Urban challenges in the 21st Century
Social capital and innovation as key factors for implementing
integrated development approaches

Urban 20 White Paper
A CIPPEC White Paper for the Urban 20 (U20)

Source: Photo by Andrea Leopardi on Unsplash, Buenos Aires

Authored by:About Urban 20•

Urban 20 (U20) is a new city diplomacy initiative developed under the leadership of, Horacio
Rodríguez Larreta, Mayor of the City of Buenos Aires, Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris and Chair of
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (C40). Launched on December 12, 2017 at the One Planet
Summit in Paris, the initiative is chaired by the cities of Buenos Aires and Paris, and convened by
C40, in collaboration with United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG).
U20 seeks to highlight the expertise of cities in a range of global development challenges andto raise the profile of urban issues within the G20. U20 offers solutions and clear
recommendations for consideration by national leaders ahead of the 2018 G20 Summit. It will
culminate in the inaugural U20 Mayors Summit in Buenos Aires on October 29-30. This will be a
stepping stone towards ensuring a dialogue between cities and the G20.
In 2018, 26 cities have participated in Urban 20: Barcelona, Beijing, Berlin, City of Buenos Aires,
Chicago, Durban, Hamburg, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Madrid,
Mexico City, Milan, Montreal, Moscow, New York, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, São Paulo, Seoul,
Sydney, Tokyo, and Tshwane.
For more information, please consult: www.urban20.org

About the White Papers
Urban 20 is proud to present a series of White Papers from our Strategic and Advisory Partners
that highlight the most relevant topics on the cities development agenda and the forthcoming
urban trends. These papers define the challenges that local governments are currently facing
and offer open recommendations supported by relevant, up-to-date research and data. The
intention of this work is to broaden the understanding and perspective of decision makers andstakeholders as to enhance their ability to tackle these most pressing issues. The White Papers
also represent the hard work and dedication of these agencies and organizations to keep the
public well informed about the ongoing efforts to address the present and future challenges weshare as humankind.

Image: Orbon Alija

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

Urban Challenges in the 21st Century: Social capitaland innovation as key factors for implementing integrated
development approaches is a White Paper prepared by
the Center for the Implementation of Public Policies
Promoting Equity and Growth (CIPPEC).

About
AboutthetheAuthors
Authors
Gabriel Lanfranchi
CIPPEC Cities’ Program Director
Gabriel Lanfranchi is an architect and urban planner from
Argentina. He holds a master’s degree in urban economics from
Torcuato Di Tella University and he is a researcher at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Currently, he is the
director of the Cities Program at CIPPEC, Argentina. At MIT, hefounded the MIT Metro Lab, a special course developed at theEnvironmental Solutions Initiative (ESI), that promotes metropolitan
governance and helps governments create better tools for citymanagement. He also is Director of postgraduate studies inmetropolitan urbanism at the University of Buenos Aires.
Florencia Yañez
T20’s Climate Action & Infrastructure for Development Task
Force Coordinator
Florencia Yáñez is a lawyer from the University of Buenos Aires(UBA); She is a candidate for a Master's Degree in International
Studies from the Torcuato di Tella University; She is a climatechange specialist with extensive experience in environmental
management in the public sector. She was a team member of the
Project implementation Unit of the Third National Communicationof Argentina. Currently, she teaches Climate Change andSustainable Development in the Metropolitan University for
Education and Work (UMET). During the Argentine T20, she hascoordinated the Climate Action & Infrastructure for theDevelopment Task Force.

CIPPEC is an independent nonprofit organization that works on
better building public policies.
We promote policies that would make Argentina more developed,
more equal, with the same opportunities for all and solid andefficient public institutions. We want a fair, democratic andinclusive society, where everyone has the possibility to grow.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

Contents
Executive summary...................................................................................................................................... 5
Glossary.......................................................................................................................................................... 6
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 7
2. Major challenges of Cities .................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Inequity........................................................................................................................................ 12
2.2 Climate change........................................................................................................................ 15
2.2.1 Early Warning Systems............................................................................................ 18
2.2.2 The Case of Cape Town, South Africa................................................................. 18
2.3 Digitalization in cities................................................................................................................ 19
2.3.1 Sharing economy..................................................................................................... 21
2.4 Multi-level governance.............................................................................................................212.4.1 PlanificACCION – Planning in action.................................................................... 23
3. Mechanisms to implement the Integral Development of Cities in a metropolitan context
and in conditions of resilience to climate change............................................................................ 25
3.1 Implementation of the NUA.................................................................................................... 25
3.2 Empowerment of Cities: their role in the implementation of the Paris Agreement and the
SDGs............................................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 G20: Mayors have a voice....................................................................................................... 27
Conclusions................................................................................................................................................ 28
Bibliography............................................................................................................................................... 30
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................... 33

Theviews,

opinions,

positionsandrecommendations

expressed in this White Paper are solely those of the individuals
and their organisations. They do not necessarily reflect those of
Urban 20 or any of its chairs, conveners, partners andparticipating cities.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

Executive summary
Key drivers and centers of change, cities will either overcome or succumb to today’s pressing
global challenges. In highlighting the critical role cities play in achieving global objectives, former
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon once observed, “Our struggle for global sustainability will be
won or lost in cities.” Challenges stemming from urban expansion, mobility, access to basic
services, historical preservation, sustainable resources, employment, and the effects of climatechange underscore the complex systems of cities. Tackling these challenges thus requires acomprehensive and innovative approach to development, one that transforms outdated andless effective practices in urban planning.
A new Comprehensive Development of Cities Approach (CDCA) is proposed with the aim toempower the ecosystem of social actors and promote the sustainable development of cities.
This approach provides decision-makers with a comprehensive long-term urban development
agenda based on qualitative and quantitative data rooted in territorial analysis. This approachalso seeks to generate knowledge, participation, and a shared vision of solutions.
In line with multilateral agreements, such as the New Urban Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals, and the Paris Agreement, promoting and enhancing the role of local governments
in decision-making is essential to the adoption of national strategies. The CDCA draws on theobjectives included in these agreements by targeting four key areas for development: reducing
inequalities, enhancing urban resilience, promoting inclusive digitalization and empowering
metropolitan governance. In order to implement policies that focus on these areas of development, CIPPEC has launched a method called PlanificACCION (Planning & Action), which allows
for the rapid identification of key challenges and goals followed by strategic projects that
promote dialogue and consensus building while providing quick solutions for governments andtheir citizens. By facilitating participatory planning and building social capital among leaders andcommunities, PlanificACCION contributes to reframe the way we plan and act towards the comprehensive development of cities.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

5

Glossary
Adaptation•

The process of adjustment to actual or
expected climate and its effects. In humansystems, adaptation seeks to moderate or
avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities.
In some natural systems, human intervention
may facilitate adjustment to expected climate
and its effects (IPCC, 2013).

Co-benefits

The positive effects that a policy or measure
aimed at one objective might have on otherobjectives, irrespective of the net effect onoverall social welfare. Co-benefits are often
subject to uncertainty and depend on local
circumstances and implementation practices,among other factors. Co-benefits are also
referred to as ancillary benefits (IPCC, 2013).

Comprehensive Development of Cities
Approach

An approach that provides a framework fortackling urban planning in dynamic andchanging cities. It provides quick solutions andalso allows to incorporate long term goals.

Extreme weather event

An extreme weather event is an event that israre at a particular place and time of year.
Definitions of rare vary, but an extreme weather
event would normally be as rare as or rarer
than the 10th or 90th percentile of a probability
density function estimated from observations.
(IPCC, 2013).

Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

Peri-urbanization

To express the urbanization of former rural
areas on the fringe, both in a qualitative (e.g.
diffusion of urban lifestyle) and in aquantitative (e.g. new residential zones) sense(UN-Habitat, 2016).

Resilience

The ability of a social or ecological system toabsorb disturbances while retaining the same
basic structure and ways of functioning, thecapacity for self-organisation, and the capacity
to adapt to stress and change (IPCC, 2013).

Sustainable urbanization

As cities moved to the forefront of global
socio-economic change, it came to be
accepted that cities not only pose potential
threats to sustainable development but also
hold promising opportunities for social andeconomic advancement and for environmental
improvements at local, national and global
levels (UN-Habitat, 2016).

Urban agglomeration

The city proper along with the suburban fringe
and any built-up, thickly settled areas lying
outside of, but adjacent to, the city boundaries(UN-Habitat, 2016).

Vulnerability

The propensity or predisposition to be
adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses
a variety of concepts and elements including
sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of
capacity to cope and adapt (IPCC, 2013).

Greenhouse gases are those gaseous
constituents of the atmosphere, both naturaland anthropogenic, that absorb and emit
radiation at specific wavelengths within the
spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the
Earth’s surface, the atmosphere and clouds.
This property causes the greenhouse effect ofretaining heat within the atmosphere. (IPCC,
2013)

Mitigation (of climate change)

A human intervention to reduce the sources orenhance the sinks of greenhouse gases(GHGs) (IPCC, 2013).

PlanificACCION

CIPPEC’s Comprehensive Development ofCities Approach method for urban planningthat simultaneously targets planning andaction by combining the use of participatory
planning strategies and project co-creation.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

6

Source: Laboratorio Urbano Digital (LUD)-CIPPEC based on Google Earth

1. Introduction
Urbanization is currently one of the most transformative trends in the world, not only due to thoseliving in main urban centers and global megacities, but also to the concentration of economic
activities and social and cultural interactions in the metropolis. We are facing a new urban
paradigm, which contemplates a comprehensive vision on urban sustainable development,
meet complex challenges such as climate change, inequality and eradication of poverty, inorder to achieve more sustainable, diverse and compact cities. Such a model is essential for
promoting a cohesive social life and a competitive economic base while simultaneously
preserving natural resources.
The urban world is very different from that experienced some decades ago, when cities had tobe rebuilt after the Second World War. In 1950, the world was mostly rural, and the figure bellow
helps us understand where the urban population was located. Every dot represents a country,
the size of it represents the amount of population, and its color the percentage of urban
population vis a vis rural population.

Figure 1. Urban Population in 1950. Source: UNICEF, 2012

Urban population
Greater than 75%
50%- 75%
25%- 50%
Less than 25%

By 1980, by the end of the cold war, cities experienced an increase in its urban population,
reaching 38%. Although India and China lead the growth of its population, urban population
percentage was still low in those countries in comparison to America and Europe.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

7

Figure 2. Urban Population in 1980. Source: UNICEF, 2012

Urban population
Greater than 75%
50%- 75%
25%- 50%
Less than 25%

By 2010, the world had become mostly urban for the first time in history of human kind. North
America, Latin America and the Caribbean showed the greatest proportions of urban population
while Asian cities and some African agglomerations became a process of rapid urbanization.

Figure 3. Urban Population in 2010. Source: UNICEF, 2012

Urban population
Greater than 75%
50%- 75%
25%- 50%
Less than 25%

As the global population continues to grow, so too will the concentration of people in cities.
Current estimates project that, by 2050, two-thirds of the global population will be urban.
Moreover, it is expected that 90% of growth by 2050 will be concentrated in developing countries
of Asia and Africa. So if this projection becomes true, the question is how are we expecting themto grow?

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

8

Figure 4. Urban Population Projection 2050. Source: UNICEF 2012

Urban population
Greater than 75%
50%- 75%
25%- 50%
Less than 25%

Urbanization has also left an ecological footprint. The pursuit of unlimited economic growth has
led to an increasing and unsustainable over- consumption of natural resources: energy, fresh
water, forests and marine habitats, clean air and rich soil at the global scale.

“The ecological footprint from this overconsumptionof energy and natural capital now exceeds theplanet’s biocapacity by nearly 50 per cent
(UNISDR 2015)”.

At the same time, regions and countries differ both in terms of the demands they place on theplanet and in terms of their biocapacity. Many countries use more biocapacity than is available
within their boundaries. While this is due in part to the importing of resources for economic
activity, the use of the global commons as a dumping ground for carbon dioxide emissions has
a greater environmental impact (Global-Footprint-Network 2010).
Today, 54% of the world’s population lives in cities. Approximately 80% of global GDP is generated
in urban agglomerations, where nearly two-thirds of the world’s energy is consumed (UN-Habitat2016). Both the global population and global carbon emissions rose from 1950-2005 by almost
500 percent (Mayr, et al. 2017). Despite covering less than 3% of the earth’s surface, urban areas
are estimated to be responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (World Bank, 2015).
At the same time, urban land cover is increasing at a rate faster than population growth. It isprojected that between 2000 and 2030, urban land cover will have expanded by 56-310% (Mayr,et al. 2017).
Given these challenges, the current wave of urbanization presents the imperative to target
climate change and promote sustainable urban planning since GHG emissions are linked tomaterials, urban energy usage, and waste (Colenbrander, et al. 2018). Urbanization is linked to thethree dimensions of sustainable development, namely economic development, social
development, and environmental protection (United Nations 2014).

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

9

“Given that in the next 15 years we will build as muchurbanized area as in the entire history of humanity(Lanfranchi and Contin 2017), accommodating the
growth of cities with policies that target current
challenges such as climate change is essential”.

According to UN Habitat (2013), global population growth and per capita income go hand in hand:as countries become urbanized, the productivity of the nation, including its urban areas, grows
proportionately, thereby improving living standards. Thus, urbanization also has a major impact
on the world economy: currently, 46 of the world’s 100 largest economies, measured by GDP, arelocated within metropolitan agglomerations, while 54 of these same 100 exist at the national level(Ortiz, 2015). Yet, notwithstanding impressive urban and economic growth, many cities fail in termsof social, economic, and environmental sustainability.
In this scenario, urgent questions deal with how we will face such challenges today and in the
future. Such questions target equality and access to the city, emerging risks of climate change,
traditional forms of urban management amid an increasing digitalization, and interjurisdictional
coordination among large metropolitan agglomerates.
With respect to urban inequality, structural challenges present risks for a significant portion of
the population. According to UN Habitat, approximately 1 billion people still lack access to cleanand safe water, and more than 2.6 billion people do not have access to adequate sanitation
facilities. In this context, more than 860 million people today live in informal settlements or villages.
It is estimated that in 2030, 40% of the world’s population will lack access to housing,
infrastructure, and basic services (UN-HABITAT 2013).

“Not only do cities contribute to climate change –both by generating economic activity and bypromoting the consumption of goods – they also
tend to suffer its consequences because climatechange puts urban systems, such as energy,transport, and waste, and others, at risk”.

At the same time cities are also highly vulnerable to natural disasters, including climate change.
Globally, the number is increasing both in frequency and intensity: between 2003 and 2012 there
were 4,000 such events, compared to 82 between 1901 and 1910 (UN-Habitat 2016). Natural
disasters limit resilience, thereby diminishing the ability of a city’s population to recover fromthese events (Mayr, et al. 2017). Moreover, estimates show that the global material cost ofdisasters from 1996 to 2005 amounted to 667 billion dollars (UN-Habitat 2016). In this context, inparticular linked to climate change, targeting policies that lead to low-carbon andclimate-resilient development in cities is essential. Such policies should focus on urban
development that promotes compact, organized, efficient, and socially cohesive, metabolicallyefficient cities. The sustained increase in urban inequality and uneven growth exacerbate cities
vulnerability to emerging threats of climate change. It is thus essential to recognize howurbanization and actions to address climate change are linked. Given that carrying out such policies

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

10

entails an integrative approach – institutionally, technically, and politically – it is essential todevelop the capacity of governments to transcend jurisdictions and sectors in order to avoid
getting lodged within a specific zone or sector (Gómez Álvarez and Lanfranchi 2017).
Likewise, the growing development of digitalization and Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) could promote a paradigm shift in the processes of government andinteraction with citizens. According to the ICT Development Index (2016), 95% of the world's
population lives in areas covered by cell phone signals and 4 out of 10 people have internet
connection. The arrival of new technologies and the generation of data are presented as aunique opportunity to favor the narrowing of the gap between citizenship and government. At thesame time, they represent an important challenge and an opportunity for the modernization of
the management of cities to include innovative public policies that incorporate citizens as
protagonists of solutions in their community.

“Thus, putting ICTs to use in various sectors of theeconomy, such as in business and the sharing
economy, among others, promotes the reutilizationand sharing of goods and services, and thereby
contributing to the circular economy”.

Finally, in the context of rapid urbanization, cities grow beyond their original jurisdictionalboundaries in a process of urban expansion leading to regions comprised of cities or towns.
This expansion beyond initial political-administrative boundaries demands that authorities of thejurisdictions involved - who often suffer budgetary, technical, and management restrictions
vis-à-vis other authorities or jurisdictions - fulfill their functions as an interrelating whole. To meetthe challenges of political-administrative and inter-sectoral governance, such authorities must
rely on agreements and consensus that provide a stable decision-making framework (Klink
2005). Moreover, metropolitan governance is linked to economic productivity and the urban
growth model: cities that have a metropolitan authority experience population density increases
in consolidated urban areas, while those without such authorities tend to experience more
expansive urban growth (Ahrend, et al. 2017).

“These models of governance seek to recognize
political and cultural diversity while contributing tomore efficient and equitable territorial management”.

2. Major challenges of Cities
To achieve sustainable development entails radically transforming how we build and manage
urban spaces. The New Urban Agenda (NAU), which was adopted at the United Nations
Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) in 2016 in Quito,
Ecuador finds that, faced with challenges stemming from unprecedented global urbanization, it
is essential to resolve historical problems of poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation.
The NAU is in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) laid out in the2030 Agenda and sets the guidelines for sustainable, diverse, and participatory cities that fulfill

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

11

their social role and respect gender equality. In doing so, the NAU affirms the important role thatnational governments have in establishing policies and passing legislation to promotecomprehensive urban development – that is, planning that seeks to organize space to fostersocial equality, equity, and inclusion (UN-Habitat, 2016).

“To achieve these goals, CIPPEC Cities Program
proposes the Comprehensive Development of Cities
Approach (CDCA) with the objective to influence
the improvement of equity conditions, enhance
processes that increase urban resilience, promote
inclusive digitalization in urban management, andstrengthen metropolitan governance (Figure 5)”.

It is essential that these four interrelated dimensions be addressed wholly. Comprehensive
development provides a framework for tackling the complexity of cities to achieve the mosteffective policy responses to the challenges of the 21st century in the short, medium, and longterm. Below, each axis is described and case examples are presented that demonstrate how
they are interrelated.

Figure 5. CIPPEC’s Cities Program Comprehensive Development
of Cities Approach (CDCA).

2.1 Inequity
Rapid urbanization is changing the social and spatial organization of cities across the globe.
The growing number of people living in the main urban centers is reflected in the growing
number of global megacities as well as in the concentration of economic, social, and culturalinteractions that take place in these metropolises. The concentration of capital generates social
and territorial inequalities (UNISDR 2015) representing an enormous challenge for urban
development in terms of environmental sustainability, economic efficiency and social equality.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

12

According to UNISDR (2015), most low and middle-income countries experiments highly unequal
access to urban facilities, infrastructure, services and security lacking the capacities to plan andmanage urban development in an appropriate and risk-sensitive way. Poorly planned
urbanization exacerbates socioeconomic disparities. The report published by UN-Habitat in2016 raises some of the structural problems that cities still face, one of which is related todeepening inequality: today 75% of cities have a higher income inequality than twenty years ago(UN-Habitat 2016). Faced with the growing difficulty of gaining access to housing, existing
informal settlements continue to grow while new ones appear, deepening socio-spatial
exclusion and vulnerability. Estimates suggest that 40% of the world’s urban expansion is taking
place in slums (UN-Conference-on-Disaster-Risk-Reduction 2015). It is estimated that by 2030,
urban growth will lead to 50% more global demand for water and 40% more global demand forenergy, thereby generating more GHG emissions than those generated during the last century(UN-Habitat 2016). Urban population is highly exposed to the effects of natural hazards, which will
likely be exacerbated by climate change. A well-planned urban development can prevent thoserisks by facilitating access to land and decent housing, providing infrastructure, basic services
and collective facilities, as well as guaranteeing a healthy environment based on the sustainable
use of natural resources. These challenges demand that the National government assume an
important role in promoting policies that address them guiding urban growth along sustainable
parameters. (UN-Conference-on-Disaster-Risk-Reduction 2015).

Source: Photo by Shyn on Flickr

When discussing habitat, we refer to a complex system where different dimensions related tourban-housing interact. These dimensions include the conditions that characterize life in cities,
such as infrastructure and urban services, mobility, and the environment, among others.
Expansive patterns of urban growth, coupled with decreasing density in central areas, haveincreased the economic costs of urbanization, undermined mobility, and threatened ecosystemservices and net primary productivity. In cities of developing countries, a 1% annual rate ofdecrease in density between 2000 and 2050 could lead to the quadrupling of the area of cities(UN-Habitat 2016).
Both the expansive phenomenon of cities and climate change are current challenges of cities
that could exacerbate existent inequities, if they are not included in local development
strategies and not all relevant actors of society are part of the strategy. Access to public
services and infrastructure in cities that grow in disorder can also generate greater inequality,
accentuating existing stratifications and perpetuating socioeconomic segregation (OECD 2015).

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

13

Facilitating access to land and decent housing, providing infrastructure, basic services andcollective facilities, as well as guaranteeing a healthy environment based on the sustainable useof natural resources, are central issues on the cities' global agenda.
In this context, the international community has reached consensus on the aforementioned
NAU, the SDG’s and the Paris Agreement (PA) 1. These agreements establish general guidelines
directly linked to development and housing policies, target access to services and urban
infrastructure and seek to mitigate the risks of climate change, among other issues.
SDG 11 outlines how to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Even though only
SDG 11 mentions explicitly cities, twelve of the 17 SDG’s are to be implemented in urban areas(Gómez Álvarez and Lanfranchi 2017).
The NAU, on the other hand, is presented as a collective ideal as well as a political commitment
for all levels of government and social actors involved in urban development. Notwithstanding,these guidelines are general in nature and leave the task of developing regulations andbudgets to national governments. It’s worth underscoring that, given their close ties with relevantsocial actors, local governments are key protagonists for the implementation of policies that
promote social equity.
The PA raises expectations that all countries will do their best to enhance adaptive capacity andstrengthen resilience (article 7), stressing the importance of averting, minimizing, andaddressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change (article 8).
The agreement recognizes that some climate change impacts are beyond adaptation
strategies. Thus, the PA reaffirms the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage(decision 2/CP.19) as the main mechanism under the climate regime to address loss anddamage associated with climate change impacts. It also made a big step by recognizing Loss
and Damage as a standalone concept, setting the stage for a dialogue regarding its
constituency, what the appropriate responses are, and who bears responsibility to act(Mogelgaard and McGray 2015).
Notwithstanding, these guidelines are general in nature and leave the task of developing
regulations on minimum standards to national governments. It’s worth underscoring that, given
their close ties with relevant social actors, local governments are key actors for the design andimplementation of policies that promote social equity.
Given their role in promoting economic and social development, as well as social equity,
national governments should coordinate urban development strategies among different
jurisdictions. In doing so, national authorities promote a comprehensive approach that includes
multiple geographic levels in articulating housing policies, city services, infrastructure and urban
systems (such as energy supply, transport, water, etc) with the aim of promoting equity. Urban
development must be deployed in accordance with the human rights agenda.

“Thus, a city model that is compact, sustainable,
culturally diverse, and socially and politicallyparticipatory accomplishes those requirements(Lanfranchi et al., 2018)”.

1

Decision 1/CP.21 Adoption of the Paris Agreement.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

14

Such model entails addressing structural factors that lead to urban segregation andunsustainable growth. The compact city mandate seeks to strengthen urban planning policies
through instruments that regulate the land market, improve housing policies to include territorialand environmental management, incorporate the social function of property, and expand theforms of property ownership.
A comprehensive approach to habitat that links housing to urban services, transportation
networks, and the environment, involves reorganizing institutions, including the distribution of
resources and competencies, across different levels of government. In a world where climatechange poses great challenges, urban development policies must be developed inaccordance with low GHG emissions scenarios.

“Therefore, cities should develop a scientific basis forshaping a coherent, low-carbon urbanization policyby integrating research results into thedecision-making process, which should be based onparticipatory exchange between scientists,
decision-makers and the urban population(Lanfranchi et al., 2018b)”.

The reinforcement of local capacity-building is critical in times of rapid metropolitantransformations, which involves cross-jurisdictional functional issues and several local
governments altogether.

2.2 Climate Change
Over the last few decades, evidence that the anthropic factor is affecting the climate system has
grown, bringing climate change to the forefront of global challenges that must be addressed.
According to experts, the optimum level for CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is below 350 ppm 2, butcurrently we are approaching to 400 ppm 3 . The atmosphere and oceans are warming, sea levels arerising, and weather patterns are changing (IPCC 2014). 2015, 2016 and 2017 were confirmed as the threewarmest years on record, and climate-related impacts on development paths are already being
observed in many countries (ECOSOC 2018). According to IPCC, urban agglomerations on nearly allcontinents will be exposed to a temperature rise greater than 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels by
mid-century 4 (Revi, Satterthwaite, et al. 2014). The frequency of weather extreme events will also increase
and it will raise the level of risk of morbidity and mortality (Rosenzweig and S 2015). It has also been
observed that the number of natural disasters worldwide has increased both in frequency and inintensity: 4,000 between 2003 and 2012, compared to 82 in 1901-1910 (UN-Habitat 2016). Furthermore, theWorld Bank has predicted that the urban population exposed to cyclones will increase from 310 million
to 680 million by 2050 (ECOSOC 2018). Such events increase the vulnerability of urban areas, thereby
raising social and economic risks for these populations.

2

ppm: parts per million.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_13/
4
Using the RCP2.6 scenario: The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are used for making
projections based factors such as population size, economic activity, lifestyle, energy use, land use
patterns, etc., which at the same time condition GHG emissions. The RCPs include a stringent mitigation
scenario (RCP2.6), two intermediate scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP6.0) and one scenario with very high GHG
emissions (RCP8.5) (IPCC,2014).
3

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

15

In this context, governments have agreed on a series of international measures that reflect theimportance of climate resilience, defined by the IPCC (2014) as "the capacity of social, economicand environmental systems to face an event, trend or dangerous disturbance by responding or
reorganizing in a way that maintains its essential function, its identity and its structure, while
preserving the capacity for adaptation, learning and transformation.” Thus, resilience refers to
the ability of a community to resist and recover quickly from any plausible danger. Consideringresilience in the face of crises not only implies reducing risks and avoiding catastrophic
damages (such as human losses and harm to material goods), but also the ability to quickly
return to the previous situation, or become even stronger.
The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations andCommunities to Disasters (HFA, 2005) was the first plan to address climate resilience on aninternational level. This instrument was adopted by the states parties of the United Nations forto reduce risk of disasters, increase the resilience of the states by 2015, and dispute economic,
social, and environmental losses and damages. In 2015, the issue of climate resilience was
highlighted in new international agreements: the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015–2030 laid the ground for a risk-informed and resilient 2030 Agenda, the Addis Ababa
Action Agenda (2015) built a framework for mobilizing resources for sustainable development
and better preparation for risks. The PA also establishes commitments to reduce climate
vulnerability through adaptation, incorporating the concept of loss and damage. The NUA
reinforced country Parties’ commitment to addressing multiple risks and building sustainable
and resilient societies, with a special focus on the role of local communities and local capacities.
Each agreement highlights the threat climate change impacts pose to the most vulnerable
countries (ECOSOC 2018).
Climate resilience is also contemplated in the SDGs: Target 1.5 represents the core resiliencetarget to improve "the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations, and reduce their
exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social andenvironmental shocks and disasters". Resilience is also a central feature of target 13.1 in its aim
to "strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters
in all countries." Resilience further underpins several other Goals and targets (9.1 on
infrastructure; 2.4 pertaining to hunger; 11.5 and 11.b on infrastructure and urbanization, among
others (Bahadur, et al. 2015).
Referring to climate change mitigation, GHG emissions in cities are released mainly from
activities such as construction of buildings and infrastructure (key component of urban areas),transport, consumption, and production-driving energy demand (Mayr, et al. 2017). Cities must
prepare themselves to deal with the effects of climate change without losing sight of thedevelopment priorities of each of them and taking advantage of the co-benefits of theimplementation of climate change mitigation actions. However, not all cities are prepared to face
the challenges derived from the combination of urban growth and the threats of climate change.
Therefore, it is necessary to involve local governments who are aware of the strengths andvulnerabilities of their local communities and relevant stakeholders involved for the
implementation of a successful low emission urban development strategy (Lanfranchi et al., 2018).
It is necessary to review governmental schemes and foster comprehensive institutional approach
to be addressed across the metropolis instead of territorial jurisdictions or thematic sectors(Gómez-Álvarez, et al. 2017). Cities must carry out infrastructural improvements, raise awareness,
improve training and education, strengthen regulations, and develop information systems andearly warning systems, among others. The leadership and participation of local governments,
plays a vital role in making commitments toward mitigating the risks of climate change. Local andnational governments must strengthen the resources that allow them to rethink cities in more
efficient terms. Such terms improve management for the urban and spatial development.
Also, introducing the concept of urban metabolism, a smart city articulates viable pathways fortransitioning from a dependence on non-renewable materials and energy to more resource

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

16

efficient and sustainable flows. Thus, urban metabolism is a concept that reflects acomprehensive understanding of flow of resources in and out: natural resources, construction
and industrial materials production, consumption and lifecycle combined with biomass,electricity, CO2 production at a territorial level. (Lanfranchi et al., 2018b)
Taking into account that only around 40 % of the area expected to be urbanized by 2030 has
been built (UNISDR 2015), urban planning plays a critical role in the global response to climatechange. While experiencing rapid urbanization, building resilience that expands beyond sectoraland social divisions is paramount to address climate change impacts. According to the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR), $6 trillion a year will be invested globally ininfrastructure by 2030, but almost $415 billion will be lost to disasters annually. A transition to
low-carbon, climate-resilient cities requires investing more in urban infrastructure as well as
shifting the resources are allocated in order to reduce climate related risks. Furthermore, cities
should link their land use planning decisions to their climate action (Colenbrander, et al. 2018).
Finally, informed decision-making and risk assessments about hazards and vulnerabilities
should be used in planning decisions regarding local development. The continuous
systematization of information in platforms for Geographic Information Systems provide ameans through which the nature and degree of risk of disasters can be determined.

Case Study Resilient AGBA (Greater
Buenos Aires Metropolitan area)
Since late 2017, CIPPEC´s project “Resilient AGBA”, comprising greater Buenos
Aires metropolitan area is underway. The project’s goal is to generate evidence andraise awareness about urban resilience in AGBA, identifying actors, plans, budget,and vulnerability to climate change. Therefore, the project developed an index for
identifying degrees of structural social vulnerability to climate change for AGBA. It
also uncovered tools and projects for mitigating the risks of climate change in themunicipalities of AGBA. The project also seeks to raise awareness about climatechange not only in me greater metropolitan area of Buenos Aires but for anotherArgentinean metropolitan areas and serve as a pilot case.
The UNISDR (2013), considers the following aspects for achieving resilience in a city:• The population resides in dwellings and neighborhoods that have adequate
services and infrastructure that comply with reasonable building codes; • local
government is inclusive, competent and responsible for ensuring sustainableurbanization; • local government allocates the necessary resources to develop
response capacities that ensure the management and organization of the city
before, during and after a danger materializes; • local authorities and the population
understand their hazards and create a shared local information base on the losses
associated with the occurrence of events, hazards and risks, including information
about who is exposed and vulnerable to such risks; • people are empowered toparticipate, decide, and plan their city together with local authorities, valuing local
knowledge, capacities and local resources; • measures are taken to anticipate
disasters and mitigate their impact through the use of monitoring and early warningtechnologies to protect infrastructure, assets, and community members; •response and implementation of immediate recovery strategies and rapid
restoration of basic services needed to resume social, institutional, and economic
activity after a disaster; • the above points are also acknowledged as essential todeveloping greater resilience to other events, including climate change.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

17

2.2.1 Early Warning Systems
An example of the interdependence of the aforementioned axes is the implementation of early
warning systems. These systems monitor risks faced by cities and advance information thatassists threatened communities in acting to reduce the loss of lives as well as material, social,and environmental damage. Participation and commitment of the entire community isfundamental if early warning systems are to work properly. Communities must identify theirvulnerabilities, including the needs that different groups in society have based on their situation.
This early diagnosis helps communities prepare for risks as well as recover losses. According
to UNISDR (2015) forecasting in developed countries of tropical cyclones, storms, floods,
droughts, tsunamis and other hazards has been greatly improved due to growing sophisticationof monitoring. In low-income countries monitoring should be enhanced. Difficulties arisen are
related to the maintenance of technical and institutional infrastructure. Communities levels ofawareness and preparedness are still very despair.
Accurate, consistent and timely data on global trends in urbanization and city growth are criticalfor assessing current and future needs with respect to urban growth and for setting policy
priorities to promote inclusive and equitable urban and rural development.
Key elements of an Early Warning Systems (EWS):
The objective is to empower communities threatened by hazards to act in sufficient time and in
an appropriate manner to reduce the possibility of personal injury, loss of life and damage toproperty and the environment.
An effective early warning system comprises four inter-related elements:
1. Monitoring and Warning Service: operate on a scientific basis for predicting and forecastinghazards and providing a reliable forecasting and warning system that operates 24 hours a day.
2. Risk Knowledge: systematic collection and analysis of data and should consider the dynamic
nature of hazards and vulnerabilities; assessment and risks maps;
3. Dissemination and Communication: warnings must reach those at risk. Clear messages
containing simple, useful information are critical to enable proper responses that will help
safeguard lives and livelihoods. Regional, national and community level communication systems
must be pre-identified and appropriate authoritative voices established.
4. Response Capability: It is essential that communities understand their risks; respect thewarning service and know how to react. Education and preparedness programmes play a key
role. It is also essential that disaster management plans are in place, well practiced and tested.

2.2.2 The Case of Cape Town, South Africa 5
After a three-year drought, Cape Town’s water supply is running dry and approaching to “DayZero” in 2019. Government stated that the city is in danger to inevitably lose piped water tohomes and businesses during 2019. The water crisis, due to physical, social, and political factors
has revealed the need to take seriously into account the impacts of climate change not in thenear future but today.
Cape Town Water crisis reveals the need to combine a series of political, social and economic
factors adequately in order to achieve successful adaptation policies.

5

http://www.eesi.org.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

18

First, local government needs to gather scientific evidence. The decision-making process
should be based on participatory exchange between scientists, decision-makers and the urban
population. Given that the water supply policies must be agreed upon by the community,community awareness is critical. People also need to be informed about the implications of
implementing such policies to avoid unanticipated consequences. To implement policies,
adequate budgets that foresee the contingencies that could arise in the face of water-related
threats are necessary. Relying on the national budget for local plans could hinder successful
implementation given the administrative and political challenges that such budgets may entail.
Early warning systems must be continuously monitored so that they meet the objective of
informing the current state of the situation. Also, local government must anticipate the situationof the most vulnerable in the community. The government needs to work on instilling new habits.
Continual awareness is important, even if it seems that risks are no longer imminent. Ultimately,
strategies implemented must take into account the economic and social challenges arisingfrom the crisis.

Source: Gabriel Lanfranchi (UTDT-MIT-CIPPEC)

2.3 Digitalization in cities
Competition due to the growing importance of technology in cities worldwide impacts local
economic production, human capital, and innovation. To respond and adapt to this trend, cities
must attract and generate capital necessary for creating innovative initiatives and paying forskilled labor (Moretti in Muzzini et al, 2017).
Current challenges that growing urban agglomerations -understood as complex systems- face,require a comprehensive approach to urban planning, namely, one that allows for agile
decision-making and the participation of all actors in the system (Bouskela, et al. 2016). Digitaltechnology applied to cities takes us to the smart city concept which requires the creative useof new information technologies, communication, and citizen participation.

“The concept of smart city is not reduced to a purely
technological issue, rather, it implies that each city iscapable of taking advantage of its own resources
and potential”.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

19

The smart city is the one that is developed in an integrative way. It understands its talents and it
exploits interrelations across its ecosystem of actors. These actors include: companies,
educational institutions, civil society organizations, and community in general playing thegovernment a leading role. This interrelation brings demands, needs, and priorities into sharp
relief, promoting innovation and the production of capital.
A smart city deals with the environmental and social risks of climate change. With respect toeconomic development, not only should cities strive to be productive, they should also
redistribute wealth, thereby reducing economic inequality and social inequity.

“Smart cities’ decision-making and planning involves
relevant stakeholders, takes advantage of technology
to improve the capacity and quality of publicmanagement processes, promotes citizen
participation, and provides a forum for integrating
values of dialogue and innovation”.

Smart cities promote open government and analyze information in real time as they seek
efficient solutions to current and future problems. Ninety per cent of the data in the world today
has been created in the last two years 6 . It comes from many sources such as shopper
information, social media, digital pictures or videos, cell phones, GPS; it comprises any type ofdata in any format: this is big data. The ability to analyze large volumes of data to understandurban phenomena, emerges as a key challenge for the development of smart cities. Likewise,
big data analysis can be applied to better understand the risks of climate change and also todevelop collaborative economies that foster social, environmental, and economic development.
On the other hand, given the complexity of the urban system and the diverse dimensions withwhich it interacts and that impact it, a smart city also entails an analysis of the interdependenceof their impacts. Although technological advances, including sensors and devices that generate
information, do not make a city smart, per se, they do aid in the analysis of impacts that haveoccurred in a given area since their installation. In addition, to offer better responses tocitizenship, it becomes possible to identify the measures that can be triggered from eachsubsystem.
Smart urban planning (SUP) seeks to respond to the challenges people living in the city face,with the goal of improving their quality of life and build an urban space that allows for social
growth and transformation. In line with this, governments should boost the creation of a Digital
Identity and genetic map for each citizen to enable them to access to governmental policies
and services. A Digital Identity together with Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Deep
Learning will enhance citizen participation, education, development and health policies.
Although it is not the only solution, the SUP offers a participatory and sustainable approach toresponding to different local contexts of a community enhancing the communication channels
among it and the local government.

6

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/insights-on-business/consumer-products/2-5-quintillion-bytes-of-data-created-e
very-day-how-does-cpg-retail-manage-it/

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

20

2.3.1 Sharing economy
The sharing economy refers to organized interactions in which individuals or entities exchangewith others the untapped “surplus” or “idle” capacity of their assets, typically for some type of
payment or service (World Economic Forum 2017). Such exchanges grow out of technologicaladvances and can lead to unprecedented economic growth that drives social, environmental,
and economic development. Moreover, the sharing economy promotes the development ofintegrative urban planning through the incorporation of models for collaborative economy thatstrengthen the capacity of local leaders from various sectors linked to regional planning andurban governance.

The introduction of technology in cities facilitates collaborative dynamics, which are the base fora sharing economy. From a social perspective, the sharing economy promotes a sense ofcommunity among stakeholders. Sharing-economy platforms have experienced rapid growth.
According to a global survey in 2016, platform companies have a total market value of $4.3 trillion
and directly employ 1.3 million people (World Economic Forum 2017). The sharing economy hasentered nearly all urban spheres.

The use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) helps cities
employ such business models by converting traditional urban development
strategies into integral management models where TICs promote equitable as well
as socially and environmentally sustainable cities.
To develop collaborative cities, local and regional governments should:•
Promote exchange of ideas between urban and metropolitan leaders toanalyze the benefits and public innovation of the use of TICs for city management.
•
Improve knowledge regarding technological solutions for the efficient useof urban resources,•
Promote good government and citizen interaction.
•
Promote comprehensive urban management by linking the use of ICTs withthe public policy agenda of cities, particularly with issues of habitat and urban
resilience.
•
Analyze the challenges that cities face in order to achieve comprehensive
development•
Identify solutions that can be achieved through the implementation of
sharing economy models.
•Support municipal governments and public and private entities in thedevelopment of regulatory frameworks and public policies that promote thesharing economy.

2.4 Multi-level governance
Currently, we are facing a remarkable expansion of cities, being inequality and climate change
great challenges for our communities. It remains very difficult to solve these problems at the
local level without improving metropolitan governance, as neither climate change or poverty
respects jurisdictional boundaries between municipalities (Lanfranchi and Contin 2017).

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

21

“Metropolitan governance is determined by thenature of the governance structures with relation to
the levels of fragmentation or consolidation, thedegree and level of control over urban functions,and the degree of formality or informality in thecoordination of metropolitan area units(Gómez-Álvarez, et al. 2017)”.

Where a lack of urban planning has led urban agglomerates to expand past their originalterritorial and jurisdictional limits, strategies that promote coordination across regions,institutions, and policies themselves are essential. Daily interactions across these cities requiremeasures at the metropolitan level to reduce inequality, increase resilience and strengthen theirsocial capital. Metropolitanism is therefore understood as a knowledge capability: the ability togive a comprehensive, transversal response (and not a sectoral one) to the problems related to
managing large metropolitan areas (Lanfranchi and Contin 2017).
Metropolitan governance should not only involve a committee of local governments, but alsourban and peri-urban inhabitants. Citizen participation needs to be re-invented within
metropolitan governance schemes. New information and communication technologies present
an opportunity to improve citizen engagement and participation in these “meso” or intermediate
governance instances that are emerging between local and regional authorities (Gómez Álvarezand Lanfranchi 2017).
Even though 85% of urban agglomerations above 100,000 inhabitants are already metropolitan(UN-Habitat 2016) such metropolitan approaches are unusual. The challenge of finding theadequate, or tailored model of metropolitan governance for each area is hindered by old rules,
political inertia, and traps in path dependency. A new framework needs to be developed in orderto understand the metro gaps (Lanfranchi, 2015). Also, to be responsive to global threats suchas climate change requires changing the rules of the game by rethinking the institutionalarrangements (Gómez Álvarez and Lanfranchi 2017). Effective metropolitan governance can
improve the productivity of agglomerates, or at least mitigate the loss of productivity caused byadministrative fragmentation by up to 50% (OECD 2015). Of the 64 most populous agglomerates
in Latin America, 50% have some instance of metropolitan governance (G. Lanfranchi 2017).
Some national constitutions do not consider metropolitan governments as they tend to organize
governance schemes in local, regional (provinces, states, or departments), and national levels.
Citizen participation needs to be reinvented within metropolitan governance schemes as does
the relationship between local governments and entrepreneurs and the business community atlarge (Buchoud, et al. 2017). Increasing social participation and collecting feedback fromresidents and community members leverages local knowledge useful for development
planning. This can also help to ensure that development plans address local needs andresidents’ concerns. At the same time, it has a great potential to create legitimate, effective
response strategies. Also, new information and communication technologies present an
opportunity to improve citizen engagement and participation in the intermediate governanceinstances that are emerging between local and regional authorities (Gómez Álvarez andLanfranchi 2017).
Moreover, many cities are beginning to develop metropolitan governance bodies by applying
integral development approaches (Lanfranchi and Contin 2017), which work mainly on regional

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

22

development, transport and spatial planning. In this context, countries should consider how
much policy coordination can the metropolitan governance body achieve; what budget andstaff does the metropolitan governance body have; and to what extent do citizens understand themetropolitan governance body.
Nevertheless, the creation of new metropolitan entities does not mean to take away functions from themunicipalities or the national government, but to complement them: improving efficiency and equity inthe performance of metropolitan resilience projects (Lanfranchi and Bidart 2016). It is critical to
overcome the silo thinking by bearing in mind the interdependence of modern urban infrastructure
systems, such as energy, transport, telecommunications water, etc. across all discipline layers in an
integrated manner to get multiple benefits.

2.4.1 PlanificACCION – Planning in action
CIPPEC’s Comprehensive Development of Cities Approach promotes planning for action by prioritizing
work with social actors whose proposals are rooted in evidence.
7“The methodology, called PlanificACCION ,simultaneously targets planning and action toaddress a double challenge: on the one hand,
it seeks to contribute to the general definitionand direction of the planning and development of
cities, while on the other, it plays an essential role,
together with other social and community forces,in the evolution of the city by taking action”.

PlanificACCION also combines the use of participatory management strategies and design
thinking throughout the methodological process. These strategies include sharing information withstakeholders, collaborating over desired outcomes, and coordinating participatory workshops.
The principal limitations of traditional approaches to urban planning arise from difficulties in
implementing the proposed policy interventions that these planning processes target. A typicalplanning model dedicates 60% of the total time allotted to the diagnostic process, during whichtime recommendations for projects and interventions are developed. The next stage absorbs
around 30% of the total time allotted in the development of strategies around different scenarios.
These strategies then lead to a series of programs and policy interventions, leaving only 10% of
the planning process to implementation by the executive branch. In most cases, financing is
obtained for the implementation of just one or two projects and within the span of two years theother proposed projects have still not been unimplemented. These challenges are aconsequence of a lack of coordination between intervening actors, a lack of information,difficulties in obtaining the economic resources necessary for implementation, and difficulties
arising out of short-term governance.
In this context, the strategy proposed by the Cities Program at CIPPEC promotes thedevelopment of cities through the implementation of concrete policy interventions in the shortand medium term that seek to overcome the traditional challenges of urban planning. The
diagnostic process, carried out more swiftly, utilizes 25% of the total allotted time and leads directly

7

PlanificACCIÓN: the union of two word in Spanish: planning (planificación) and action (acción).

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

23

Source: Laboratorio Urbano Digital (LUD)-CIPPEC based on Google Earth

to the implementation of two projects. These projects draw together leaders from the city ormunicipality, generating social capital and linkages between key urban actors across different
sectors as they develop realistic solutions and strategies that lead to consensus among thestakeholders involved. In this scenario, around 50% of the time is invested in the development ofprograms. By empowering social actors, promoting coordination, and building consensus basedon existing knowledge and skills, the planning process not only lends itself to immediate policy
implementation, it also promotes long-range strategic planning and goals. The remaining 25% of
the time is invested in the strategy development, and complementary programs and projects.

CIPPEC’s planning methodology is made up of four stages: I. Diagnosis of the current situation
based on interviews and surveys that uncover perceptions about risk, resilience, and governing
capacity as well as the analysis of existing documentation and data on urban expansion andterritorial growth; II. Selection of two priority projects that target the most relevant problems
identified through the participation of local actors who contribute knowledge and resources tothe planning process; III. Implementation of a well-defined project by local leaders convened towork together in groups; IV. Development by CIPPEC of a comprehensive development strategy
for the agglomerate.
This methodology encourages the role of actors across the social ecosystem, favoring theirempowerment as a key element for continuity and sustainability in public policies. The
methodology hones the expertise of local leaders by drawing on participative management
strategies and existing scholarly literature while also incorporating metrics developed by
CIPPEC’s Urban Digital Lab, the area of the Cities Program dedicated to systematic quantitativeand qualitative data analysis. By allowing actors to contribute their point of view, prioritize goals,
and build projects, Planning-in-Action promotes participation, sheds light on the local politicalcontext, and strengthens institutions by promoting legitimacy and trust among the public andthe local leaders involved taking profit of the collective intelligence developed by its leaders.
Currently, CIPPEC’s planning methodology is being implemented in five Argentine metropolitan areasthat were selected through a contest with a criterion of regional representation: Puerto Madryn(Patagonia), the metropolitan area of Mendoza (Cuyo), the Great Catamarca (NOA), the area
Metropolitan Resistance in the Northeast (NEA) and Córdoba (Center) 8 .
Local experiences in the implementation of this methodology across heterogeneous Argentine cities
highlights the importance of putting ideas into practice within the framework of local planning. The fivecases analyzed show how local actors are willing to commit themselves, share their knowledge, andparticipate in public decision-making.

8

This project is implemented with the support of MIF IADB and the National Ministry of Production.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

24

Decalogue of CIPPEC Cities’ Program
A Smart city:
1. Recognizes its talents and exploits interrelations across its ecosystem of actors.
2. Takes advantage of its natural resources to survive and optimizes their cycle.
3. Takes into account its main risks it faces and is prepares to manage them.
4. Generates wealth and redistributes it reducing social inequity and economic
inequality. It also assures the universal access to basic services and public goods.
5. Plans its development and decisions-making by consensus among relevant
stakeholders and in a participative way, based on evidence.
6. Takes advantage of new technology to modernize managements processes andseek solutions to current and future problems.
7. Offers high quality of life to its citizens, integrates values and promotes ongoing
dialogue.
8. Promotes innovation and recognizes traditions.

3. Mechanisms to implement the Integral
Development of Cities in a metropolitan
context and in conditions of resilience toclimate change
To promote effective metropolitan governance that meets today’s global challenges it isessential to bolster technology and communication. To thrive, it is necessary to emphasize on
the local implementation of the NUA, to empower the cities and, ultimately, to raise the profile ofurban issues in the G20 agenda, enhancing the role of cities in the G20 process. The current
challenges that cities are facing and the proposals to tackle them were developed under the
T20 Climate Action & Infrastructure for Development Task Force (TF2) 9. TF2 highlighted the needfor empowering local governments in order to address those issues, having into account thatcities are key actors for implementing the required actions. More than 80 researchers from allover the world participated in the discussions and forums of the TF2.
These challenges require a new approach to global governance that includes thecommitments of national governments as well as the participation of subnational governments.
The G20 is one of the main forums where these issues, along with comprehensive
implementation, are addressed. However, to enhance local capacity for action, the voices of
local governments need to be incorporated.

3.1 Implementation of the NUA
As national governments cope with urban expansion, it is essential that they promote policies
for social equality and environmental sustainability. In developing countries, where cities are

9

The Task Force was co-chaired by Gabriel Lanfranchi (CIPPEC), Amar Bhattacharya (Brookings Institution),
Ottmar Edenhofer (MCC), Naoyuki Yoshino (ADBI) and Mariano Gendra (CARI).

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

25

expected to grow more considerably by 2050, specially in Asia and Africa –as mentioned before-,
it is critical that national and local governments work together over guidelines proposed in the
NUA in order to create a framework for implementing those guidelines on a local level, withincities’ comprehensive urban strategy.
While the NUA provides an approach for development planning in cities, it does not stipulate technical,
technological, regulatory, economic, financial, organizational, institutional or educational instruments
necessary for achieving the objectives established in it. Access to decent housing, basic services, andclimate-resilient infrastructure are essential if societies are willing to address social inequality. Social
fragmentation and unequal access to services are exacerbated by unplanned sprawl urban
expansion. To address these challenges, national governments should decide on minimum
standards so that local governments have the resources they need to address the NUA goals.
Moreover, a shift to a new urban paradigm should be fostered in order to promote a new
ecologically-based urban model to achieve sustainable urban development: compact in its
morphology, complex in its organization, metabolically efficient and socially cohesive.
The compact city model targets sustainability in the digital age. Cities offer an extraordinary opportunity
to implement cleaner energy and transport systems as well as refurbish and create new
climate-resilient infrastructure. Complexity of cities need to be account to promote a cohesive social
life and competitive economic productivity. It also promotes the preservation of agricultural and natural
systems by conserving soil, energy, and material resources.
Finally, the co-benefits from policies rooted in the NAU include greater efficiency of resources if we
apply an urban metabolism approach. These benefits are reflected in the reduction of greenhousegases and the mitigation of risks to climatic change.

3.2 Empowerment of Cities: their role in the implementationof the Paris Agreement and the SDGs
Cities are key actors in advancing the achievement of the goals laid out in the SDGs and PA,
which establish general objectives on which national, sub-national and local development
strategies should be built. To this end, greater coordination is needed between local
governments and national governments to meet the commitments made at the international
level. Cities are mainly responsible for implementing policies to honor those commitments. In
this sense, national low GHG emission strategies will not be successful if local governments are
not part of their design and implementation.

“Climate-city-focused initiatives are a strong signalof the critical role cities play to address climatechange. Given relentless urban expansion, and theinvestment in infrastructure that this entails, local
actors are critical for designing these strategies”.

Notwithstanding, funding necessary for achieving these objectives remains a challenge.
Marshalling adequate resources is a key component in urban development that deserves
special attention. Six hundred cities generated 60% of global GDP in 2007 (Seto, et al. 2014);
However, they do not have the financial return they need to address the urban challenges of the
21st century (Rueda 2018a). The lack of adequate financing hinders investment in low carbon
and climate-resilient infrastructure.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

26

Local budgets are crucial to building local government capacity and facilitating access to different
sources of funding. Multi-sectoral measures that are comprehensive and include long-term
urban development plans are more likely to be approved by financing entities. Not only are suchmeasures more likely to attract private investment, they may also result in public funding that raises
contributions from other public or private stakeholders.

“SDGs targets and Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs) can only be succesfully
achieved if they are implemented incooperation with local actors”.

The role of cities in the international arena and in the decision-making process must be
elevated if issues of global consensus such as climate change are to be implemented
successfully. A new model of government, one where cities assume a role consistent with theircontributions and vulnerabilities, is required (Rueda, 2018b). Failing to involve local communities
could hinder the efforts of national governments to create more sustainable and resilient
societies.
According to Hale (2016) climate actions by non-state and sub-national actors are increasingly
recognized under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)(Chan, Ellinger and Widerberg 2018). The participation of subnational actors as well as civilsociety organizations, companies, among others, has been increasing throughout the past 10
years. Particularly, during COP 21 there was an increase in participation and attention in theinternational climate regime (Hale 2016). The decision adopted by the PA "welcomes the efforts
of all non-stakeholders to address and respond to climate change, including those of civilsociety, the private sector, financial institutions, cities and other subnational authorities (1/ CP.21)".
SDG’s and PA Agendas need to be implemented in an integrated manner (Brandi 2018). It isclear that the achievement of one Agenda depends on the success of implementing the otherone, as demonstrated by SDG 11: “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilientand sustainable” (UN 2015).

3.3 G20: Mayors have a voice
In order to enrich the discussion related to this field in the G20, an urban related affinity groupshould be considered as formal engagement group in the G20 system. Cities are key non-state
actors that play a relevant role in achieving international pledges related to issues such as
climate change, sustainable development, and urbanization. A joint position developed by cities
would address important achievements that will lead to inclusive, low-carbon, resilient cities. In
its statement, the U20 affirms that cities should be part of the table in order to promote thepositive impacts of “transformations generated by globalization, urbanization and digital
innovation” 10. The U20 statement also highlights the commitment of cities, for example, delivering
ambitious climate-related strategies, to mitigate and adapt to climate change while driving
economic growth, competitiveness, innovation and job creation (U20, 2018). The G20´s
Development working group is also supporting urban relates issues by focusing in habitat andurban-rural linkages as one of their main priorities.

10

U20 Joint Statement available at
http://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/sites/gcaba/files/joint_statement_u20_english.pdf

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

27

CONCLUSIONSINTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER28

An innovative approach is essential for managing the risks stemming from current patterns ofsocial and spatial change in cities. Unplanned and irregular expansion, socio-spatial inequality,
and climate change present greater and new risks for the more vulnerable sectors of society.
Added to these challenges is the evolving role of citizens who, given their access to informationand communication technologies, are becoming increasingly involved in urban politics and the
production of urban space.
In the wake of multilateral agreements, such as the New Urban Agenda, the Sustainable
Development Goals and the Paris Agreement, that set out guidelines for addressing thesechallenges, it is essential to promote and enhance the role of local governments indecision-making leading to the development of national strategies. Involvement on this scale
reaches beyond the government sector to include all relevant actors in society.
The Comprehensive Development of Cities Approach presented provides a framework fortackling challenges that stem from dynamic and changing cities. Aimed at providing concreteand evidence-based proposals, the CDCA is designed to be applied to problems for quick
solutions as well incorporate long-term goals. The CDCA is rooted in diagnostic work that
integrates qualitative-quantitative methodologies geared toward territorial analysis. It promotes
the involvement of the ecosystem of social actors, knowledge transfer, and consensus, making
way for sustainable public policies.
Through the CDCA, the Cities Program seeks to overcome restrictions imposed by traditional
management and planning of cities. While traditional models tend to be sectoral and system
based, the CDCA empowers actors across sectors and levels of government to take advantageof the co-benefits of policy implementation. An essential part of this process is the participationof city leaders in the preparation of an agenda that includes the economic-productive, social,and environmental dimensions involved in the production of urban space. By empowering theecosystem of social actors, the CDCA strengthens the capacity of leaders to promote public
policies that extend beyond the term of local government.
It is essential to recognize, the role that local governments can play in achieving sustainable
cities narrowing the gap between citizens and government, and empowering people asprotagonists of positive change. This should be achieved by implementing sustainable urban
development strategies aligned to the great challenges our societies currently faced.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

29

Bibliography
Ahrend, R., Soo JK., C., A., Lembcke, & A. (2017). Why Metropolitan Governance Ma"ers and
How to Achieve Itz. En Steering the Metropolis.
Bahadur, A., E. Lovell, E. Wilkinson, y T. Tanner. 2015. Resilience in the SDGs Developing an
indicator for Target 1.5 that is fit for purpose. London: ODI.
Bouskela, M., M. Casseb, S. Bassi, C. de Luca, y M. Facchina. 2016. La ruta hacia las Smart
Cities: Migrando de una gestión tradicional a la ciudad inteligente. BID.
Buchoud, N J.A.; Hayar, Aawatif; S. Sheehan, Ivan; Phuong Phan, Lan (2017). Why the World
Needs a Metropolitan Compact. A New Vision for the Future of Sustainability. Citiscope.
Brandi, C. 2018. «The role of cities: implementation of the Agenda 2030 and the Paris
agreement.» Sustainable Cities (Fundacion Getulio Vargas).
C40, y AECOM. 2017. C40 Infrastructure Interdependencies & Climate Risks Report.
Chan, S., P. Ellinger, y O. Widerberg. 2018. «Exploring national and regional orchestration ofnon- state action for a < 1.5 °C world.
CIPPEC, (2016). Resiliencia Urbana. Diálogos Institucionales. Programa de Ciudades de
CIPPEC.
CIPPEC, (2016). Ciudad Inteligente. Diálogos Institucionales. Programa de Ciudades de
CIPPEC.
CIPPEC, (2016). Hábitat. Diálogos Institucionales. Programa de Ciudades de CIPPEC.
Colenbrander, S., Lindfield, M., Lufkin, J., & Quijano, N. (2018). Financing LowCarbon, ClimateResilient Cities. London and Washington.
Dawson, R., A. Wyckmans, O. Heidrich, J. Köhler, S. Dobson, y E. Feliu. 2014. Understanding
Cities: Advances in integrated assessment of urban sustainability. Newcastle: Centre for
Earth systems Engeenering Researcg.
Dinshaw, A., B. Giroux Lane, y K. Elias-Trostmann. 2017. «Metropolitan Governance for Urban
Climate Resilience.» En Steering the Metropolis: metropolitan governance for sustainableurban development, de D. Gómez-Álavarez, R. Rajack, E. López-Moreno y & G. Lanfranchi.
Washington: IDB.
Dzebo, A, C Brandi, H Janetschek, G Savvidou, K Adams, S Chan, y C Lambert. 2017. Exploring
connections between the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Developmen. Policy Brief, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm: Stockholm
Environment Institute.
ECOSOC. 2018. «From global to local: supporting sustainable and resilient societies in urban
and rural communities.» Report of the Secretary General. New York: UN.
Gómez Álvarez, D, y G Lanfranchi. 2017. «Metropolitanism: Final Remarks on Steering theMetropolis.» En Steering the Metropolis: Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Urban
Development, de D Gómez Álvarez y G LAnfranchi. Washington: IDB.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

30

Gómez-Álvarez, D, R. Rajack, E. López-Moreno, y G. Lanfranchi. 2017. Steering the Metropolis:
Metropolitan Governance for Sustainable Urban Development.
Global-Footprint-Network. 2010. «Ecological Footprint Atlas.»Hale, T. 2016. «“All Hands on Deck”: The Paris Agreement and Nonstate Climate Action .»Global Environmental Politics.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and
III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Geneva.
IPCC, 2013: Annex III: Glossary [Planton, S. (ed.)]. In: Climate Change 2013: The PhysicalScience Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K.
Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press,
Cambridge,
UnitedKingdom
and
New
York,
NY,
USA.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf
Klink, J. (2005). Perspectivas recientes sobre la organización metropolitana. Funciones ygobernabilidad.
Lanfranchi, G. 2017. «Hacia el Desarrollo Integral de Ciudades.» Documento de políticas
públicas (CIPPEC).
Lanfranchi, G, y A Contin. 2017. «The Rise of a New Discipline to Manage Metropolitan Urban
Systems.» En steering the metropolis: metropolitan governance for sustainable urban development, de D Gómez Álvarez, R Rajack, E López Moreno y G Lanfranchi. Washington: IDB.
Lanfranchi, G., Granero, G., Duarte, J.I. (2018). La agenda del Hábitat en Argentina. Programade Ciudades. CIPPEC.
Lanfranchi, G, y M Bidart. 2016. «Gobernanza Metropolitana en América Latina y el Caribe.»
Documento de Trabajo. Editado por CIPPEC. Buenos Aires
Lanfranchi, G., Herrero, A.C., Rueda, S., Camilloni, I., Bauer, S., (2018): The New Urban
Paradigm. Climate Action & Infrastructure for Development Task Force.T20 Argentina.
Lanfranchi, G., Herrero, A.C., Fernandez, J., Rojas, F., Trostmann, K., (2018): Enhancing Climate
Resilience through Urban Infrastructure and Metropolitan Governance. Climate Action &Infrastructure for Development Task Force. T20 Argentina.
Mayr, M., N. Tollin, J. Hamhaber, S. Grafakos, S. Lwasa, y J. Morato. 2017. Sustainable Urbanization in the Paris Agreement: Comparative review for urban content in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs. Nairobi: UN Settlements Program.
Mogelgaard, K., y H. McGray. 2015. World Resource Institute. December.
https://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/when-adaptation-not-enoughparis-agreement-recognizes-%E2%80%9Closs-and-damage%E2%80%9D.
Revi, A., D.E. Satterthwaite, F Aragón-Durand, J. Corfee-Morlot, R.B.R. Kiunsi, Pelling M., D.C.
Roberts, y W. Solecki. 2014. «Chapter 8 Urban Areas.» En IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, de IPCC, 535-612. Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

31

Rosenzweig, C, y L, W S. 2015. ARC3.2 Summary for City Leaders. New York: Urban Climate
Change Research Network. Columbia University.
Rueda. 2018a. Ecosistemic urbanism. Its application on the design of an econeighborhood in
Figueres.
Seto, K., S. Dhakal, A. Bigio, H. Blanco, G. Delgado, D. Dewar, y A Ramaswami. 2014. «Human
Settlements, Infrastructure and Spatial Planning; Chapter 12.» En Climate Change 2014:
Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., de O e.a. Edenhofer. Cambridge;
New York: Cambridge University Press.
UN. 2015. «Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.»
A/RES/70/1. New York: UN General Assembly.
UN-Conference-on-Disaster-Risk-Reduction. 2015. «Issue Brief. Reducing Disaster Risk in
Urban Settings Ministerial Roundtable.» Sendai.
UN-Habitat. 2016. World Cities Report 2016; Urbanization and Development.
UN-HABITAT. 2013. «State of The Worl´s Cities 2012/1013.»
UNISDR. 2015. The Pocket GAR 2015. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management. Geneva.
UNIDSR. 2013. Cómo desarrollar ciduades más resilientes. Un Manual para líderes degobiernos locales.
United Nations, D. O. 2014. « World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights(ST/ESA/SER.A/352).»
UN-Habitat. 2016. World Cities Report 2016; Urbanization and Development,. Nairobi: UNHabitat.
World Economic Forum. 2017. «Collaboration in Cities: From Sharing to ‘Sharing Economy.»White Paper.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

32

Acknowledgments
This paper draws on the T20’s Climate Action & Infrastructure forDevelopment Task Force policy recommendations to the G20.
The authors would like to thank Ana Carolina Herrero, associateresearcher at the CIPPEC Cities Program, for her enriching
contributions and recommendations on this paper. The authors
also would like to thank the CIPPEC Cities’ Program Team for its
comments on this paper: Juan Duarte, Javier Madariaga,
Fernando Bercovich, Guadalupe Granero, Melina Nacke, Victoria
Rezaval, Luisa Duggan, Pia Barreda, Valentina Simone, Clara
Popeo, Jose David, Luciano Strucchi and Matthew Tolland; also
the Digital Urban Lab of the CIPPEC Cities Program for theimages in this paper: Sol Rodriguez, Francesca Ferlicca,
Christian Cordara, Tobías Gimenez Hutton.

Conctacts for this report
Gabriel Lanfranchi
glanfranchi@cippec.org
Florencia Yáñez
fyanez@cippec.org
CIPPEC Cities Program
ciudades@cippec.org

The views, opinions, positions and recommendations expressedin this White Paper are solely those of the individuals and theirorganisations. They do not necessarily reflect those of Urban 20
or any of its chairs, conveners, partners and participating cities.

INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT | URBAN 20 WHITE PAPER

33

www.urban20.org