biodiversity Outlook, URBIO (Urban
Biodiversity and Design Network), andnrg4SD’s emerging Learning Platform for
Regions for Biodiversity. At every CBD COP in
2012, 2014, 2016, Global Biodiversity Summitof Cities and Sub-National Governments
were held as part of the official COP agenda,
concluding with respective declarations
and COP decisions to strengthen theimplementation of the Nagoya Plan.
Most recently, in 2017, the ‘Guidelines foran Integrated Approach to the Development
and Implementation of National, Subnationaland Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action
Plans and its Compendium Volume’162 werelaunched to support the sub-national andlocal implementation of National Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), andto coordinate planning, governance andmonitoring mechanisms between different
levels of government.
Through the adoption of laws andregulations directed at industries, LRGs canimplement sustainable urban development.
Moreover, the development of National
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans(NBSAPs) under the framework of theConvention on Biological Diversity has
become a key policy tool for many LRGs toplan sub-national biodiversity strategies.
The Fatick Region in Senegal has for
instance developed an ‘Integrated Regional
Development Plan 2012-2018’ which used
an ecosystem approach to meet the Aichi
Targets at the regional level. The transfer
of environmental and natural resource
management powers to the regions enabled
Fatick to design and monitor its biodiversity,
safeguarding efforts to protect wildlife inTOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

particular. As of today, 33 forests are being
developed and 100 villages are involved inforest management.163
Some regions and provinces have beenvery involved with the conservation andrestoration of ecosystems, including throughthe establishment of protected areas andpolicies to combat fires, invasive alien
species and soil erosion. As part of efforts
to protect 17% of its land mass and interior
fresh water areas by 2020, Quebec (Canada)

has established a network of protectedareas by creating 206 natural reserves
covering more than 21,000 hectares on
private lands.164 Likewise, the Province of
Lam Dong (Vietnam) established a system
of forest-basedecosystem payments. The
system helped to improve the quality of life
for more than 40,000 rural poor and provides
instrumental support in the preservation of
more than 200,000 hectares of forest.

Pongour waterfall, Lam Dong, Vietnam (photo by Binh Huynh, flickr.com)

93

94

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Cross-cutting issues:

Leaving no one
behindLocal and Regional Governments
put the 'Right to the City' at thecentre of urban and territorial
governance to include ‘those who
are furthest behind’ and co-create
sustainable and resilient societies.

"‘Leaving no one behind’
is about how cities can bea space for ‘opportunities
for all’, for sharing
universal rights, values
and objectives... By
acknowledging diversity andactive participation, LRGs
help reduce poverty andinequalities and efficiently
design policies which take
into account each group’s
specificities"

95

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

The following section describes initiatives
taken by LRGs to ensure that the principle
to leave no one behind has been enshrinedin sustainable development strategies atthe local and regional level.165 It gives an
overview of the efforts catalysed by LRGs
and associations from around the world, inline with the Bogotá Commitment and Action
Agenda, approved in Bogotá in 2016.
At the local level which is closest tocommunities, daily challenges include
tackling socio-spatial exclusion, integrating
migrants as well as the most marginalizedgroups, preventing urban violence, fighting
discrimination and protecting social rights
and justice for all. The New Urban Agenda
integrates migration into the strategicplanning and management of cities andnational urban systems, at the same timeaffirming the universality of human rights
regardless of the length of stay or legal
status.166 Hence in their efforts to promotea human rights-based approach to include‘those who are furthest behind’, LRGs are
instrumental in the localization of global
agendas.

Putting the ‘Right to the City’ at
the centre of urban and territorial
governance‘Leaving no one behind’ is about how cities
can be a space for ‘opportunities for all’,for sharing universal rights, values andobjectives. But it is also about acknowledging
the diversity of inhabitants and their contexts
and creating specific solutions throughtheir active participation. LRGs help reducepoverty and inequalities by identifying
deprivation and efficiently targeting outreachpolicies which take into account each group’s
specificities. The challenge is to makecities and territories a common good andimplement new ways of guaranteeing humanrights and participatory democracy towards
economic redistribution, cultural recognitionand political representation of all citizens.
As noted by UN-Habitat (2016),167 ‘75% of
the world’s cities have higher levels of income
inequalities than two decades ago’ while ’too
many cities today fail to make sustainable
space for all, not just physically, but also in the
civic, socio-economic and cultural dimensions
attached to collective space.’ Addressing
social exclusion at the local level is a matterof securing access to basic services for all
inhabitants and safeguarding citizens’ rights,
but also promoting sustainable development
for generations to come.
Inclusion policies are designed to satisfy
both material needs for a dignified life
and those related to social connections.
LRGs are also focusing their resources onfighting discrimination in all its forms. For
example, the city of Pikine (Senegal) has
created a ‘Human Rights Office’ for women
who have experienced sexual violence. In
Seoul (Republic of Korea), the metropolitan
government has created a system of humanrights governance, complete with a municipal
division and various ombudsmen in chargeof protecting the rights of minorities.168
Housing strategies are also a safeguard forhuman rights, particularly in urban extensions
where inequalities are growing, or in places
where people are being evicted throughgentrification processes (for more details see
SDG 11.1). The acknowledgment of the rights
of homeless people is an important issue inthe implementation of the New Urban Agenda
and has been followed by the adoption of the‘Homeless Bill of Rights’ by six European
cities.169 The city of Lisbon (Portugal) istackling discrimination against social groups
such as Roma people, Afro-descendant or
LGBTI communities through the SOMOS
programme. This is a comprehensive policy
based on a strong collaboration with local civilsociety, carrying out numerous actions in thefields of education, awareness and training of
local officials.
Similarly, the recognition of cultural rights
tends to play a crucial role in strengthening
the local social cohesion of several groups
such as indigenous or ethnic minorities. The
city of Medellin (Colombia)170 implemented
a long-term cultural plan. This aimed toconsolidate a culture of peace and democratic
participation, recognizing cultural rights forvulnerable groups such as Afro-Columbian,indigenous, LGBTI or internally displaced
populations. Yopougon, a suburb of Adibjan(Côte d’Ivoire), promotes cultural citizenshipamong the local youth in a post-crisis context
through participatory programmes that
aim to foster inter-culturalism and social
cohesion. The role of many cities in therecognition of LGTBI communities through arange of initiatives — e.g. Gay Pride events —is well known globally.

165
We want to acknowledge
the UCLG Committee on Social
Inclusion and participatory
Democracy and the UCLG
team on MC2CM migration
programme for their inputs on
this cross-cutting section.
166
Par. 38 of the New Urban
Agenda approved in Quito in
October 2016.

See UN-Habitat 2016 World
Cities Report.

167

168
More information available
at: https://www.uclg-cisdp.
org/en/news/latest-news/
seoul-municipal-governmentdivision-works-mainstreamrights-approach-local-public.
169
This initiative is fostered bycities and civil society, namely
FEANTSA and Housing Rights
Watch. According to FEANTSA,
these cities are Barcelona,
Mostoles and four Estonian
municipalities. Additional
information available at:
http://www.feantsa.org/
en/campaign/2017/11/21/
homeless-bill-of-rights.
170
More information available
at: http://agenda21culture.
net/sites/default/files/files/
good_practices/medellineng_def.pdf.

96

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Cross-cutting issue –leaving no one behind

Raising awareness of the benefitsof inclusion of migrants in local
governance

171
According to the UNHCR(2017), Forced Displacement in
2016, Global Trends.
172
In 2017, the numberof international migrants
worldwide accounted for 3.4%of the world’s population, a
total of 258 million people,
surpassing the annual world
population growth rate. United
Nations, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division (2017).
International Migration Report
2017: Highlights (ST/ESA/
SER.A/404).
173
UNHCR (2018), The Global
Report 2017.

According to the available
data collected, roughly 51% of
the global refugee population
are under 18-year-olds
and women represent 47 to
49% the same population.
World Migration Report 2018
(International Organization for
Migration 2017).

174

175
The Mechelen Declaration
was adopted in November
2017.
176
See also: www.clgf.org.uk/
rwanda.
177
See www.ralga.rw/spip.
php?page=article&id_
article=168; and www.clgf.
org.uk/whats-new/news/
localising-the-sdgs-inrwanda.

Thus far, data monitoring has captured
the regional distribution of migrants andconfirmed a rapid growth in migration
processes, especially in developing countries.
In 2016, over 80% of the world’s refugees andasylum-seekers were living in developing
countries.171 By the end of 2016, globally
refugees and asylum-seekers were estimatedto total 22.5 million people, representing 10%of all international migrants.172
The process leading to the 2030 Agenda
represented an important step forward,
acknowledging that cities are increasingly oneof the principal determinants of migration.
The SDGs also recognize migrants as avulnerable group and highlight the particularchallenges they face with regards to mobility
or inclusion (once they reach their destination
which in most cases is urban). UNHCR
collected disaggregated data on people andlocation at sub-national level as part of the
global framework, and was able to do this forapproximately 63% of the target population,with the data confirming that 60% of refugees
are indeed living in urban areas.173
LRGs have raised global awareness of the
instrumental role migrants can play in thedevelopment of both their host and origin cities.
The Mediterranean City2City Migration(MC2CM) programme, for example, has tried
to show the responsibility local governments
have dealing on a daily basis with migration
issues within their competencies andcapacities. Through peer-to-peer learningand nurtured dialogue, cities are building
bridges to engage with local stakeholders andsupport both migrants and host communities
in sustainable development strategies. The
programme also develops City Migration
Profiles with key assessments such as theevolving public perception of migration andintegration.

How do cities support migrants’
inclusion at local level?

Cities can greatly facilitate the contribution of
migrants to sustainable cities, communities
and inhabitants of the territory. But a poorly
negotiated inclusion policy can easily lead tovulnerability, exclusion, marginalization andsocial conflict. The city of Berlin (Germany),learning from the experiences of the cityof Utrecht (the Netherlands), has had an

ongoing policy since 2008 to train unem
ployed mothers with a migration backgroundand living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods
to become mentors and support newcomers
in overcoming bureaucratic and cultural
obstacles. The project, recipient of theMetropolis 2008 award, has now been
replicated in several other cities in Europe.
The city of Madrid (Spain) has also focused onaccess of migrants to decent labour as a way
to promote their integration into the territory,build their capacities and provide them withvocational training in order to contribute to
the city’s development. Within the peripheryof Paris, with the support of Plaine-Commune(France), the city of Stains is embarking on
an institutional partnership with a national
programme to professionalize street workers
in the field of car repairing. Meanwhile the cityof Saint-Denis is piloting a street food projectwith migrant women selling corn and African
dishes to passers-by. However, issues related
to the migratory presence in a territory are notclearly delineated in the SDGs.
Regulatory and financial barriers haveoften restricted local governments’ capacityand means to provide equal access to rights
and basic services for all, including migrants
and refugees. Nonetheless, some cities are
already implementing specific public policies
supporting migrant inclusion at the local
level, giving priority to women and children
as rights holders.174 Since 2005, the regionof the Marche (Italy) in partnership withcivil society has been promoting access tomaternal care. This particular provision has
been a key challenge for integration policies
in Europe, since it also requires innovative
solutions for multi-cultural mediation.
LRGs often operate at the edge of theircompetences to deliver on their commitments.
This was the case with Sanctuary Cities —Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal in Canada,
a concept shared with some other cities in
the U.S. In Europe, building on the initiativein particular of Barcelona and Madrid(Spain), a network of Ciudades Refugio('Refuge Cities') has been establishedand a resolution adopted by the Council ofEuropean Municipalities and Regions (CEMR)
that challenges national frameworks. Cities
can choose to mainstream human rightsbased approaches within the framework ofthe ‘Right to the City’, rather than confining
them to a strictly technical definition, thus
formalizing part of the UN commitment to‘leave no one behind’.

97

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Likewise, many mayoral declarations
have reinforced cities’ commitments toreconcile attractiveness with inclusivenessand promote the dignity of migrants.
Among these, the outstanding Mechelen
Declaration175 captured the voice of mayors
and governors in the development of a Global
Compact on Migration, in partnership with
IOM and UN-Habitat.

What do cities need to better support
migrant inclusion at the local level?

As already mentioned, monitoring global
migration at the sub-national level has
proved difficult. The exact effect of migrationin many countries of Sub-Saharan Africa andSouth-eastern Asia remains mostly under
the radar. Yet this is where the majority ofcurrent population flows are occurring. Lackof evidence is due to obsolete census dataand it is a hard task accounting for ‘floating’populations (people that move from rural tourban areas, and vice versa, on a seasonal orsemi-permanent basis).
In the regions described above, as well as in
the Middle East and Western Asia, the role ofintermediary cities within a system of cities is
instrumental in maximizing the opportunities
presented by migration. This is particularly
true of rural and urban interlinkages.
Within this, there is a need to enhance MLG
mechanisms to strengthen dialogue between
spheres of government and improve theinclusion of migrants with the support of civilsociety as well as the private sector. Inclusionof migrants is a win-win for all stakeholders
involved in the territory.
An example of national government
coordination can be found in Sweden where,
coordinated by the national level, LRGs,
civil society and the private sector work in
partnership to fast track employment of
migrants and closely match job markets withhost cities. The pilot project was conductedin partnership with the city of Stockholm andthe Swedish Association of Local Authorities
and Regions (SALAR). Another example canbe found in Jordan. Here, the international
community (the French Development
Agency and the Red Cross) have contributed
financially to support the city of Ammanin enhancing social cohesion of Syrian
refugees, in partnership with local civilsociety. The city government has fosteredimproved access to healthcare and social,
employment and cultural opportunities forrefugees, which has benefited Jordanian
citizens, created jobs and built up the capacityof public servants.
In regions where there is an ongoing or
recent refugee crisis, cities need national
government support in order to plan for the
additional pressure of inflows of migrants
on urban infrastructure, as well as theoperation and maintenance of systems thatsustain their access to public services.
Lastly, the international community has afundamental role to play in supporting local
governments’ capacity-building, cooperationand dialogue between cities. The Network of
Educating Cities, for example, disseminatesa 'Municipal Prevention Plan against
Discrimination' for employers, in order to help
them reach out to populations with a migration
background, as well as newcomers and diverse
ethnic and religious groups in general.

!

BOX 4.14.

DEMYSTIFYING THE SDGs IN AFRICA
AND THE CARIBBEAN
In Dominica, Jamaica and Trinidad Tobago, among
others, LGAs are engaging their membership to bring
together LRG sector stakeholders to support pilot
programmes tailored to the specific national and local
contexts to explore how localizing the SDGs can bepart of the national planning and reporting processes.
In Africa, this is also the case in many country and, inparticular, in Ghana, Malawi and Rwanda. For example,
the Rwandan Association of Local Government
Authorities (RALGA) are working with the CLGF176 on
an EU-funded project to strengthening LRGs’ role asa partner in development which aims to foster intergovernmental dialogue on how best the localizationof the SDGs can be pursued to ensure no one is left
behind.177 Through this project the SDGs are adapted
to three pilot districts’ realities, needs, priorities andaspirations and mainstreamed into their own short andmid-term development plans. In Bugesera, Gicumbi
and Ruhango districts, the councils are leading onawareness raising and networking in a process ofdemystifying the SDGs in an ambitious and peopleoriented planning process. This is helping inform thedevelopment of a national roadmap and factsheet for
SDGs localization in Rwanda.

98

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

O5

MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATIONThis section analyses initiatives generated
by countries and their LRGs in order tomobilize adequate and effective meansof implementation of the SDGs at the
local level. It focuses specifically on fivedimensions: policy reform; LRG financing;
capacity-building initiatives; monitoring;and international cooperation.

5.1

INSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORKS AND POLICYREFORMS
Effective policies and collaborative MLG
are essential to empower LRGs in theimplementation process. They should be
integral parts of national implementation
frameworks for the 2030 Agenda. This
report summarizes different institutional
mechanisms for coordination and follow-up
of the SDGs at the national level (see Section3.3), as well as various initiatives to alignnational and local development strategies.
LRG participation in these mechanisms,
however, is still limited to 39 out of the 99
countries that reported to the HLPF in
the last three years. At this stage, ‘wholeof-government’ or MLG approaches arefunctioning more as horizontal inter-agency
or inter-ministerial collaboration, rather
than vertical communication and integrationof different levels of government.

However, there is encouraging progress.
In Spain, LRGs’ strong involvement in the
preparation of the National Action Plan for theSDGs, especially through their LGA, FEMP,
led to their full integration in the national
SDGs coordination mechanisms and to thecommitment to include SDGs in Presidential
and Sectoral Conferences of Regional
Governments, which have been essential
for policy coordination. But without broader
reforms that ensure real buy-in at the LRGlevel, these efforts will remain tokenistic.
In this regard, in Mexico, the creation in2017 of the National Council for the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development wasa promising move towards dialogue andalignment across federal, state and municipal
levels, while also including civil society, theprivate sector and academia. The reform ofnational planning and budgetary processes
in February 2018 went a step further. The
scope of the initiative, however, was limited
by weak local government involvement. The
peculiar electoral conjuncture in 2018 may
have ultimately reduced such involvement
even more. A strong political push andtransformation at the institutional level areneeded to foster localization. Mobilization,
real empowerment of local officers, andmore resources and capacities for LRGs are
all needed to move forwards.
Coordination at the territorial level isalso fundamental. With this in sight, somecountries (e.g. Mali, Benin and Togo) areestablishing or strengthening institutional
mechanisms at regional and local level.

99

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

Mali created regional development agencies
in all its regions — as well as in the Districtof Bamako — to assist the local authorities
with project management. Similarly, thenational government in Paraguay set up
local and regional development councils as‘consultative mechanisms’ for cross-level
coordination. In Paraguay, however, the factthat the national LGA was not aware of suchdevelopments demonstrates how national
governments must involve local leadersin the entire process — from definition to
implementation and evaluation — to ensure
local ownership and strengthen mutual
confidence and accountability.
A specific kind of joint multilevel
collaboration via objective-based 'contracts'
or agreements — defining common
priorities and co-financing investments ina specific geographic area — has also beena useful means of improved cooperation. In
Australia, the federal government is using‘City Deals’ to bring together their threelevels of government and deliver long-term
outcomes for cities and regions, e.g. theWestern Sydney City Deal already provides
the basis for a 20-year-long agreement.
Likewise, Colombia is promoting contracts
between cities or regions (Departments) andthe national government to align national
and local priorities. Colombian LGAs havequestioned some of the mechanisms forresource mobilization, which sometimes
introduce new conditions and obstacles
for local authority projects.1 Contradictory
policies and a lack of policy coherence canundermine confidence and deter the active
participation of local leaders.
Multi-annual strategic plans, which are
updated and revised on a cyclical basis, help
many countries to redefine their planningin collaboration with local levels, as well as
renegotiate indicators and promote more
result-oriented approaches. Bhutan has
established its national strategy to build ‘ajust, harmonious and sustainable society
with enhanced decentralization.’ With its
12th Five Year Plan 2018 — 2023, the country
focuses on ‘consolidation, coordination andcollaboration’ and adopts the SDGs as amechanism to monitor progress in Local
Government Key Result Areas.
In the 2018 VNRs, 15 out of 47 countries
mention decentralization as an ‘important
challenge’ or consider the need to‘territorialize’ their policies and adopt aplace-based approach to ensure localization.2

Other countries have demonstrated alonger tradition of decentralization.3 In
many cases, assessing the real impact ofreforms remains a difficult task, due either
to delays in application, or contradictory
regulation, or insufficient support for
implementation. In Senegal4 and Niger,
while institutional reforms are mentioned,
an AIMF-led assessment reveals limited LRG
involvement. Similar challenges can be seenin Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea andMali. In Mali, for example, where the politicalsituation is volatile, the 2016 national action
plan mentions decentralization as a priority
to improve the transfer of competences andresources to LRGs. However, the national
LGA estimates that roughly 50% of local
development plans could be implemented by
LRGs under current conditions. Regardlessof context, however, reforms of this kind will
inevitably take time.
Finally, according to the surveys analysedin this report, LRGs in most countries still
consider the institutional framework to
be far from free of obstacles. Accordingly,
many have been advocating for effective
institutional reform, improved coordinationand more effective MLG.5

5.2

HOW TO FINANCE
THE LOCALIZING PROCESS
Another reliable indicator for effective implementation is the mobilization of adequate resources to support the localization process.
Financing was the top priority for most
LGAs in their survey responses. An overview
of LRG finance in a sample of 28 countries(out of 47 reporting to the HLPF this year)
shows a large divide both between countries
and between regional and local tiers. Data
show that in the five federal or quasi-federal
countries of the sample, LRGs account for
56% of total public spending and on average
their revenues represent 57% of national
public accounts. These percentages drop to
13% and 14% respectively in the 23 remaining
unitary countries.6 The share of total public
spending and revenues by LRGs is above theworld average in only five unitary countriesof the sample (19% and 18.8% respectively).7
Globally, resources available for local
governments to assume their competences

For example, LGAs asked
for the reform of the Órgano
Colegiado de Administracióny Decisión managing royalty
revenues in Colombia. In April
2018, Resolution No.1084 gave
550 municipalities greater
autonomy on investment
projects within the frameworkof the Final Agreement for the
End of Conflict and PeaceBuilding.

1‘Decentralization’ ismentioned as a principal or key
lever by Bhutan, Benin, Cabo
Verde, Ecuador, Mali, Namibia,
Romania, Senegal, Togo,
and Uruguay. ‘Subsidiarity’is mentioned by Poland andLatvia. ‘Territorialization ofstrategies’ is mentioned by
Colombia, Paraguay, Poland,
Senegal and Uruguay. Since
2015, Jamaica too has beenpromoting various local
government reform.

2

Ecuador, Colombia and, to alesser extent, the Dominican
Republic have been developing
decentralization policies forthe last few decades. Australia,
Canada, Spain and Switzerland
also have a strong track recordof decentralization initiatives.

3

The VNR of Senegal (2018)shows important initiatives arebeing taken through effective
implementation of the Act III of
Decentralization regulation.

4

Similar conclusions are
drawn from the Assessmentsof the Institutional Environmentof Local Governments for Africa
and the Asia-Pacific region.
These were developed by
UCLG Africa in 2012 and 2016,
with the support of Cities
Alliance (available online at:
http://www.citiesalliance.org/
node/5799), and by UCLGASPAC in 2018, with thesupport of Cities Alliance and
UNDP (available online at:
http://www.citiesalliance.org/
node/6518).

5

Spain is considered a quasifederal country. Among the fivenon-unitary countries, there
is a 30% difference between
the highest scoring country,
Canada, in which LRGs accountfor 76.5% of public spending
and the lowest scoring country,
Australia, in which LRGs
account for 46.6%. In federal
countries, the percentage ofmunicipal spending is far lower
than that of regional levels:
7% in Mexico, 13% in Spain,
and 20% in both Canada andSwitzerland. See also: OECDand UCLG (2016) Sub-national
Governments around the World –Structure and Finance.

6

From highest to lowest:
Colombia, Poland, Latvia,
Romania and Lithuania.
Among the 23 countries whoselevels of LRG expenditureand revenue fall below world
average, LRGs amounted to
between 10% and 19% of thenational public budget in a first
sub-group of seven countries:
Cabo Verde, Slovakia, Hungary,Albania, Ecuador, Mali, and theState of Palestine; and to below
10% in a second sub-group of
11 countries: Armenia, Ireland,Paraguay, Senegal, Greece,
Benin, Dominican Republic, theRepublic of Congo, Jamaica,
Malta and Guinea.

7

100

See IATF (2018), Financing
for Development: Progress andProspects.

8

Latvia reports new tax
reforms aimed at ensuring
sufficient and predictable
tax revenues to financestate and local government
commitments. Togo reports
on its initiative to boost
LRGs’ finance management
capacities (e.g. enhancing
taxpayer files), and to create
an Observatory on Local
Finances. The VNR of Mexico(2017) announced reforms to
support local taxes, but thisis not mentioned in the 2018
report. Moreover, in its answer
to the UCLG Survey, the LGAfrom the Dominican Republic
calls for the creation of an
economic and property tax.

910
In its framework ofdecentralization policies, Mali
committed to an increasein transfers to local levels,reaching 30% of the national
budget in 2018 (in 2016, it
was 16.7%). In their answers
to the UCLG Survey, Republicof Central Africa, Vietnam
and Sri Lanka underlinethat transferred funds havedecreased or regulation is not
being respected.

Ministerial Roundtable 1, ECOSOC Forum on Financing for Development, April 2018,
New York (photo by UCLG/Joel Sheakoski)

11
Paul Smoke (November2017) Policies, Reforms andStrategies for Enhancing Subnational Development Finance,
Informal Note for the 2018
IATF Report, Coordinatedby New York University, incollaboration with UCLG,UNCDF and UN-Habitat.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

in the localization process remain extremely
limited.
As part of the follow-up on the Addis
Ababa Action Agenda (AAAA), a specificsection of the ‘2018 Progress Report on
Financing for Development’ addressed theissue of sub-national development finance.
This highlighted the need to strengthen
institutional and fiscal frameworks toempower LRGs to act autonomously within
their competences and possibilities.8
Several countries are reporting on thefinancial assessments they carried out toestimate the cost of localizing the SDGs (e.g.
Benin, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay). In
Benin, the assessment is still taking place
and aims to integrate all financial sources(domestic and international), and identify major
gaps. The LGA has played a key role supporting
its members in the alignment of budgets in athird generation of local development plans
and negotiate budget support from the national
government. Uruguay created a National
Portal for Budget Transparency to facilitate thefollow-up of SDG commitments in budgets andis also piloting initiatives to support LRGs in
this task. At the global level, efforts to tighten
the link between planning, policy-making andbudget allocation processes across different
levels of government are urgently needed tobetter support LRG finances and policies. In
particular, earmarked or conditioned grants
should be limited since they are a constraint
on LRGs’ capacity to respond to local priorities
of localization.

Other countries report on both new andexisting sectoral programmes to financespecific initiatives in support of LRGs.
Greece is planning to allocate EUR 7 billion
in 2019-2020 for administrative reforms and
LRG investment programmes. Senegal ismobilizing USD 9.5 million for sustainable
cities. Other national governments aretargeting subsidies for sectoral investments,
yet this is often ad hoc funding. Manyfinancing proposals do not provide reliable
information on the management of potential
funding and, most importantly, whether
this would eventually be accessible to local
governments to upscale their capacities andmaintain new infrastructures.
Few VNRs (e.g. Armenia, Latvia and Togo)refer to concrete proposals that directly
address the main pillars of sub-national
finance — i.e. taxes and transfers, asset
management and borrowing.9 Likewise,
it is important to improve access to, andavailability of, shared revenues between
national and sub-national governments
throughenhanced
andtransparent
transfers in order to strengthen local
budgets (e.g. Mali).10
In the follow-up process to the AAAA,
several local resource mobilization initiatives
for urban development — e.g. land-value
capture actions in Brazil and Colombia— stand out as innovative ways of funding
strategies compatible with the principleof ‘leaving no one behind’.11 These areoften the starting point to increasing LRGs’

101

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

creditworthiness and their ability to accesslong-term financing. Thus, many LRGs havefought to be able to issue municipal bonds
and, eventually, ‘green’ municipal bonds.
For example, the city of Johannesburg andmore recently Mexico City became the first
cities in Africa and Latin America to achieve
this goal. In 2017 however, mapping by the
Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliancerevealed a lack of visibility of funding andfinancing options for sub-national tiers ofgovernance.12 The Basque Government has
recently developed a new Sustainability Bond
Framework, under which it issues multiple
sustainability bonds to support regional
programmers aligned with SDGs.13
In more general terms however, many
countries — especially lower middle andlow-income — simply do not have the rightconditions to foster LRG borrowing andfunding. For sub-national credit markets towork effectively, incremental development
and the support of the national government
remain essential. This has been the pattern
in many high-income countries, and recently
also in several middle-income ones, suchas Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Moreeffective municipal development funds orbanks could play a key role in providing
resources and developing creditworthiness,
as well as mobilizing private finance.
Multilateral and national development banks
should find ways to lend more to LRGs; andlocal access to climate-related financing
should also be facilitated.
Finally, LRGs have pointed out a persistentlack of clarity on fiscal and financial reforms,
despite international commitments relying
on localization processes. Thus, LRGs inseveral regions of the world — e.g. Brazil,
Lebanon and New Zealand — emphasizethat little or no national funding is allocatedto the localization of the SDGs. Cities (e.g.
Rio de Janeiro and Medellin) have also
been vocal about seeking alternative ways
to fund the implementation of the global
agendas as it becomes increasingly clearthat conventional approaches to revenue
mobilization are inadequate. UCLG and
OECD, with the support of the French
Development Agency (AFD), have joined
forces with UNCDF to create the World
Observatory of Sub-National Government
Finance and Investments. This is to better
monitor LRGs’ finances. The Observatory’s
pilot study was published in 2016.14

5.3

CAPACITY-BUILDINGINITIATIVES
An effective institutional framework for the
localization of the SDGs depends on humancapacities. Public servants need to be trainedin the new integrated framework and thematic
scope covered by the SDGs. This degree ofcommitment is essential to internalize new,inclusive and participatory methods, as wellas the principles underpinning a truly rightsbased approach.
Most surveyed countries have emphasized
the need to adequately train their staff acrossnational and local administrations for the
implementation of the SDGs. In the past few
months, LRGs and international institutions
have carried out specific training initiatives
for local officers in all world regions. UCLG
and its regional sections reported in 2017
alone over 25 training sessions, involving
more than 500 local officers and leadersfrom cities in Africa, Asia, Europe andLatin America. Most global and regional
networks (e.g. AIMF, CLGF, ICLEI, Metropolis,
Platforma and UCCI) and several national
LGAs have been developing similar initiatives(for more information, see also Section 3.4).
Various national governments are also
redoubling their efforts: among thosereporting in 2018, the Greek Government
has engaged its National School of Public
Administration and Local Government(EKDDA), while Mexico is acting mostly
through the National Institute for Federalism
and Municipal Development (INAFED). In
their answers to the UCLG survey, the LRGs
of Benin, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Colombia,
Jamaica, Mali, Peru, Sri Lanka, Togo,
Uruguay and Vietnam, among others, said
they have been training public servants, inpartnership with national and international
institutions.
Dissemination of information about
the SDGs and related national strategies
builds on diverse methods and tools. These
include local and regional workshops, ‘rapid
integrated assessments’ to mainstream theSDGs in local plans (UNDP), and several
other actions to promote local planning,
public services, climate-change mitigation
and adaption, urban resilience and genderequality. There is also a plethora of guidelines,
manuals, webpages (e.g. LocalizingtheSDGs.

12
Starting with the lack ofmaterials in languages otherthan English.
13
See also: www.euskadi.
eus/gobierno-vasco/-/noticia/2018/presentacionpublica-del-bono-sostenibleeuskadi/.14 OECD and UCLG
(2016).
14

OECD and UCLG (2016).

102

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

org) and templates that promote and define
tools and initiatives for SDG mobilization,alignment and participatory monitoring.
Moreover, SDG localization has been
integrated in certain countries’ strategies
for the modernization of their public
administration — e.g. Latvia, Colombia, Lao
PDR, Mali, Mexico, Senegal, and Togo.15
Within the framework of SDG 16, ‘open
government’ as well as anti-corruption
policies are also receiving attention (e.g.
Latvia, Spain).
LRGs in several countries from allcontinents agree, to varying degrees,that further training is needed to localize
the SDGs. This is particularly the case inlower middle and low-income countries
where LRGs suffer from a chronic lack ofprofessionals and well-trained officers.

5.4

PRIORITIZINGCO-PRODUCTION OF DATA
AND LOCAL MONITORING
How to develop reliable monitoring, evaluation and reporting tools to guarantee
SDG implementation at sub-national levelremains an open question.16 To respond tothe challenges posed by the current global
system of indicators,17 several countries havesuggested monitoring SDG implementation
at the sub-national level. This would becoordinated with central governments throughthe establishment of dedicated sub-national
monitoring or joint, multilevel structures andmechanisms.18 Mexico has been an example inthis regard: its VNR disaggregates indicators
at the federated state level and, for specificindicators, even at municipal level. However,this is hindered by inadequate adaption anddisaggregation of data at the local level inthe current system.19 To generate true local
ownership of the SDGs within a transparent
and accountable system, it will be essential
for indicators, data collection and monitoring
to be led at the local level
Since 2016, many LRGs have made progressin sub-national monitoring.20 For example (seeSection 3.4), the most relevant German LGAs,
in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of
Territorial Research and with the technicalassistance of the Bertelsmann Foundation,
created an assessment model whose
indicators stem directly from the requirements,
targets and indicators of the SDGs. In the same
period, CEMR-CCRE, in collaboration with the
French Ministry of Housing, has developed theReference Framework for Sustainable Cities(RFSC), a monitoring tool to assist cities in theimplementation of urban SDGs.21 In Brazil, CNM
has developed a Mandala of SDGs, with its own
measurement and reporting on 28 indicators atmunicipal level, easily visualized using a radar
chart. Other initiatives are planned for 2018 in
Belgium and the Netherlands, with the supportof VVSG (the Flemish LGA) and VNG (the Dutch
LGA) respectively.
Various cities are developing their own
monitoring initiatives: Utrecht, in the
Netherlands; Winnipeg, in Canada;22
Mexico City, which created the Monitoreo
CDMX, an initiative acknowledged by Cities
Alliance as one of the five best practices
to strengthen local voices in the reviewing
process in 2018;23 and Rio de Janeiro,
where Casa Fluminense developed the SDG
Metropolitan Observatory (METRODS), withsupport from the Sustainable Development
Solutions Network (SDSN).24 As part of theurban contribution to the climate-change
mitigation agenda, global networks have also
set up systems and databases to monitor
LRGs’ carbon emissions and footprint — e.g.
ICLEI’s Carbonn Climate Registry (involving
83 countries), and the GPC Interactive
Dashboard, developed by C40.25
Other international institutions haveadopted similar approaches, with city
performance and the monitoring of SDG 11 at
the centre of this. UN-Habitat has developed
its City Prosperity Index, which monitors 450
cities worldwide. It has also spearheaded the
Global Sample of Cities database, covering
200 municipalities with 100,000 inhabitants
or more.26 Both of these are being used toreport on the SDG 11 to the HLPF. Other
examples include the World Council on City
Data,27 and the SDSN reporting initiative to‘Leave No U.S. City Behind’.28
LRGs are aware of the huge volume
of information that their activities andcompetences can bring to the developmentof new public and private development
initiatives. They have been shown to be willingto build partnerships to collect, systematize
and build on their knowledge. Such an
ambitious agenda will need the support ofinternational partners and UN agencies.

15
See UCLG (2017) and UNPAN(2018) p. 49.
16
Paragraph 77, Transforming
our world: The 2030 Agenda forsustainable development, United
Nations, General Assembly, A/
RES/70/1.
17
Roughly a third of UN-proposed
indicators have no widely available
data or internationally-agreed
methodology.
18
UNPAN (2018).
19This challenge was identified inmost surveyed countries. In Latin
America, for example, according
to ECLAC’s 2nd Regional Annual
Report (2018), only about 45% of
all indicators are being monitored
at the national level. Since SDGs
11 and 12 both have strong
territorial components, to datethey are among the SDGs where
less data is being produced andanalysed.
20
See UCLG (2017), Section 5.3.2,
and UNPAN (2018).
21
The RFSC identifies fivekey dimensions and 30
objectives/indicators to assess
city performance in spatialorganization, governance, society,environment and the economy.
See also: www.rfsc.eu/europeanchallenges/.
22
For Utrecht, see Section 3.4. For
Winnipeg, the 4th edition of the Our
City: A Peg Report on Sustainability
report evaluates progress bylinking the city’s wellbeing with
the SDGs, according to theindicator system of the Peg online
community (https://peg.trackingprogress.org). The report is alsoavailable online.
23
The other four winners werea network of 19 Colombian
cities Ciudades cómo vamos;#weResilient, including the 100
municipalities of the Provinceof Potenza in Italy; the City
Footprint Project (SASA-Servicios
Ambientales S.A.) across Latin
America; and the Marunda Urban
Resilience in Action project, led
by Cordaid, with slum dwellers
in Indonesia. See also: www.
citiesalliance.org/beyond-sdg11winners. For Mexico City’s
Monitoreo, see: http://www.
monitoreo.cdmx.gob.mx.
24
The project also received the
support of the CNM and the ABM– two LGAs in Brazil – as wellas Cities Alliance, ITDP and the
GIZ. It aims to support peripheral
cities in metropolitan areas totake informed decisions with dataaligned with the SDGs.
25
See also: http://carbonn.org/
and http://www.c40.org/other/
gpc-dashboard.
26
The CPI is a composite index
based on six dimensions over 15
sub-dimensions with 72 urban
indicators, which are designed
to be contextually specific andglobally comparable. UN-Habitat is
also leading the Global Sample ofCities in partnership with New York
University and the Lincoln Instituteof Land Policy. See also: UNHabitat (2016), The Fundamentalof Urbanization Evidence for Policy
Making, Annex 2.
27
WCCD collects and organizes
relevant urban development dataon 100 socio-economic indicators(46 are defined as ‘core’) in about
250 (mostly large) cities. 84 cities
are either certified or processing
their application.
28
See Section 3.4.

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

103

FIGURE 5.1.

ODA disbursements constant prices (2015 USD millions)ODA DISBURSEMENTS FOR URBAN PROJECTS (LOW-COST HOUSING, HOUSING POLICY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND MANAGEMENT), 2002-2015
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

LDCs, Total

2008

2009

LMICs, Total

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

UMICs, Total

Sources: OECD Creditor Reporting System, 2017. LDCs (Least Developed Countries), LMICs (Lower-Middle Income Countries) and UMICs (Upper-Middle Income
Countries) based on UN DESA, UNCDF (2017) Financing for Sustainable Urban Development in the Least Developed Countries, p. 115, figure 6.1.

5.5

INTERNATIONALAND DECENTRALIZEDCOOPERATION
The international community can playa fundamental role in supporting LRGs
in the localization of the SDGs. A quick
overview of sectoral ODA in 2015 shows that
disbursements to support decentralization
efforts have grown steadily in the last decade,especially to lower middle-income countries.
Moreover, despite some volatility, total ODA for
projects at the urban level — including urban
development and management, housing
policy, and administrative management —has more than doubled in the last ten years.
However, data for 2015 show a decrease
in total bilateral and multilateral ODA
disbursements for urban projects. The shareof ODA for urban projects as part of total ODA
to least developed countries peaked in 2015,
but is still less than 1%.29
Donor support is instrumental inencouraging partners to engage with theglobal agendas, and important efforts havebeen made to report on investments within
the SDG framework. Yet many donors still do
not explicitly tie their funding to the SDGs (asvarious LGAs report in their survey answers).
Thus, LRGs are disincentivized to align theirprogrammes and projects with the SDGs.
Development banks and international
donors need to develop criteria that areinclusive of the LRGs; build up operating
and reporting capacities; and catalysefurther investment so that multilevel andmulti-sectoral partnerships can be built
at the territorial level. Several networks —e.g. the Cities Climate Finance Leadership
Alliance or the Global Covenant of Mayors
for Climate Change and Energy — provide
context-specific support for LRGs to improve
project preparation and financial structuring,mobilize long-term financing, and internalize
adequate financial strategies.
The OECD recently evaluated that
Decentralized Development Cooperation(DDC) led by LRGs amounted to USD 1.7
billion in 2005, reaching USD 1.9 billion in
2015.30 International solidarity between LRGs
across the world has been instrumental todevelopment, and the principles of reciprocity
and universality have further contributed.
Decentralized cooperation has been key
to efforts to localize the SDGs and to adapt
progressive approaches and secure adequate
territorial strategies and partnerships that
truly engage and involve LRGs throughout
the whole process.

29

UNDESA, UNCDF (2017).

OECD (2018), Reshaping
Decentralised Development
Co-operation.
30

104

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

O6

CONCLUSIONSAND WAY FORWARD

The second report on the ‘Localizationof the SDGs’ presents a comprehensive
summary of the progress made by Local
andRegional
Governments(LRGs)
worldwide. It complements the information
presented in the ‘Main Messages’ and theVoluntary National Reviews (VNRs) fromthe perspective of LRGs in 99 countries.1
It also shows the diversity of actions andinnovative approaches to localize the six
goals assessed by the HLPF under thetheme ‘Transformation towards sustainable
and resilient societies’. Furthermore, it
explains SDG 11 and provides an in-depth
assessment of the initiatives that are
working towards ‘sustainable cities andcommunities’.

Visionary local and regional leaders
champion policy changes

The report showcases how cities andregions are fostering alternative policies.
Countries where LRGs benefit from anenabling institutional framework can play a
key developmental role — e.g. by supporting
affordable housing policies, effective mobility
systems, more sustainable use of waterand energy, integrated waste management,
and participatory planning approaches
that protect public space and include risk
prevention. Many LRGs are committed
to promote culture as the fourth pillar ofsustainability. They are protecting heritageand promoting creativity for all. The cities inthese regions and areas are driving new formsof urbanism that promote new opportunities,
social inclusion, new patterns of consumption
and production, as well as urban-rural
linkages and environmental sustainability.
However, systemic global trends could
undermine much of the progress promoted by
LRGs in their territories.

Critical global trends
and sub-national governments

The report flags many of the global
constraints that directly impact LRGs andexplores how they address these challenges.
It also makes a general call to action to theinternational community to undertake thenecessary measures to accommodate the‘one million’ new urban dwellers per weekthat it is estimated will reach existing cities,
large and small, in the coming years. It is
expected that 2.5 billion people or more will
be living in cities by 2050. This urban growth
will be concentrated particularly in SubSaharan Africa and South Asia.. The reporthighlights the fact that sustainable provisionof basic services and harmonious urban
development will be extremely challenging. It
posits supporting adequate urbanization andimplementing the New Urban Agenda as themain ‘accelerators’ of the 2030 Agenda, which

105

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

is key to sustainable urban development.
Climate change and the increasing impact ofnatural and man-made disasters are among
key global threats. At the same time, thecommodification of urban services worldwide
and particularly the evolution of real-estatemarkets are exacerbating the housing crisis,
which is now affecting newcomers andexisting residents alike. As a result, spatial
segregation and inequalities are growing.

An expanding global movement of
involved LRGs

Cities, both large and small, as well as regions
and their associations at the national, regional
and international level are championing a‘localization movement’. Large cities have been
particularly vocal in calling for transformation.
This raises awareness of the links between
local action and the global agenda, whileat the same time strengthening action andaligning policies and action plans with the 17
LGAs. SNGs, cities and regions are leading
the localization process in many countries(e.g. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Spain, as well
as most Northern and Western European
countries). They have also been proactive inestablishing multilevel and multi-stakeholder
partnerships to catalyse the localization
process (e.g. Benin, Costa Rica, Indonesia,
Korea, Japan and South Africa).
In countries with strong centralized planning
traditions, SNGs usually follow the guidelines
from national governments (e.g. Armenia,
China and Vietnam) or adopt a more ‘passive
by default’ approach, particularly in countries
where the local administration has limited or
no formal autonomy.
Despite these trends, outreach is still
limited. It is important to recognize that thevast majority of LRGs are either not acquainted
with the SDGs or perceive the 2030 Agenda
to be yet another external ‘burden’, and an‘internationally imposed agenda’.
Global, regional and national organizationsof LRGs, including specialized thematic
networks, are increasing their efforts toraise awareness to mobilize and guide theirconstituency. Clear high-level political support
at the global level and the commitment
ofnational governments are critical tofostering greater action at the local level.
The report calls for clear and unequivocal
actions to empower LRGs and to develop
collaborative governance approaches as anintegral part of the national framework for
implementation.

Improvement of LRGs’ involvementin the VNRs and institutional
mechanisms for coordination andfollow-up

Less than half of the VNR consultations
and one third of the follow-up mechanisms
in 99 countries involve local governments.
The achievement of the SDGs will require
collaboration within and between governments‘to a level that has not been seen before’.2
Current levels of involvement are clearly
insufficient and threaten to become an
unbridgeable gap for the achievement of thegoals.
National governments and UN institutions
need to further develop multilevel spaces for
dialogue and joint action. These must ensure
the participation and engagement of local
and regional leaders, both in the reporting
process through the VNRs and in thenational and global follow-up institutional
mechanisms, with adapted agendas andpolicy support.

New institutional frameworks forcollaborative governance

Coordination between administrations andspheres of government remains a criticalissue. Moreover, the transformation of
institutions takes time and effort.3
These challenges necessitate new governance systems that provide more strategic
and integrated solutions at all levels. Indeed,
top-down sectoral policies, poor coordination
between spheres of government, andinsufficient access to financing for local
investments persist. This undermines
efforts to address the socio-economic andenvironmental dimensions of sustainable
development more holistically at the urban
and territorial levels.
Progress towards more collaborative
governance requires better spaces for dialogue
between different levels of administration. It
also necessitates respect of the principle ofsubsidiarity, fully acknowledging the criticalrole and responsibilities of LRGs in urban
and regional planning and local development,
and in overcoming institutional blockages andimproving shared financing.
Many countries acknowledge the role of
LRGs, and yet their VNRs or national strategies
do not always demonstrate a clear strategy
for the ‘localization’ or ‘territorialization’ of
the SDGs. The SDGs are an opportunity tocatalyse both local sustainable development

In total, 112 countries
reported between 2016 and2018 (22 in 2016, 43 in 2017and 47 in 2018). The total (99)
records a country once eventhough it has reported twice(the case with nine countries),or three times (one country).
Countries with no information
were removed 4 countries(Bahamas, Hungary, Namibia,
Republic of Congo).

1

United Nations, 2018,
Working Together: Integration,
institutions and theSustainable Development
Goals, World Public Sector
Report 2018, Division for
Public Administration andDevelopment Management,
Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, (DPADM),
New York.

2

However, the ambition of
more collaborative governanceis fully integrated in SDGs’
holistic approach (cf. SDG
16.6 and 16.7 develop effective
accountable, transparent andparticipative institutions and
SDG 17.14 enhanced policy
coherence).

3

106

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

as well as a more inclusive and resilient
urban development.

Localization of the SDGs can only
be scaled up as an integral part ofnational strategies

Effective localization (or a territorial-based
approach) entails integrated planning
efforts linking national, regional and local
development strategies, aligned with theSDGs. Whilst many VNRs reproduce a ‘topdown’ vision, emphasizing the inclusion ofnational priorities on the SDGs in local plans,
few VNRs stress the need for scaling up
local innovative actions and local prioritiesaligned with the SDGs in national strategies.
Nevertheless, LRGs are moving towards
full alignment of their plans and strategies
with the 2030 Agenda. On the one hand,decentralized governance fosters flexible
and strategic forms of regional and urban
planning to mainstream local priorities.
On the other, in countries with weak local
governance, urban planning modalities —where they do exist — remain top-down andhamper local capacities for implementation.
The SDGs and the New Urban Agenda offera real opportunity to reform and strengthen
the role of LRGs in planning and to promote
them as key drivers for the localization of
the 2030 Agenda, thus broadening andempowering local stakeholder involvement.
National Urban Policies (NUPs) can help
build a more collaborative framework
to develop cross-sectoral and coherent
approaches to guide sustainable urban
development. While important to ensure
their development, NUPs cannot andshould not replace local urban policies.
Improved collaboration across different
levels of government and stakeholders
is imperative to creating ownership andsupporting implementation at a later stage.

Financing the localization of theSDGs: a pending issue

The ‘2018 Progress Report on Financing forDevelopment’, in line with the Addis Ababa
Action Agenda (paragraph 34), highlights theneed to strengthen institutional and fiscal
frameworks to empower LRGs to act within
their competences. This means a more
integrated framework for LRGs’ planningand financing. Across the world, LRGs areproposing a re-think of municipal financing
to provide them with sufficient capacities,
enabling
regulatory
frameworks
andinstitutional incentives to function effectively.
Moreover, at the global level, while anincreasing amount of funds are available forurban infrastructure, they are failing to reach
LRGs and those territories most in need.
From the perspective of LRGs, there is a lackof visibility about the funding and financing
options available to them. More efforts byinternational institutions are needed tounderstand the potential diversity of LRGs,
and to build partnerships and catalyse
investments in sustainable long-term local
financial projects.

‘Make the Shift’: a rights-based
approach at the centre of local agendas

The implementation of the ‘Right to the City’
acknowledged in the Habitat III outcome
document is an important vehicle for linking
the implementation of SDGs with a rightsbased approach. The development of urban
planning and particular local policies areimportant levers to delivering on the corepromise to ‘leave no one behind’. Suchpolicies combine the right to housing and therights of women with inclusion strategies,
giving particular attention to youth, people
with disabilities, older persons, migrants
and other vulnerable groups. The initiatives
that have been shown to protect the rightof migrants create new forms of solidarity
within the urban fabric. All these actions
contribute to a broader understanding ofgovernance based on the co-creation andprotection of the commons.
The report highlights cities as leading a callto action to ‘put the right to housing and theRight to the City as an unequivocal necessity
to comply with the SDGs’. It showcases the
support of global networks for the ‘Make theShift’ campaign, promoted by the UN Special
Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, LRG
networks, and civil society.

Participation to co-create cities andterritories

Instruments of participatory democracy at
the local level are expanding. The reportpresents a diversity of existing mechanisms
and channels, including digital instrumentsthat create ‘virtuous circles’ of engagement
between citizens and institutions. However,107

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

it also warns that citizen participation canbe limited to a consultative role (public
surveys, workshops, forums and polls)
when the decision-making process is mainly
controlled by political and administrative
authorities or driven by economic
development interests.
To move forward, participation is needed
to frame a new paradigm for sustainable
development: the ‘co-creation’ of cities andterritories based on a stronger involvementof local actors throughout the process.

The need for disaggregated data to
feed into bottom-up monitoring

Monitoring of the localization process
requires disaggregated and place-based
data. Extreme poverty is localized andinequalities between countries, as well as
between territories and within cities, arewidening. Without localized data, it will be
particularly difficult to ensure that ‘no one
is left behind’. LRGs are launching initiatives
to collect data on the ground, but stronger
support and coordination are essential todisaggregate and localize data.

International cooperation focusing on,
and led by, LRGs

As this report shows, the alignment ofinternational development cooperation withthe 2030 Agenda is laborious and has not yet
reached local levels. The efforts of LRGs andtheir associations involved in international
development cooperation are significant andproductive. However, to enhance and upscalethese practices, there needs to be a clearer
focus on enabling policy frameworks fordecentralized cooperation, as well as muchgreater support for the involvement of LRGs
in general development cooperation plans.

✱
A WAY FORWARD
Within the framework of their global commitment
to the achievement of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and other global agendas throughlocalization, the Local and Regional Government(LRG) networks gathered in the GTF to commit to:1.

Strengthening awareness, policy commitment
and ownership among LRGs and their partners
to expand their involvement in the localization
process.

2.

Supporting the proactive involvement of LRGs in
the Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) process inthe countries that will report in 2019, as well as theircollaboration with the institutional mechanisms for
coordination and follow-up in each country.

3.

Ensuring the active participation of LRGs in the
Regional Forums on Sustainable Development,
organized by the UN Regional Commissions, toprovide regional inputs to the HLPF.

4.

Promoting and supporting the development oftools for LRGs’ self-assessment on the alignmentof their development plans and strategies with theSDGs to foster the localization process.

5.

Promoting Voluntary Local Review at city andregional levels, and recording and monitoringthese reviews through the annual LRGs’ report to
the HLPF.

6.

Promoting international cooperation and peerto-peer exchange of knowledge for localization
through city-to-city and decentralized cooperation,aligned with the SDGs.

108

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

GTF MEMBERS AND
PARTNERS CALL FOR:

1.

Fostering the integration of specificreferences (or a section on LRGs’ actions)in the VNRs to monitor the implementationof the SDGs at sub-national levels in eachcountry, as is already the case in somecountries.

2.

Including specific follow-up processes tothe VNRs and developing the HLPF as aspace for further identification and exchangeof successful practices.

3.

Enhancing the presence and spaces for
dialogue between LRGs and national
governments in the context of the HLPF,
in particular by supporting existing efforts
promoted by the GTF such as the Local andRegional Governments Forum, Local 2030
and the Localizing the SDGs platform.

4.

Paying specific attention to local solutions
and actions in the Quadrennial Global
Sustainable Development Report to bereleased in 2019.

5.

Promoting the implementation of the
New Urban Agenda as a key cornerstone
and accelerator of the localization andachievement of the SDGs.

6.

Rallying LRGs to lead an international
coalition for the implementation of SDG 11,
linking all stakeholders to the localization
process.

109

TOWARDS THE LOCALIZATION OF THE SDGs

The members of
the GTF further
commit to continue
to contribute to themapping of LRGs’
initiatives andperspectives thatwill enhance thecollective Annual
Report of LRGs tothe HLPF

Member networks of the Global Taskforce:With special contributions from:C40, ICLEI, CLGF, AIMF, International Union of Public Transport (UITP), International Solid Waste
Association (ISWA), IIED, OIDP and UCLG's Committee on Culture and the Committee on Social
Inclusion, Participatory Democracy and Human Rights (CISDP)

Facilitated by:

Supported by: