Global State of National Urban
Policy 2021:

NCH

VE

N

U

IO

LA

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals
and Delivering Climate Action

RSGlobal State of National
Urban Policy
2021

NCH

VE

N

U

IO

LA

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALSAND DELIVERING CLIMATE ACTION

RSThe opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of of thegovernments of UN Habitat members, or UNOPS/Cities Alliance.
The names of countries and territories used in this joint publication follow the practice of the United Nations.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty overany territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Regional groupings in this report follow the new regional groupings based on United Nations Standard Country andArea Codes (M49) Classifications. The following modifications have been made in order to more adequately align withUN Habitat regional groupings which are reflected in the UN Habitat World Cities Report: Western Asia states havebeen regionally grouped into the Arab States, with the exception of Comoros, Djibouti, Somalia, and Mauritania which
are in the Africa region and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Turkey which are in the Asia and the Pacificregion. The North American countries, Canada and the United States of America, have been added to the European
region, forming a category for Europe and North America.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use ofsuch data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements inthe West Bank under the terms of international law.

Please cite this publication as:
OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS (2021), Global State of National Urban Policy 2021: Achieving Sustainable Development Goals andDelivering Climate Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/96eee083-en.

ISBN 978-92-64-88003-0 (print)
ISBN 978-92-64-77950-1 (pdf)

Photo credits: Cover © deberarr/Getty images

Corrigenda to publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm.

© OECD, UN-HABITAT and UNOPS 2021
The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.

3

Preface
The OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance are delighted to introduce the Global State of National Urban
Policy 2021: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and Delivering Climate Action, the second
edition of the joint report developed as part of the National Urban Policy Programme (NUPP), launched in2016 at the Habitat III Conference in Quito, Ecuador, to share experiences in NUP and support countries
through the expertise of the three organisations and partners.
The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected the health, lives and work of urban dwellers, magnifying
and exploiting, in turn, many persistent urban challenges. But it also triggered paradigm shifts inconsiderations of how to plan and design cities to deliver resilient and sustainable growth, inclusiveness,
well-being and opportunities for all. Lessons from the accelerated experiences with teleworking,accessibility, mobility, public space, local services, green amenities, the built environment and city
governance pave the way towards a ‘new normal’ for the cities of tomorrow. Local and national
governments share responsibility to shape green, smart and inclusive cities that can be more resilient toshocks and pressures, notably in the face of global megatrends such as climate change, demographic
shifts and digitalisation.
Long before the pandemic, our three institutions called for ambitious and integrated national urban policy(NUP) to enable cities to thrive and drive national prosperity through government-led processes coordinating various actors in the move towards a common vision and goal of urban development. Policy
instruments to harness high quality and polycentric urbanisation exist in many countries. However, Habitat
III’s New Urban Agenda and other global agendas adopted in 2015 – the Paris Agreement, the Sendai
Framework, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) elevated the momentum. COVID-19, which
has seen cities on the frontline of the crisis, further reinforced the importance of NUP in the multi-level coordination needed for integrated recovery strategies.
This report showcases and analyses state-of-the-art knowledge about NUP in 162 countries, highlighting
how governments across the world use NUP to address the challenges that COVID-19 has now spotlighted
and amplified. This edition reveals the remarkable progress since 2018 in mainstreaming environmental
objectives, the SDGs and other global agendas into NUP. The report also identifies remaining challenges
where action is needed, included in addressing policy siloes, and data and capacity gaps.
We believe that NUPs and this report provide valuable instruments to guide, develop and implement short-,
medium- and long-term urban reforms and, ultimately, to deliver better urban policies for better lives for all
in an urbanising world.

Lamia Kamal-Chaoui

Maimunah Mohd Sharif

Greg Munro

Director, Centre for
Entrepreneurship, SMEs,
Regions and Cities, OECD

Under-Secretary-Generaland Executive Director, UNHabitat

Director, Cities Alliance

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 ©OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

4

Foreword

Global State of National Urban Policy 2021: Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and Delivering
Climate Action provides a comprehensive review of national urban policy (NUP) in 162 countries aroundthe globe. This global monitoring report, produced by the OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance,
showcases how countries use NUP to enhance sustainable urban development, advance global agendas
and address challenges magnified or revealed by the COVID-19 crisis. It also provides
ten recommendations for NUP to build better cities, and develop an integrated, multi-level and strategic
vision for cities after COVID-19.
This report is the second edition of Global State of National Urban Policy. It builds and expands on the firstedition launched at the 2018 World Urban Forum, to compare key NUP trends, characteristics andevolution since 2018. In doing so, the report introduces a refined and more robust data collection process,in particular, a dedicated country survey on NUP extended to 86 countries, complemented by desk
research on another 76 countries. Moreover, the report features two new thematic strands offering more
specific evidence in relation to the role of NUP in (1) advancing the Sustainable Development Goals andother global urban agendas, and (2) spearheading a systems approach to build low- carbon and climateresilient cities.
The report is an outcome of the 2019-20 Workplan of the National Urban Policy Programme (NUPP), which
aimed at strengthening knowledge and capacity in countries to develop, implement and monitor NUP in an
effective, efficient and inclusive way.
Looking forward, the NUPP Workplan for 2021-22 asserts global monitoring of NUP as an ongoing activity,
alongside three other priorities: (1) thematic studies, (2) enhanced knowledge exchange, and (3) stronger
engagement and collaboration across NUPP partners.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

5

Acknowledgements

This report was jointly prepared by the OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance as part of the
2019-20 Workplan of National Urban Policy Programme (NUPP).
OECD’s contribution was produced by the Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities (CFE)
led by Lamia Kamal-Chaoui, Director, as part of the Programme of Work and Budget of the Regional
Development Policy Committee. UN-Habitat’s contribution was produced by the Global Solutions Division
led by Raf Tuts, Director. Cities Alliance’s contribution was led by Greg Munro, Director.
Tadashi Matsumoto (OECD) and Remy Sietchiping (UN-Habitat) led the research team and co-ordinatedthe overall work, under the supervision of Aziza Akhmouch, Head of the Cities, Urban Policies andSustainable Development Division in the CFE (OECD), Shipra Narang Suri, Chief of the Urban Practices
Branch (UN-Habitat) and Rene Peter Hohmann, Acting Head of Programmes (Cities Alliance).
Lead authors of the report include a core team of policy analysts and experts comprised of:Joshua Drake and Keith Mudadi (Cities Alliance): Chapter 1 and 4

Lucie Charles and Jonathan Crook (OECD): Chapter 2, 5 and 7Michael Kinyanjui (UN-Habitat): Chapter 3 and 6

The OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance are grateful for the support and commitment from partnerorganisations in conducting and analysing the national urban policy country survey and in contributing to
the drafting, in particular:International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISOCARP) (Elisabeth Belpaire and
Mahak Agrawal): Chapters 2, 4, 5 and 7



United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) (Edgardo Bilsky and Anna Calvete Moreno):
Chapter 4Coalition for Urban Transitions (Sarah Colenbrander and Catlyne Haddaoui): Chapter 7

Several colleagues provided comments or inputs on earlier drafts and are herein gratefully acknowledged
including Lorenz Gross, Antonina Grymova, Soo-Jin Kim, Stefano Marta, Atsuhito Oshima, Elvira
Shafikova and Camille Viros from the OECD, and Zahra Aden, Diana Carrillo-Silva, Gianluca Crispi, Filiep
Decorte, Rafael Forero, Herbert Kimani, Christine Knudsen, Sun Lei, Victor Mgendi, Eduardo Moreno,
Susannah Price and María Téllez Soler from UN-Habitat. Chris Mensah, Bridget Oballa and Mary Oyiolo
from the UN-Habitat Secretariat of the Governing Bodies supported the national urban policy country
survey process. Special thanks are extended to international experts who provided comments andfeedbacks to the country survey as well as the draft report: Eugenie Birch (University of Pennsylvania),
Jago Dodson (RMIT), Susan Parnell (University of Bristol), David Dodman (International Institute forEnvironment and Development) and Isabel Duque Franco (National University of Colombia).
The national urban policy country draft survey benefited from comments and feedback from OECD
countries: Canada, France, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Poland and the United States. Earlier drafts of this reportwere discussed at three meetings of the NUPP supporting partners in October 2019, February 2020 and

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

6
December 2020. Interim findings were also presented at the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth meetings of
the OECD Working Party on Urban Policy in April and November 2020. The report was approved by theOECD Regional Development Policy Committee on 5 May 2021 under the cote CFE/RDPC/URB(2021)6.
Special thanks to Pilar Philip from the OECD for coordinating the publication process, François Iglesiasand Liv Gaunt for their contributions to its production, Vicky Quinlan from UN-Habitat and Misha Pinkhasov
for editing the report and to Eleonore Morena for formatting the report.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

7

Table of contents

Preface3

Foreword

4

Acknowledgements

5

Abbreviations and acronyms

11

Executive summary

13

1 Introduction and methodology

19

Global monitoring of national urban policy: The context
Objectives of the report
Methodology
References
Note

20
21
22
30
30

2 Perception of NUPs in today’s policy environment

31

National definitions of NUP
Expected outcomes of NUP
Institutional context for NUPs
Urban policies at different levels of government
Emerging policy needs for NUP
Ways forward
References

3 Key trends and characteristics of NUP
Forms of NUP
Characteristics of NUP
Stage of development of NUP
Thematic scope of NUP
Institutions leading the NUP process
Ways forward
Annex 3.A. List of NUP
References
Notes

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

32
36
38
41
44
46
48

49
50
52
54
56
59
60
61
75
75

8

4 Factors for successful NUP processes
Aligning policies among and across levels of government
Working together with stakeholders
Increasing implementation capacity
Measuring enabling environment for cities
Ways forward
References

5 Data, monitoring and evaluation of NUP
Data in the NUP process
Types of monitoring and evaluation frameworks
Designing NUP monitoring and evaluation to serve broader purposes
Developing a more robust urban monitoring frameworkWays forward
References

77
78
82
90
95
97
98

99
100
101
102
102
107
107

6 Advancing the Sustainable Development Goals and global agendas through NUP 109
The role of NUP in advancing and localising global agendas
Monitoring the progress of SDG 11.a through NUP
Linking the 17 SDGs through NUP
Co-ordinating between NUP and SDGs implementation
Ways forward
Annex 6.A. Measuring how NUPs fulfil SDG 11.a.1 qualifiers and contribute to global agendas
References

110
115
119
121
126
127
130

7 Driving the zero-carbon transition and climate resilience through NUP

131

Urgent need for climate action in cities
Traction for climate resilience and the low-carbon transition
Expertise and co-ordination to integrate climate change and urban policy
Recognising benefits from mainstreaming climate action
Delivering mitigation targets through traditional and new approaches
Reinforced climate resilience through risk reduction
Co-ordination mechanisms to embed climate action in NUP
Improving the climate resilience of vulnerable urban populations
Ways forward
Annex 7.A. Assessing how NUPs address climate change
References

132
134
137
139
141
143
145
147
148
151
158

TablesTable 1.1. Countries covered in the global monitoring of NUP, per region
Table 2.1. Key outcomes identified to achieve through NUP, by global region, n = 86
Table 3.1. Major progress in NUP stage of development from 2018 to 2020, in selected countries
Table 3.2. Levels of attention of NUPs by sub-theme, n = 69
Table 7.1. Key objectives of mainstreaming climate action in NUP, by region, n = 54

29
37
55
58
140

Annex Table 3.A.1. List of NUP (identified from the NUP country survey)
Annex Table 3.A.2. List of NUP (identified from desk research)
Annex Table 6.A.1. Measuring how NUPs fulfil SDG 11.a.1 qualifiers and contribute to global agendas
Annex Table 7.A.1. How NUPs address climate change

61
70
127
151

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

9FiguresFigure 1.1. Key questions addressed in the joint NUP country survey
23
Figure 2.1. Countries with a formal definition of National Urban Policy, n = 84
32
Figure 2.2. Key outcomes countries aim to achieve through NUP, n = 8636
Figure 2.3. Types of competences for urban matters at the national level, n = 83
41
Figure 3.1. Forms of NUP, n = 162
51
Figure 3.2. Forms of NUP by region, n = 162
51
Figure 3.3. Key characteristics of NUPs in explicit forms, n = 58
53
Figure 3.4. Key characteristics of NUPs in non-explicit forms, n = 28
54
Figure 3.5. Stages of development of NUP in 2018 and 2020, n = 150 (2018), n = 157 (2020)
55
Figure 3.6. Stages of explicit and non-explicit NUPs in 2020, n = 91 (explicit NUPs), n = 66 (non-explicit
NUPs)
56
Figure 3.7. Levels of attention given to selected themes in NUP, n = 113
57
Figure 3.8. Moderate to extensive attention to themes of NUP by region, n = 113
57
Figure 3.9. Institutions leading the NUP, n = 8659
Figure 4.1. Mechanisms to align NUP with sectoral policies at the national level, n = 86
79
Figure 4.2. Mechanisms for vertical policy alignment in the NUP process, n = 8680
Figure 4.3. Mechanisms for horizontal policy alignment among local governments in and between urban
areas, n = 86
82
Figure 4.4. Engagement of sub-national governments in the NUP process, by level of attention and by stage of
NUP development, n = 86
82
Figure 4.5. Engagement of civil society and community organisations in the NUP process, by level of attention
and by stage of NUP development, n = 86
86
Figure 4.6. Engagement of the private sector in the NUP process, by level of attention and by stage of NUP
development, n = 86
87
Figure 4.7. Engagement of academia and research institutions in the NUP process, by level of attention andstage of NUP development, n = 86
87
Figure 4.8. Means of citizen engagement in the NUP process, n = 86
88
Figure 4.9. Special measures in NUP process for vulnerable urban populations, n = 66
89
Figure 4.10. Types of implementation mechanisms for NUPs, n = 48
91
Figure 4.11. Greatest challenges for NUP implementation at the national level, n = 48
92
Figure 4.12. Greatest challenges for NUP implementation at the sub-national level, n = 48
93
Figure 4.13. Sources of financing for NUP implementation, n = 48
94
Figure 4.14. Sources of financing for NUP implementation, regional data, n = 48
94
Figure 5.1. Data sources used in the NUP process, n = 86
101
Figure 5.2. Types of NUP monitoring and evaluation frameworks, n = 68
102
Figure 5.3. Intended use of monitoring and evaluation of NUPs, n = 68
103
Figure 5.4. OECD Principles on Urban Policy
105
Figure 5.5. Performance of cities in OECD countries on SDG 2 and SDG 13
106
Figure 6.1. NUP contributions to achieving global agendas that the NUPs help achieve, n = 86
111
Figure 6.2. Share of NUPs that help achieve selected global agendas, per global region
114
Figure 6.3. Number of NUPs and RDPs that fulfil SDG 11.a.1, by number of qualifiers, n = 58 (NUPs), n = 43
(RDPs)
116
Figure 6.4. Number of NUPs and RDPs that fulfil the SDG 11.a.1, by type of qualifier, n = 58 (NUPs), n = 43
(RDPs)
117
Figure 6.5. Number of NUPs per level of contribution to other SDGs, n = 86
120
Figure 6.6. Number of NUPs contributing extensively to other SDGs
121
Figure 6.7. Ministries in charge of implementing NUP and SDG 11
122
Figure 6.8. A territorial approach to the SDGs supports the transition to a new regional development paradigm 124
Figure 6.9. OECD Checklist for Public Action to localise the SDGs
125
Figure 7.1. Number of NUPs that explicitly address climate change, n = 67
134
Figure 7.2. Number of NUPs addressing climate change, by region, n = 67
135
Figure 7.3. Challenges to integrating climate change in NUPs, n = 67
138
Figure 7.4. Key objectives of mainstreaming climate action in NUP, n = 54
139
Figure 7.5 Urban low-carbon transition/mitigation actions addressed by NUPs, n = 54
142
Figure 7.6. Urban climate adaptation actions addressed by NUPs, n = 54
145
Figure 7.7. Mechanisms for co-ordination of climate action in NUPs, n = 54
146
Figure 7.8. Number and share of NUPs incorporating special measures to improve resilience of vulnerable
urban populations to climate change, n = 46
148

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

10 

Boxes
Box 1.1. First edition of the Global State of National Urban Policy report: key findings
Box 1.2. NUP Country Survey: 40 questions
Box 2.1. Selected examples of national definitions of NUP
Box 2.2. Federal states’ distribution of competences and responsibilities for NUP
Box 2.3. Unitary states’ distribution of competences and responsibilities for NUP
Box 2.4. Examples of sub-national urban policies
Box 2.5. Mainstreaming urban-rural linkages in NUP: the case of Rwanda
Box 2.6. National Urban Policy Programme
Box 4.1. Stakeholder engagement in Chile’s National and Regional Councils for Urban Development
Box 4.2. The Global Taskforce-UCLG 2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda
Box 4.3. City Enabling Environment (CEE) Rating initiative
Box 5.1. A new definition of the degree of urbanisation
Box 5.2. OECD Principles on Urban Policy
Box 5.3. Measuring cities’ and regions’ progress towards the SDGs
Box 6.1. Aligning NUPs, the SDGs and NUA: The example of CubaBox 6.2. Recognition of local actions in global agendas
Box 6.3. The New Leipzig CharterBox 6.4. The three ‘qualifiers’ of the SDG 11.a.1 indicatorBox 6.5. Examples of how NUPs and RDPs have integrated the 3 qualifiersBox 6.6. Promoting the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda through NUP in Spain
Box 6.7. A Territorial Approach to the SDGs: Framework and Checklist
Box 7.1. Enhancing cities’ potential for climate action through NUP
Box 7.2. The Netherlands’ Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment
Box 7.3. Colombia’s Law no. 1931 establishing guidelines for the management of climate change
Box 7.4. Carbon pricing and fiscal instruments for climate action
Box 7.5. France’s national co-ordination to embed sustainability factors in urban renewal projects

21
23
33
38
39
42
46
47
83
85
96
103
104
106
111
112
114
115
118
123
124
133
136
137
143
147

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021 11Abbreviations and acronyms

AAAA

Addis Ababa Action Agenda

ADEME

Environment and Energy Management Agency

AEU2

Environmental Approach for Urban Planning 2

AFINUA

Action Framework for the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda

ANCT

l’Agence nationale de la cohésion territoriale

ANRU

National Urban Renewal Agency

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BBSR

Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development

CA

Cities Alliance

CEE

City Enabling Environment

CNDU

National Council for Urban Development

CNPD

National Development Planning Commission

COMICIVYT

Commission for the City, Housing and Territory

COVID-19

Coronavirus disease

DEFR

Secrétariat d’État à l’économie

DETEC

Office fédéral du développement territorial ARE

DHPLG

Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government

DHSUD

Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development

EC

European Commission

EEA

European Economic Area

ENRRD

Estratégia Nacional de Redução de Riscos de Desastres (National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction)EU
FAO

European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FUA

Functional urban area

GIS

Geographic Information System

GPS

Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development

GSNUP

Global State of National Urban Policy

ICLEI

Local Governments for Sustainability

IDP

Internally displaced persons

ILO

International Labour Organization

IPA

Israel Planning Administration

IPF

Institute of Physical Planning

KENTGES

Integrated Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan

LEP

Local Enterprise partnerships

LGA

Local government associations

LRG

Local and regional governments

MCCSAP

Myanmar Climate Change Strategies and Action Plan

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

12 
MCTI

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation

MCTRCT

Ministère de la cohésion des territoires et des relations avec les collectivités territoriales

MHUV

Ministère de l’Habitat, de l’Urbanisme et de la Ville

MICLAT

Ministère de l’Intérieur, des Collectivités Locale et de l’Aménagement du Territoire

MIVAH

Ministry of Housing and Human Settlements

MIVIOT

Ministry of Housing and Territorial Planning, Panama

MLIT

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan

MMDA

Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies, Ghana

MOPIRNA

Ministry if Public Works, Infrastructures, Natural resources and Environment

MoRUD

Ministry of Road and Urban Development

MURD

Ministry of Urban and Rural Development

NAPA

Nation Adaptation Programme of Action

NCCSD

National Coordinating Council for Sustainable Development

NCSD

National Concept for Spatial Development

NOVI

National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the EnvironmentNPNRUNational Urban Renewal Programme

NSSD

National Strategy for Sustainable Development, Montenegro

NUA

New Urban Agenda

NUDHF

National Urban Development and Housing Framework

NUDP

National Urban Development Policy

NUP

National urban policy

NUPP

National Urban Policy ProgrammeOECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PaQte

Pact with Neighbourhoods for All Businesses

PNDU

National Policy for Urban Development

PNOT

Cabinet of Territorial Planning

PNOTU

The National Policy on Spatial Planning and Urbanism

PPP

Public Private Partnership

PSDATU

Sectorial Program for Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development

R&D

Research and Development

RDP

Regional Development Plans

RISE

Framework Programme Integrated District Development

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SEDATU

Secretariat for Agrarian, Land and Urban Development

SNCB

National Railway Company of Belgium

SPED

Strategic Plan for the Environment and Development

ST&I

Science, Technology and Innovation

TULab

Tanzania’s Urban Laboratory

UCLG

United Cities and Local Government

UCLGA

United Cities and Local Government Africa

UCLG-ASPAC

United Cities and Local Government Asia Pacific

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WiN

Wohnen in Nachbarschaften (Living in Neighbourhoods)

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 13

Executive summary

The COVID-19 crisis shed light on the potential of national urban policy (NUP) to shape more resilient,
green and inclusive cities with the duty shared across levels of government. Before the pandemic, morethan 90 countries explicitly used NUP to set a common vision, align sectoral policies, foster rural-urban
linkages, address socio-spatial inequalities, and facilitate multi-level dialogues for a balanced, polycentricand higher-quality urbanisation that delivers inclusive and sustainable growth and well-being for all. Whilst
COVID-19 magnified existing and well-known urban challenges, it also built social and political acceptanceof future-proof policy reforms required by cities of all sizes.
Since the first global monitoring carried out by the OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance in 2018,significant improvements took place regarding NUP design and implementation around the globe. Basedon a survey of 86 countries, complemented by desk research on additional 76 countries, this second edition
documents these improvements, in particular the integration of social and environmental objectives,
evidence-based monitoring of NUP effectiveness and outcomes, and systematic mainstreaming of the
Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement and other global agendas in NUP design
and implementation. However, policy siloes, persistent data and information gaps, and weak capacity
continue to challenge both national and sub-national governments in making the most of NUP’s potential.

Key findings


The COVID-19 crisis raised the profile of NUP as key to more resilient, greener and more
inclusive cities and part of countries’ recovery packages. Beyond the public health emergency tocontain the virus and protect citizens, the pandemic prompted cities to rethink how they deliver
services, how they plan their space and how they can resume economic growth.

Forward-looking NUP can help cities be more resilient, not only by responding to a crisis but
by preventing or preparing for future crises, through paradigm shifts that make cities more resilientand more connected with rural areas in terms of production, energy and transport.



Definitions of NUPs vary, but they commonly refer to a coherent set of decisions through adeliberate, government-led process rallying and co-ordinating diverse actors towards a common
vision and goal to promote more transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban
development for the long term.

oDefinitions range from outcome-based dimensions, such as sustainable urban development
and social inclusion, to process-based dimensions, such as stakeholder engagement.

oWhile some NUPs aim to achieve improved quality of life and well-being for all urban residents,
others distinctly target disadvantaged urban areas. This underlines the need for more granularand contextualised NUP monitoring across and within countries.

All 162 countries studied have national-level urban policies, although in different forms, atdifferent development stage and with varying thematic foci. The majority (56%) take explicit form,
namely consisting of a dedicated policy entitled ‘national urban policy’ or equivalent, while others

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

14 are embedded in national development strategies or sectoral plans (e.g. housing, transport, landuse). Where explicit NUPs exist, they primarily aim to “set a common strategic vision” (90%), foster“multi-sectoral policy co-ordination” (83%) and “enhance integrated territorial perspective” (83%).


NUPs matured since the first edition of the global monitoring in 2018. They take more explicit
forms (from 51 to 56%), advanced to implementation stage (from 61 to 62%) and embrace wider
objectives, including climate resilience (from 36 to 48%). More than 50 existing NUPs address bothclimate resilience and the low-carbon transition to leverage synergies with low-carbon mobility(89%), mixed-use and compact development (74%), sustainable buildings (69%), risk assessment(63%) and risk-sensitive land-use policies (59%).

More than two-thirds of countries recognise NUP’s potential to advance the SDGs, otherthan Goal 11 devoted to “Cities and Communities” (most prominently Goal 6 “Clean Water andSanitation”, Goal 8 “Decent Work and Economic Growth”, Goal 9 “Industry, Innovation andInfrastructure” and Goal 13 “Climate Action”).
oA total of 30 countries (41%) report NUPs that fulfil the criteria for SDG11.a.1, i.e. responding
to population dynamics, ensuring balanced territorial development and increasing local fiscal
space.

oBeyond the SDGs, many countries recognise NUP as key to other global and regional urban
agendas such as the New Urban Agenda (60%), the Paris Climate Agreement (53%) and the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (34%).



Challenges to effective NUPs persist, including co-ordination, resources, capacity and data
gaps. The lack of financial and human resources are the two main challenges to implementation,
both reported by 54% of countries. A lack of expertise at the intersection of climate change andurban policy (39%), and limited co-ordination mechanisms between national and local levels (30%)
are common obstacles to integrating climate objectives in NUP. Despite growing concerns, sociospatial inequalities and divides in cities (e.g., urban-rural connectivity, spatial segregation) are notextensively addressed in surveyed NUPs. Lastly, bottom-up processes for data collection could be
improved, with only 40% of countries using data from sub-national governments in the NUP
process.



Several factors enable NUP, including stakeholder engagement, key for better policy prioritisation
in formulating and implementing NUP, which can also guide countries, regions and cities to moreconcerted alignment of their actions and agendas. In addition, conducive constitutional andlegislative frameworks, fiscal transfers from central to local governments, the capacity andperformance of local government, and democracy and transparency in governance, are importantenabling factors.

The 10 key recommendations
Promote NUP as key framework to rethink post COVID-19 urban paradigms towards just,green and smart cities that can anticipate and respond to future shocks.

Enhance the role of NUP as a comprehensive, strategic and shared vision for balanced,
quality and polycentric urbanisation, and effective alignment and co-ordination across places,
sectors and levels of government.



Engage local and regional authorities, and stakeholder groups in the design, implementationand monitoring of NUP, involving all segments of society to address the needs of the mostvulnerable, such as women, the elderly, youth, the disabled, migrants and minorities.

Consider varied sources of finance to support the implementation of NUP, including nationalsubnational co-financing arrangements, public-private partnerships, private financing andinitiatives led by communities or co-operatives.
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 15


Invest in robust urban-scale data to design NUPs that address place-based concerns, foster
monitoring and evaluation, and facilitate evidence-based stakeholder dialogue, accountability andintegrity throughout the NUP process.



Leverage the role of NUP as connector of urban and climate-related ministries, throughbridging knowledge gaps and enhancing inter-ministerial co-ordination to scale up climate action.

Embed more diverse and innovative environmental policy instruments in NUPs, such ascarbon pricing to reduce emissions, taking into account their distributional effects on vulnerable
groups.

Enhance the contribution of NUP to global and regional agendas, notably the SDGs, the New
Urban Agenda, the Paris Climate Agreement and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.



Align NUP targets and indicators with the SDGs and other global indicators to build acoherent monitoring and evaluation framework.



Share knowledge and experience on NUP through multi-stakeholder dialogues, peer-learningand collaboration in global platforms such as the National Urban Policy Programme.

*The French-language version of this Executive Summary follows.

Résumé
La crise de la COVID-19 a mis en lumière combien les politiques nationales urbaines (PNU) pouvaient
contribuer à rendre les villes plus résilientes, plus vertes et plus inclusives dans le cadre d’une
responsabilité partagée par l’ensemble des niveaux d’administration. Avant même la crise, plus de 90 pays
avaient déjà expressément recours aux PNU afin de définir une vision commune de la politique urbaine,
harmoniser les politiques sectorielles, favoriser l’articulation entre les zones urbaines et les zones rurales,
corriger les inégalités socioterritoriales, et faciliter le dialogue pluri-niveaux autour d’une urbanisationéquilibrée, polycentrique et de qualité, source de croissance inclusive et durable et de bien-être pour tous.
Alors que cette crise a accentué les problèmes qui préexistaient dans les villes, et que l’on connaît bien,elle a aussi permis d’augmenter l’acceptation sociale et politique des réformes nécessaires pour préparer
l’avenir des villes de toutes tailles.
Depuis la première étude mondiale, réalisée par l’OCDE, l’ONU-Habitat et Cities Alliance en 2018, desprogrès notables ont été accomplis un peu partout en ce qui concerne la conception et la mise en œuvre
des PNU. Étayé par les résultats d’une enquête ayant porté sur 86 pays, auxquels s’ajoutent desrecherches documentaires sur 76 autres pays, ce deuxième rapport de suivi mondial des PNU rend
compte de ces progrès, parmi lesquels on retiendra l’intégration des objectifs sociaux etenvironnementaux, l’évaluation de l’efficacité et des résultats des mesures prises, et la place systématiqueréservée aux Objectifs de Développement Durable et à l’Accord de Paris sur le Climat, entre autresprogrammes d’action mondiaux, dans la définition et la mise en œuvre des PNU. Pour autant, lescloisonnements qui affectent l’action publique, les lacunes qui persistent en matière de données etd’informations, ainsi que le manque de moyens, empêchent toujours les administrations centrales etinfranationales de tirer le meilleur parti possible des PNU.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

16 

Principales conclusions


La crise liée à la COVID-19 a donné plus de relief aux PNU qui sont devenues indispensables
à la construction de villes plus résilientes, plus vertes et plus inclusives, et qui font partie des plans
nationaux de relance. Au-delà de l’urgence de santé publique, qui nécessite de freiner lapropagation du virus et de protéger les citoyens, la pandémie a incité les villes à repenser leursservices, l’aménagement de l’espace et les moyens de renouer avec la croissance économique.



Des PNU inscrites dans la durée peuvent renforcer la résilience des villes, en permettant nonseulement de faire face à une crise donnée, mais aussi d’en prévenir de nouvelles ou de mieux
s’y préparer, grâce à de nouveaux paradigmes qui rendent les villes plus résilientes et mieux
connectées aux zones rurales en termes de production, d’énergie et de transport.



Les définitions des PNU varient mais souvent « réfèrent à un ensemble cohérent de décisions
prises dans le cadre d’un processus volontaire, mené par les pouvoirs publics, visant à réunir et à
coordonner différents acteurs autour d’une vision et d’un objectif communs dans le but de favoriser
un développement urbain à long terme qui soit plus transformateur, productif, inclusif et résilient. »oCertaines définitions tendent à privilégier la finalité visée, comme le développement urbain
durable et l’inclusion sociale, ou au contraire les moyens employés, comme la mobilisation desparties prenantes.

o

Si certaines PNU visent à améliorer la qualité de vie et le bien-être des citadins, d’autress’adressent spécifiquement aux zones défavorisées. Il s’ensuit la nécessité d’un suivi plusétroit et plus sensible au contexte, à l’échelle nationale et internationale.



Si les 162 pays étudiés sont tous dotés de politiques urbaines d’envergure nationale, cellesci diffèrent par leur nature, leur degré d’aboutissement et leur angle thématique. La majorité deces politiques (56 %) ont un caractère explicite, ce qui signifie qu’il existe un train de mesures
expressément désigné par le terme « politique urbaine nationale » ou par un terme équivalent,tandis que d’autres s’inscrivent dans des stratégies nationales de développement ou des plansd’action sectoriels (tels que logement, transport ou aménagement, par exemple). Lorsqu’il existe
une PNU explicite, celle-ci a pour finalité première de « donner corps à une stratégie commune »(90 %), de favoriser « la coordination stratégique de plusieurs secteurs » (83 %) et de « porter une
vision territoriale intégrée » (83 %).



Les PNU ont évolué depuis la première édition du rapport en 2018. Elles se déclinent plus
volontiers de manière explicite (56 contre 51 % auparavant), sont plus nombreuses à être déjà austade de la mise en œuvre (62 contre 61%) et répondent à des objectifs plus vastes, parmi lesquels
la résilience au climat (48 contre 36% en 2018). Plus d’une cinquantaine de PNU recouvrent
aujourd’hui la résilience climatique et la transition vers une économie bas carbone, le but étant detirer ainsi parti des synergies avec la mobilité bas carbone (89 %), le développement compact etdiversifié (74 %), la durabilité des bâtiments (69 %), l’évaluation des risques (63 %) et les politiquesd’aménagement du territoire en fonction du risque (59 %).



Plus des deux-tiers des pays voient dans les PNU un moyen de faire progresser les ODD,
au-delà du seul ODD 11, relatif aux villes et communautés (en premier lieu les ODD 6 relatif à l’eau
propre et à l’assainissement, 8 relatif au travail décent et la croissance économique, 9 relatif àl’industrie et aux infrastructures, et 13 relatif au climat).
oTrente pays en tout (soit 41 % du total) indiquent avoir des PNU qui remplissent le critère défini
pour l’indicateur 11.a.1, dans la mesure où elles répondent à la dynamique des populations,garantissent un développement territorial équilibré et augmentent la marge de manœuvre
budgétaire locale.

oAu-delà des ODD, nombreux sont les pays qui estiment que les PNU sont essentielles à lamise en œuvre d’autres programmes mondiaux ou régionaux d’action urbaine, tels que le

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 17Nouveau Programme pour les villes (60 %), l’Accord de Paris sur le Climat (53 %) et le Cadred’action de Sendai pour la réduction des risques de catastrophe (34 %).
Des défis continuent d’entraver l’efficacité des PNU, notamment le manque de coordination,
de ressources, de capacités et de données. L’absence de capacités financières et celle de moyens
humains suffisants constituent les deux principales entraves à leur mise en œuvre, ayant été
signalées par 54 % des pays dans les deux cas. Le manque d’expertise au carrefour duchangement climatique et de la politique urbaine (39 %), ainsi que l’insuffisance des mécanismesde coordination entre les échelons local et national (30 %) sont des obstacles fréquents àl’intégration des objectifs climatiques dans les PNU. Quoiqu’elles suscitent une préoccupation
grandissante, les inégalités socioterritoriales et les fractures à l’intérieur des villes (par exemple,l‘articulation entre zones urbaines et rurales et la ségrégation territoriale) ne sont guère prises encompte dans les PNU étudiées. Enfin, les processus ascendants de collecte de donnéesmériteraient d’être améliorés, puisque seuls 40 % des pays s’appuient sur les élémentsd’informations communiqués par les administrations infranationales pour les besoins des PNU.

Plusieurs facteurs facilitent les PNU, notamment l’investissement des parties prenantes, un
ressort essentiel d’une meilleure hiérarchisation des priorités, tant dans la phase de préparationqu’au moment de la mise en œuvre. Cette collaboration peut aussi aider les pays, régions et villesà mieux coordonner leurs interventions et programmes d’action. La présence de cadresconstitutionnels et législatifs propices, les transferts budgétaires de l’État vers les administrations
locales, la capacité et le comportement de ces dernières, ainsi que le caractère démocratique etla transparence de la gouvernance, sont également des facteurs importants pour le succès des
PNU.

Les dix principales recommandations contenues dans le rapportFaire des PNU un cadre essentiel pour repenser les villes et les modèles de développement
urbain post-COVID-19, afin de rendre les villes plus justes, plus vertes et plus intelligentes, et qui
permettent d’anticiper et de surmonter les crises futures.

Miser davantage sur les PNU pour faire émerger une conception globale, stratégique etcommune pour une urbanisation équilibrée, de qualité et polycentrique, et pour assurer cohérence
et coordination entre l’ensemble des localisations, des secteurs et des niveaux d’administration.



Associer les autorités locales et régionales, de même que les groupes de parties prenantes
à la conception, à la mise en œuvre et au suivi des PNU, en impliquant toutes les couches de lasociété pour répondre aux besoins des populations les plus vulnérables – telles que les femmes,
les personnes âgées, les jeunes, les personnes handicapées, les immigrés et les minorités.



Envisager diverses sources de financement pour la mise en œuvre des PNU : accords decofinancement entre l’État et les administrations infranationales, mais aussi partenariats
public-privé, fonds privés, initiatives de collectivités ou de coopératives.



Investir dans le développement de données fiables à l’échelle des villes pour concevoir desPNU qui répondent bien aux préoccupations locales, en faciliter le suivi et l’évaluation et favoriser
le dialogue avec les parties prenantes, la transparence et l’intégrité tout au long du processus desPNU.

Tirer parti des PNU en tant que point de rencontre entre les ministères en charge despolitiques urbaines et ceux en charge de la lutte contre le changement climatique en
comblant les lacunes dans les connaissances et en renforçant la coordination interministérielle
pour intensifier l’action climatique.



Intégrer des instruments de politique environnementale plus variés et innovants dans les
PNU, comme la tarification du carbone pour réduire les émissions, en prenant en compte leurs
effets redistributifs sur les groupes de population vulnérables.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

18 


Renforcer la contribution des PNU aux programmes d’action mondiaux et régionaux,notamment dans le cas des ODD, du Nouveau Programme pour les villes, de l’Accord de Paris surle Climat et du Cadre de Sendai pour la réduction des risques de catastrophe.



Faire correspondre les cibles et indicateurs des PNU avec ceux des ODD et d’autres
indicateurs mondiaux, pour former un cadre de suivi et d’évaluation cohérent.

Partager les connaissances et les expériences sur les PNU grâce à des dialogues entre lesparties prenantes, l’apprentissage entre pairs et la collaboration à des plateformes mondiales telles
que le Programme des Politiques Nationales Urbaines.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 19

1 Introduction and methodology

This chapter presents the objectives and methodology of the report. The
chapter begins by introducing the context in which global monitoring of
national urban policy (NUP) is conducted, including why NUP has become
a focus for governments. An overarching objective of the report is tosupport policymakers by providing robust data and evidence on how
countries use NUP to enhance sustainable urban development, advanceglobal agendas and address challenges magnified or revealed by the
COVID-19 crisis. The methodology applied for this report builds andexpands on the first edition launched in 2018. Major improvements include
a dedicated country survey on NUP extended to 86 countries and two newthematic strands offering more specific evidence in relation to the role of
NUP in (1) advancing the Sustainable Development Goals and other global
urban agendas, and (2) spearheading a systems approach to build lowcarbon and climate-resilient cities.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

20 

Global monitoring of national urban policy: The context
A national urban policy (NUP) is defined as “a coherent set of decisions through a deliberate governmentled process of co-ordinating and rallying various actors towards a common vision and goal that will promote
more transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban development for the long term” (UNHABITAT/OECD, 2018[1]).
Almost half the world’s population (48%) currently lives in cities. The urban population has more thandoubled over the last 40 years, increasing from 1.5 billion people in 1975 to 3.5 billion in 2015, and is
projected to reach 55% in 2050 (OECD/European Commission, 2020[2]). As the dynamic urbanisation
process continues to offer opportunities and challenges, cities and urban areas have become increasingly
important policy targets for national governments (OECD, 2014[3]). International communities haverecognised such policy needs and have taken actions to support countries’ efforts to develop andimplement NUP. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example,
has long been carrying out National Urban Policy Reviews, building on its work on urban development for
decades (OECD, 2019[4]). UN-Habitat has supported more than 55 countries in the development andimplementation of their NUPs (UN-HABITAT/OECD, 2018[1]).
Recent global processes have reaffirmed the importance of urban policies for sustainable development
and the crucial role that national governments can play in this process. In particular, the adoption of the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015 and the New Urban Agenda (NUA) in 2016 haveprovided a strong rationale for countries to develop or review their NUP frameworks.
The NUA has put explicit emphasis on NUP as one of its five pillars of implementation, 1 and calls formeasures to enhance the ability of governments to develop and implement such over-arching policies. In
2019, NUP was designated by the United Nations Statistic Commission as a monitoring tool for the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through Indicator 11.a.1 (see Chapter 6 for details). Suchdevelopments provided a window of opportunity to scale up the uptake of NUP as a powerful policy process
to help governments shape and implement urban policies (UN-HABITAT/OECD, 2018[1]).
A NUP can also play a stronger role in the current challenging times. The COVID-19 pandemic plays out
unevenly across cities, regions and rural areas within any one country, and many cities have been on thefrontline of the response to the crisis. In a context of emergency, cities have played a crucial role in
implementing nation-wide measures (e.g. lockdowns) and have become laboratories for bottom-up andinnovative policies and actions towards long-term recovery. The crisis prompted cities to rethink how they
deliver services and how they plan their space, amongst other things. NUP can play a key role in driving
the paradigm shift towards green, smart and inclusive cities by driving a shared vision for the future ofcities, guiding policy reforms and supporting bottom-up and local innovative urban strategies (OECD,
2020[5]). The path to recovery from this unprecedented crisis calls for strong, multi-level dialogue, for which
NUP will remain a key co-ordinating instrument, engaging policymakers, town planners and city dwellers.
Since 2016, the OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance have been collaborating to develop a regular andsystematic NUP monitoring framework at the global scale under the framework of the National Urban
Policy Programme (NUPP). In February 2018, the first edition of such a monitoring was jointly launched
by UN-Habitat and the OECD in the report Global State of National Urban Policy at the 9th World Urban
Forum. The objective of the report was to monitor and evaluate the progress of NUP at the global level,with commonly defined methodologies and processes. It provided policymakers, practitioners andacademia with evidence and country-level experiences (Box 1.1).
The Global State of National Urban Policy report serves as a critical source of information and analysis forpolicymakers and urban professionals as it establishes the foundation for understanding how and in whatforms NUPs have been developed, implemented and monitored globally. It also paves the way for thedefinition of a common methodology to monitor the progress of NUP at the global level. At the same time,
it responds to the need for better reporting and collecting of information about the status of NUP at the
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021 21
global level, not only to support countries’ NUP development but also to track the contribution of NUP to
the implementation of the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda (UN-HABITAT/OECD, 2018[1]).

Box 1.1. First edition of the Global State of National Urban Policy report: key findings
The 2018 Global State of National Urban Policy report was based on regional studies by UN-Habitat
and a study of the OECD member countries by the OECD. It provided a first attempt at assessing NUP
trends, opportunities, challenges and ways forward, by analysing 150 NUPs. The key findings include:

The 150 NUPs examined were evenly distributed between explicit NUPs (76) and partial, or
implicit, NUPs (74). While globally, 92 countries (61%) were already implementing their NUPs,
the majority of explicit NUPs (51%) were still in earlier stages of development. Rapidly
urbanising regions such as Africa, the Arab States, and Asia and the Pacific presented thehighest proportions of explicit NUPs, as well as NUPs in earlier stages of development. They
were also more likely to have dedicated a specialised urban agency to the implementation of
their NUP, indicating a high level of political attention to urbanisation.

Spatial structure and economic development were the two sectors most extensively covered by
NUP. In contrast, attention to climate change resilience and environmental sustainability was
weakest; of the 108 NUPs in or beyond the formulation stage, only 11 (10%) of NUPs gave
extensive attention to climate change resilience and 28 (26%) to environmental sustainability.



NUP can be an opportunity to balance top-down and bottom-up approaches in their institutional
articulation, by redefining and strengthening national and sub-national roles and responsibilities
for increased coherence, efficiency and legitimacy. Further involvement of sub-national
government in NUP processes was often restricted by a lack of capacities. Levels of stakeholder
engagement also remained low to moderate for the NUPs examined.

In most regions, a lack of resources (human, technical and financial) was the most difficult
challenge to successfully implementing NUP, which calls for more detailed research on
implementation and capacity gaps, as well as the instruments and best practices available toovercome them.

Source: UN-HABITAT/OECD (2018), Global State of National Urban Policy, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264290747-en.

Objectives of the report
In view of conducting periodic monitoring of NUP at the global scale, the OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities
Alliance have decided to jointly develop the second edition as a key output of the Workplan 2019-2020 of
the NUPP. An overarching objective is to assist national governments in advancing their NUP processes,
especially in creating a stronger link between NUP and urban-related global agendas, and inmainstreaming climate action into NUP. More specifically, this report aims to:Define common methodologies to analyse different forms, stages of development, thematic areasof focus, as well as implementation of NUP and to provide state-of-the-art and comprehensive
monitoring of NUP at the global scale.

Benchmark the progress of NUP across peer countries and inform future actions to advance NUP
processes.



Understand the current governance structure of NUP in countries and identify policy and capacity
gaps to effectively advance NUP.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

22 


Provide in-depth analysis and assessment on the roles of NUP to advance the SDGs and climate
action.



Assist local, regional, national governments and international institutions to better understand thecurrent state of NUP at the global scale and where future support effort should be directed.

Highlight key evidence and successful NUPs to support improved comparative learning on pitfalls
to avoid and good practices to replicate.

Methodology
Overview
In order to ensure continuity, the same methodological framework as the first edition is applied for thisreport, including the five categories for the stage of development of NUP. At the same time, this reportintroduces methodological improvements in order to lead to more accuracy and improved relevance, as
well as to increase engagement of countries in the process. Major improvements include:Country inputs and feedback. The first edition largely relied on expert assessment with limited
direct inputs from countries for data collection, except for a dedicated country survey and peerreview at the OECD Working Party on Urban Policy for OECD countries. For greater accuracy of
information and a more participatory approach, this report engaged countries more extensively
throughout the monitoring and drafting process. In particular, the second edition relies on acommon country survey sent to all United Nations Member States. In addition, key findings andearlier drafts were shared and cross-checked with the respective countries and peer-reviewed inseveral fora (e.g. meetings of NUPP partners, meetings of the OECD Working Party on Urban
Policy).

Supplementary data and information. While the country survey provides the primary source, thisreport also includes expert assessment gathered through desk research, relating to the form,
development stage and thematic scope of NUP (only the five main themes, not sub-themes), as
well as national urban agencies. Data and statistics were derived from government databases andwebsites, other country-level NUP studies and reviews and from partner institutions of the National
Urban Policy Programme, including OECD National Urban Policy Reviews and the UN-Habitat
NUP database.



Monitoring and evaluation of SDG target 11.a. This report assesses whether or not NUPs
contain the elements of the newly revised indicator 11.a.1, which relates to the “number of countries
that have national urban policies or regional development plans that: (a) respond to population
dynamics, (b) ensure balanced territorial development, (c) increase local fiscal space”.

In-depth analysis on NUP’s contribution to climate action and resilience. This report includes
a deep-dive on climate-related risks in cities to help drive the low-carbon transition in cities, andadvice on how NUP frameworks can effectively support local climate action. Greater attention to
NUP’s contribution to urban climate resilience and low-carbon transition had been identified as away forward in the first edition of the global monitoring.



Expert group. An expert group consisting of academics, practitioners and internationalorganisations was set up to support the peer-review process.

NUP country survey
A joint OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance NUP country survey was designed in 2019 and carried out
in 2020, in consultation with several experts, OECD countries (Canada, France, Italy, Mexico, Norway,
Poland and the United States) and NUPP partners. It consists of 40 questions addressing both topics

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 23
covered in the first edition of the report (e.g. NUP form and stage, stakeholder engagement) as well as
new topics (e.g. definition of a NUP, SDGs, climate action and resilience) (Figure 1.1 and Box 1.1):
Questions 1-3 aimed to map the varied policy environment surrounding NUP in the world, taking
into account the diversity of institutional settings in which NUP is embedded.

Questions 4-9 addressed key characteristics of NUP: form, characteristics, stage of development
and thematic scope. Where feasible, results were compared with the data from the first edition tounderstand key trends in the evolution of NUP at the global scale.

Questions 10-17 related to alignment, co-ordination and engagement of sub-national
governments and stakeholders in the NUP process.

Questions 18-25 asked how countries have deployed legal and institutional frameworks,
financial and capacity-building instruments for effective implementation of NUP, as well as
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

Questions 26-31 were dedicated to linking NUP and global agendas, with special attention to
SDGs. They provided an assessment of how NUP contributes to the achievement of SDG target
11.a and other global urban agendas.

Questions 32-40 collected new data and information regarding how countries integrate urban
climate resilience and the low-carbon transition into NUP.

Figure 1.1. Key questions addressed in the joint NUP country survey

How do you
define a NUP?
What outcome
do you expect?

NUP form,
stage, thematic
scope

Finance,
Implementation,
Data, Monitoring

Lead institution for
NUP

Vulnerable
populations

Engaging local governments& stakeholders

Global agendas &SDG 11.a.1

Climate adaptation andmitigation measures

Note: Boxes outlined in dark blue are new themes covered in the NUP country survey prepared for this report. The boxes outlined in grey werecovered in the first edition of the report and were hence also included in the survey and in this report.

Box 1.2. NUP Country Survey: 40 questions
Mapping the policy environment for NUP
Q1. Does your national government have a definition of a NUP?
Q2. What are the three major outcomes you hope to achieve through a NUP?
Q3. What competences and responsibilities for urban policies / urban development does your national
government have?

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

24 
Key characteristics of NUP
Q4. Does your country have, or is in the process of developing, an explicit NUP?
Q5. Does your country have other national-level policies with a focus or a major impact on urban areas?
Q6. Does your country have policies that affect your country’s urban areas but not at the national scale?
Q7. Please use the box below to provide your country’s profile on the current NUP, highlighting recentchanges.
Q8. In which stage of development is your NUP?
Q9. Does your NUP have a theme(s)? What level of attention does it grant to the following themes?

Alignment and co-ordination
Q10. Which national ministry/agency is leading your NUP process?
Q11. What mechanisms exist to align your NUP with other sectoral policies at the national level?
Q12. What mechanisms exist to ensure vertical policy alignment between the NUP and sub-national
plans and policies?
Q13. What mechanisms exist in your NUP to facilitate horizontal policy alignment among local
governments in and between urban areas?

Engagement of sub-national governments and stakeholders in the NUP process
Q14. Have sub-national governments been engaged with/contributed to each phase of the NUP
process? If so, to what extent?
Q15. Have non-governmental stakeholder groups been engaged in different phases of the NUP
process? If so, to what extent?
Q16. What means have been/are being used to ensure the participation of urban residents in the NUP
process?
Q17. Have special measures been included in the NUP process to ensure that your NUP is sensitive
to vulnerable urban populations?

Implementation
Q18. Which implementation mechanisms exist for your NUP?
Q19. What are the greatest challenges you face for implementing your NUP at the national level?
Q20. What are the major sources for financing which have been/are being used to implement your
NUP?
Q21. To what extent is the implementation of your NUP dependent on sub-national governments?
Q22. What are challenges faced by sub-national governments, a key implementation partner of your
NUP?

Data collection, monitoring and evaluation
Q23. What kind of data do you use for your NUP process?
Q24. Which monitoring and evaluation frameworks currently exist for your NUP process?
Q25. How have you used or do you intend to use the results of the monitoring and evaluation of your
NUP?

NUP and global agendas
Q26. Please indicate which of the following international agreements your NUP refers to or intends tohelp achieve.
Q27. Does your NUP and Regional Development Plan meet the SDG 11.a target?
Q28. Which other SDGs is your NUP contributing to?

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 25
Q29. Is the leading NUP ministry/agency also responsible for the implementation and monitoring of
SDG 11 in your country?
Q30. Are SDG targets and indicators integrated in your NUP monitoring and evaluation framework?
Q31. Please share a few examples of successful practices / lessons learned in your NUP that promotes
its alignment with the global agendas.

The Role of NUP in Urban Climate Resilience and the Low-Carbon Transition
Q32. Is climate change explicitly addressed in your NUP?
Q33. What are or have been the challenges or obstacles to integrating climate change in your NUP?
Q34. Please use the box below to provide a detailed description of how your NUP is addressing climatechange.
Q35. What are the key objectives of mainstreaming climate action in your NUP?
Q36. Which urban low-carbon transition/mitigation actions are addressed by your NUP?
Q37. Which urban climate adaptation actions are addressed by your NUP?
Q38. Which mechanisms (regulatory, fiscal, information, etc.) are used to implement the climate action
in your NUP?
Q39. Which mechanisms exist to co-ordinate climate action (across sectors, across levels ofgovernment) in your NUP?
Q40. Have special measures been included in the NUP process to ensure that your NUP can improve
the resilience of vulnerable urban populations to the impacts of climate change?

The survey was shared with OECD member countries at the 26th session of the OECD Working Party on
Urban Policy (20 November 2019) and with all the United Nations Member States through their Permanent
Missions by the UN-Habitat Governing Bodies Secretariat in December 2019. Cities Alliance also
circulated the survey to their government member countries (Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, Ghana,South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, United Kingdom and United States). The survey wasavailable in English, French and Spanish and contained 40 questions. Responses were collected between
January and June 2020. Overall, 86 countries submitted consolidated responses.

Definitions
NUP
This report applies the same definition as the first edition of the report: a NUP is defined as “a coherent setof decisions derived through a deliberate government-led process of co-ordinating and rallying various
actors for a common vision and goal that will promote more transformative, productive, inclusive andresilient urban development for the long term” (UN-HABITAT/OECD, 2018[1]). However, given the fact thata variety of NUP definitions exist across countries, the report also collected such definitions through the
NUP country survey to better understand the diverse contexts surrounding NUPs in different countries(Chapter 1).

Form of NUP
An explicit NUP has been defined as a policy with “a title of ‘national urban policy’ or variant such as‘national urbanisation policy’ or ‘national urban strategy’ or ‘national urban development strategy’ (UNHABITAT/OECD, 2018[1]). This survey collects key information on existing explicit NUPs (Chapter 3).
The first edition of the report included a “partial, or implicit NUP” category to acknowledge that a policy
document that is not explicitly labelled as NUP could, in practice, function as a NUP. Defined as having“many of the elements of a NUP but not yet brought together as a formal, or explicit NUP” (UN-GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

26 
HABITAT/OECD, 2018[1]). This term is no longer used in this second report. Rather, to account morecomprehensively for the impact of national level policies affecting urban areas, the report analyses othernational-level policies with a spatial focus on urban areas or an important impact on urban areas(Chapter 3). These include, for example, national development strategies with some dedicated focus on
urban areas or national-level sectoral policies and plans (e.g. housing, energy, transport, land-use) withelements addressing the urban level (e.g. a national-level transport plan incentivises the use of electricvehicles in urban areas or that grants priority to urban infrastructure development). Including suchinformation in the analysis is crucial to better understand the broader spectrum of national level urban
policies, in particular for certain federal or highly decentralised countries where policy documents that are“comparable” to an explicit NUP exist at either the state level or the regional level rather than at the national
level.

Characteristics of NUP
To complement the analysis of the form of NUP, this report also assesses the content of NUP based on
key characteristics elaborated out of NUP consideration in the New Urban Agenda and its Action
Framework for the Implementation, the Habitat III Policy Paper 3 on National Urban Policies, and the OECD
Principles on Urban Policy (Chapter 3). According to these, NUPs usually:Define a strategic, long-term and shared vision for national urban development.



Apply an integrated territorial perspective, promoting a system of cities approach and connectivity
between urban and rural areas.

Integrate and co-ordinate cross-sectoral policies (urban economy, social inclusion, climate change,technological innovation, etc.).



Develop co-ordination mechanisms among and across levels of government, clarifying roles,
responsibilities and resources.



Develop implementation mechanisms with legal, regulatory and financial tools and supports
capacity development.



Ensure and promote the engagement and participation of sub-national governments andstakeholders (citizens, the private sector, academics, etc.).



Rely on robust urban scale data and ensure regular monitoring and evaluation.

Stage of development of NUP
Similar to the first edition, this report divides the stages of development of the NUP process into fivecategories: “feasibility”, “diagnosis”, “formulation”, “implementation” and “monitoring and evaluation”.
“Feasibility”, the first stage, refers to the period when the country is making the case for NUP and
beginning to build stakeholder support and political will for this vision.

“Diagnosis”, the second stage, refers to the period when the country is conducting preliminary
analyses to create a NUP.

“Formulation”, the third stage, refers to the period when the NUP is being drafted.

“Implementation”, the fourth stage, refers to the period when the NUP is being put into action.

“Monitoring and evaluation”, the final stage, refers to the period when the outcomes of the NUP
are being analysed and evaluated.

Thematic scope of NUP
In the first edition of the report, the thematic scope of NUP was analysed by assessing the degree ofattention to five themes: economic development, spatial development, human development, environmental

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 27
sustainability and climate resilience. The degree of attention devoted to each theme in a NUP (informulation stage or beyond) was assessed on a scale from low to moderate and to extensive. Below are
new principles that guided this assessment in this report. These guiding principles are based on clear
criteria and hence mark a methodological improvement compared with the assessment conducted in thefirst edition of the report.
The “low” category indicates that the thematic area is either not or only briefly mentioned as aconcern in the NUP, without much information on the situation nor any guidance or direction foraction.

The “moderate” category corresponds to cases in which the NUP provides a clear understandingof the situation relating to the thematic subsection and related opportunities and challenges. For
instance, the NUP provides background and analysis of the situation, as well as objectives andgeneral directions to improve it.

The “extensive” category indicates strong importance given to the thematic area, by giving it aprominent place among the objectives of the NUP, providing a detailed analysis of the situation,
concrete goals and targets, as well as implementation measures to achieve them (e.g. indicators,
roadmap, timeline, budget, etc.).

In this report, these five main themes were complemented by 20 sub-themes (see Table 3.2) for thecountries responding to the NUP country survey. Each sub-theme was also assessed according to the“low/moderate/extensive” degree of attention and corresponding principles.

Sub-national government engagement/contribution in NUP
The extent of the engagement/contribution by sub-national governments throughout the NUP process isdetermined by the roles and responsibilities they have, the opportunities to participate in different stages
of NUP, and by their capacity to fulfil such roles and responsibilities. In the first edition of the report, theextent of engagement was assessed at the level of global regions (e.g. Asia and the Pacific), but not at thelevel of countries as was done in this report. In addition, this report also assessed the extent of engagement
according to the new following guiding principles:A “low level” of engagement/contribution corresponds to limited participation opportunities in the
NUP process. For example, the implementation phase corresponds to a situation where
sub-national governments have limited roles and responsibilities to implement a NUP, with limited
regulatory, financial and institutional prerogatives.

A “moderate level” of engagement/contribution entails clear roles and responsibilities given to subnational governments, allowing them to have the opportunity and the capacity to substantiallycontribute to each phase. For instance, sub-national governments are fully consulted for theidentification of problems and policy priorities, and are able to provide local knowledge and data to
support national government decisions.

An “extensive level” of engagement/contribution indicates a strong vertical collaboration between
level of government, whereby sub-national governments are co-creators and joint implementers of
NUP, and actively help adapt it to local needs and contexts.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

28 
Stakeholder engagement in the NUP process
Stakeholder engagement can occur throughout all phases of the NUP process and this report therefore
assesses the extent of stakeholder engagement in each stage of the NUP process. In the first edition of
the report, only qualitative assessments were provided per global region, not at the country level. In
addition, this report defines three broad categories of non-governmental stakeholders that can be engaged
in the NUP process: the private sector, academia and civil society.


The private sector refers to individuals, for profit and commercial enterprises or businesses,
manufacturers and service providers, business associations and coalitions, and corporate
philanthropic foundations.



Academia refers to education and research institutions, some of which are not-for-profit
organisations.



Civil society refers to a range of non-governmental and not-for-profit organisations that have apresence in public life and that express the interests and values of their members based on ethical,
cultural, political, religious or philanthropic considerations. It includes non-profits, community
organisations, charities, trade unions, faith-based organisations, indigenous groups and social
movements.

The extent of engagement can be determined by the opportunities and capacities that stakeholders are
given to participate in and contribute to each stage of the NUP process. The guiding principles below werea new addition to GSNUP 2020, and provide an indication of how the extent of stakeholder engagementin the different stages of the NUP cycle was assessed in this report:


A “low level” of engagement indicates that stakeholders are either not involved at all, simply
provided general information, or offered limited opportunities to comment on the NUP process (e.g.
public hearing, online consultation).

A “moderate level” of engagement refers to a more targeted and institutionalised process ofengagement, with the consideration of different stakeholder groups’ perspectives and opportunities
for substantial inputs through representatives and/or consultation platforms.

An “extensive level” of engagement entails collaborative partnership between stakeholder groups
and the national government. They can participate in policy dialogues, provide feedback andsometimes affect important decisions at different stages of the NUP process.
o

For academia for instance, extensive engagement in the diagnosis phase would entail fullparticipation in the process of data collection and analysis; an example of extensive
engagement in the formulation phase would be co-drafting.

oAn extensive engagement of civil society in the monitoring and evaluation phase would meanthat civil society organisations fully participate alongside the government in the analysis andevaluation of the impact of the NUP implementation, and that their feedback and experiences
are thoroughly considered in the assessment.

o

For the private sector, an extensive level of engagement in implementation would mean
co-ownership and co-financing, with the private sector actively participating in the achievementof NUP objectives on the ground through investment and public-private partnerships for
instance.

Country coverage
The NUPs analysed throughout this report were identified through the NUP country survey (86 NUPs) anddesk research (76 NUPs) (Table 1.1). Regional groupings in this report follow the new regional groupings
based on United Nations Standard Country and Area Codes (M49) Classifications, with several
modifications in order to more adequately align with UN-Habitat regional groupings, which are reflected in
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 29
the UN-Habitat World Cities Report: Africa; Asia and the Pacific; Arab States; Europe and North America;
Latin America and the Caribbean.

Table 1.1. Countries covered in the global monitoring of NUP, per region
Countries with identified NUPs
through the country survey (86)Countries with identified NUPs
through desk research (76)Countries with insufficient
information (31)Africa (48)

Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde,
Eswatini, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Madagascar, Malawi, Namibia,
Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome andPrincipe, Senegal, Tanzania,
ZambiaAngola, Botswana, Burundi,
Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo,
Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republicof the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea,
Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Kenya,
Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius,
Mozambique, Somalia, South
Africa, South Sudan, Togo, Uganda,
Zimbabwe

Benin, Central African Republic,
Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Bissau,
Lesotho, Niger, Seychelles,
Sierra Leone

Asia andthe Pacific (50)

Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Iran,
Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan,
Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand,
Philippines, Republic of Korea,
Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan,
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia,
China, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Kiribati,
Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia,
Maldives, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru,
Pakistan, Palau, Papua New
Guinea, Samoa, Singapore,
Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka,
Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam

Cyprus, North Korea, Georgia,
Tajikistan

Arab States (17)Algeria, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia,

Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Oman,
Qatar, Sudan, Syria, United ArabEmirates, Yemen,

Europe andNorth America (45)Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, Montenegro, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Russian Federation,
Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine,
United Kingdom, United States,

Albania, Belarus, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Republic of Moldova

Andorra, Lichtenstein, Monaco,
North Macedonia, San Marino

Latin America andthe Caribbean (33)

Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,
Peru

Argentina, Dominican Republic,
El Salvador, Uruguay, Venezuela

Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas,
Barbados, Belize, Dominica,
Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia,
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago

Region

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

30 

References
OECD (2020), “Cities policy responses”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19),
OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/cities-policy-responsesfd1053ff/.

[5]OECD (2019), 20 Years of Urban Policy at OECD, OECD, Paris,
https://www.oecd.org/cfe/urban-policy-oecd.pdf.

[4]

OECD (2014), OECD Regional Outlook 2014: Regions and Cities: Where Policies and People
Meet, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201415-en.

[3]OECD/European Commission (2020), Cities in the World: A New Perspective on Urbanisation,
OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d0efcbda-en.

[2]

UN-HABITAT/OECD (2018), Global State of National Urban Policy, OECD Publishing,Paris/United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264290747-en.

[1]

Note
1

The Action Framework for the Implementation of the New Urban Agenda (AFINUA) identified the following
five pillars for implementation: (1) national urban policies; (2) urban legislation, rules and regulations;(3) urban planning and design; (4) urban economy and municipal finance; and (5) local implementation.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 31

2 Perception of NUPs in today’s
policy environment

This chapter examines perceptions of national urban policy (NUP) in policy
environments across countries. Definitions of NUP and key outcomescountries aim to achieve vary, but they commonly refer to a coherent set ofdecisions towards a common vision for urban development and to facilitate
inter-sectoral and inter-regional co-ordination. The COVID-19 crisis raised
the profile of NUP as key to more resilient, greener and more inclusive
cities and part of countries’ recovery packages. Beyond the public healthemergency, the pandemic prompted cities to rethink how they deliver
services, how they plan their space and how they can resume economic
growth. Overall, the chapter underlines the need for more granular andcontextualised NUP monitoring and for sharing knowledge and experience
on NUP through multi-stakeholder dialogues, peer-learning andcollaboration in global platforms.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

32 

Key findingsCountries have different definitions of national urban policy (NUP), ranging from outcomebased, such as sustainable urban development and social inclusion, to process-based, such as
stakeholder engagement. 55% of responding countries have their own definition of NUP.

Countries aim to achieve diverse outcomes through NUP. The most common are “balanced
territorial and urban development in a country” (55%), “a coherent vision for national urban
development” (44%) and “improved policy co-ordination across sectors” (31%).



Unitary and federal countries differ in institutional contexts for NUP. In federal countries, stateand provincial governments generally have strong responsibility for urban policy, thoughnational governments play an important role for capacity development and financial/technicalsupport. Unitary countries demonstrate both centralised and decentralised approaches.

The most common competence of national governments for NUP is regulatory responsibility(89%), followed by legislative capacity (70%), national-level land use planning (60%),
co-ordination (57%) and fiscal capacity for urban development (34%).



Aligning national and sub-national urban policies is crucial for both levels of government.
Sub-national urban policies mobilise actions, strategies and resources of the national agenda
towards specific local contexts and objectives, and thus form part of a systemic national urban
policy framework.

National definitions of NUP
Definitions of national urban policy (NUP) vary across countries in terms of content and objectives. In total,
46 countries out of 84 surveyed (55%) have their own definition of NUP (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Countries with a formal definition of National Urban Policy, n = 84
Yes

No

38
45%
46
55%

Note: No information was available for two countries out of the 86 survey respondents. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance
National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 33
The analysis of NUP definitions shows that many countries apply outcome-based dimensions (Box 2.1).
For example, 11 countries refer to “sustainability” and “environmental sustainability” within their NUP
definitions. Another frequent objective is “quality of life for citizens”. Some countries, such as Brazil andNigeria mention “well-being”. The Netherlands specifically mentions “healthy” in the perspective for 2050
and priorities of the National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment (Ministry of the Interior andKingdom Relations of the Netherlands, 2019[1]) (see Box 7.2). Other countries attribute an important role
to social cohesion or equitable development in urbanisation strategy:

In France, the NUP definition states that urban policy is about cohesion and solidarity, targeting
disadvantaged areas.

Panama’s definition mentions orientation towards an adequate spatial structure for the equitabledevelopment of society.



In Algeria, territorial and social equity are key goals of the National Land Use Planning Schemeand the Law on the Orientation of the City respectively, and two of the six directives on which thecountry bases its NUP.



Brazil is in the process of formulating a national urban development policy, which aims to reduce
socio-spatial inequalities at intra-urban and supra-municipal scales, and across cities.

Certain developing countries highlight the need for economic growth and inclusive urban development. In
Rwanda, for example, one pillar of the overarching NUP document is economic growth through a coherent
sectoral policy. Jordan, Myanmar and Zambia refer to “productive and inclusive development”.

Box 2.1. Selected examples of national definitions of NUP
Burkina Faso, “National Policy on Housing and Urban Development”, Decree n2008-431, MHU July 14,
2008:“The policy of organizing the national urban system, controlling urban growth, producing sustainableurban spaces, organizing and improving conditions for access to land and basic urban services andpromoting decent housing.”

Cabo Verde, “National Policy on Spatial Planning and Urbanism (PNOTU)”, 2019:“The National Urban Policy in Cabo Verde is the long-term document that, based on the problems foundin a diagnosis of the current territorial conjuncture, establishes the political guidelines for planning of
the country's territory and urbanism, having strategic and programmatic dimensions, in addition to
dealing with legal and institutional issues. In addition, it allows the national and local governments to be
guided in the urbanisation process and constitutes a guiding instrument that establishes a clear andco-ordinated view of the directions that public policies must take around the territorial development of
cities. PNOTU is also an opportunity to lay the foundations for a nationally co-ordinated urban
development plan that includes contributions from various entities in the public and private sectors.”Cuba, “Cuban Urban Policy”, National Land Planning Scheme, Dec 2018:“Cuban urban policy promotes the development of compact structures that guarantee maximum use of
the internal growth potential of cities and other settlements; increase densities; optimize existing
technical networks and services; and encourage the recovery and growth of the housing fund.”Finland, unofficial definition from early 2000s:“Urban policy is defined as initiatives and actions carried out together between the national governmentand cities.”

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

34 France, “Programming Act for the City and Urban Cohesion”, 2014:“Urban policy is a policy of urban cohesion and solidarity, both national and local, towards
disadvantaged areas and their inhabitants. It is deployed in suburban territories called ‘priority urban
policy areas’, characterised by a significant gap in economic and social development with the rest of
the conurbations in which they are located.”

Germany, “Ten years after the Leipzig Charter”, 2012:“The National Urban Development Policy is a joint initiative of the Federal Ministry of the Interior,
Building and Community, the Conference of German Building Ministers, the German Association ofCities and the German Association of Towns and Municipalities. It aims to bring together actors andinterested parties around the topic of the city and is therefore considered as a communication platform,
covering current social and urban trends, picking distinctive action and solution approaches (including
innovative pilot projects) and serving on the whole as a basis for experience exchange.”

Guatemala, three national instruments constituting national urban policy, 2016, 2017, 2020:“Guatemala has three national instruments that constitute the country’s urban policy: the Urban Agenda
GT, The National Policy on Housing and Human Settlements, and the Policy for the Comprehensive
Improvement of Neighbourhoods, the two latter pending government agreement. It defines the need to
articulate the three scales of urban planning (housing, neighbourhood and city); the opportunity tostrengthen a national urban network; and the opportunity to articulate planning, urban development,
land use and risk management processes within the framework of environmental sustainability.”

Morocco, “Government Statement, National Urban Development Strategy”, 2007:“Urban development is a broad concept, developed in the long term to indicate what future seems bothdesirable and achievable to local actors. It includes all forms of activity (economic, social, cultural,environmental, etc.) and encompasses all sectors deemed relevant to changing the urban development
trajectory and directing it towards a more accomplished form that is more capable of ensuring better
living conditions for the population.”

Panama, “Panama’s National Land Use Policy”, MIVIOT Resolution 468-2019 June 27, 2019:“Integration of socio-economic with physical planning, oriented to the transformation of space; that must
be oriented towards the ‘achievement of the adequate spatial structure for the effective and equitabledevelopment of the economic, social, cultural and environmental policy of society’; strengthening thelink between land use planning, urban and rural planning, environmental sustainability and economicsocial development.”

Poland, “National Urban Policy 2023”, 2015:“National Urban Policy is a document defining the planned activities of government administration
regarding urban policy, taking into account the objectives and directions set out in the medium-term
national development strategy and the national regional development strategy. It serves the purposeful,territorially directed operation of the state for the sustainable development of cities and their functional
areas and the use of their potentials in the country's development processes.”Portugal, “Sustainable Cities 2020” strategy, Law no. 99/2019 effecting the first revision of the National
Spatial Planning Policy Programme:“Grounded in the sustainable urban development paradigm, the Sustainable Cities 2020 strategy should
be understood as a territorial development policy, where the involvement and commitment of a wide
variety of stakeholders is an essential condition, so as not to restrain the focus of interventions to thematerial aspect of urban areas, instead extending it to higher policy designs such as economic

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 35
development, social inclusion, education, citizen engagement and environmental protection. […] These
strategies should include social cohesion, innovation and employment policies and provide ways toachieve environmental sustainability.”

Serbia, “Sustainable Urban Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2030”, 2014:“Urban Development Policy is a public policy that represents the key instrument for achieving
sustainable urban development by the use of an integrated approach. As urban development in eachcountry individually is the result of activities and decisions in different sectors, the main task of the
Urban Development Policy is to establish co-ordination over different sectors and define priorities byco-ordinating the needs and interests of different actors. National Urban Development Policy, according
to modern definitions, represents a coherent set of decisions, guided by the national government
through the process of co-operation of various actors in formulating a common vision and common
goals, which are used to direct long-term transformative, productive, inclusive and resilient sustainableurban development.”

Turkey, “Integrated Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan (KENTGES) 2010-2023”, 2009:“Urban Development Strategy (KENTGES) is a strategy document, having the nature of a reference
framework document at the national level. KENTGES is an urbanisation and reconstruction vision of
our country considering the issues of spatial planning, settlements and housing, which targets the year
2023. The main purpose of KENTGES is to improve the liveability as well as the quality of space andlife in settlements and to establish a roadmap for strengthening of economic, social and cultural
structures of settlements. It provides a roadmap for both central and local administrations in issues ofurbanisation and planning.”
Note: figures are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020

In contrast, some countries apply process-based dimensions to their NUP definitions. They put emphasis
on stakeholders and see NUPs more as processes and platforms.


For Finland, urban policy is about initiatives and actions carried out together between the national
government and cities.



Cabo Verde's NUP represents an opportunity for contributions from various entities in public andprivate sectors to lay foundations for nationally co-ordinated development.



Germany considers the National Urban Development Policy a joint initiative bringing together
actors and interested parties around the topic of the city, and a collective communication platform.

Portugal highlights the role of stakeholders for the successful governance and implementation ofurban-related programmes.

Other countries link NUP with urban-related global agendas such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the New Urban Agenda (NUA):Algeria bases its NUP on strategic national and international roadmaps, including the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDG 11 in particular), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, and others derived from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction.

In Costa Rica, the NUP gives political orientation to implement the NUA and achieve the SDGs,
particularly from the point of “resilient infrastructure and sustainable communities”.

For Ecuador, the National Urban Agenda will establish synergies with global agendas such as theSDGs, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the Paris Agreement.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

36 


In its NUP, Iran recognises the SDGs as a means to provide a better quality of life for Iranian
citizens.



The National Urban Development Policy of Nigeria is aligned with the NUA, its Action Framework
for implementation and other global agendas on sustainable urbanisation.

Spain aims to include NUA principles in its NUP.

Expected outcomes of NUP
Surveyed countries expect diverse outcomes from NUP. Respondents considered the three most relevant
to be: (1) “balanced territorial and urban development in a country” (47 out of 86 responding countries, or55%), (2) “a coherent vision for national urban development” (38 countries, 44%), and (3) “improved policy
co-ordination across sectors” (27 countries, 31%) (Figure 2.2).
The next two most expected outcomes of NUP were “productive and competitive cities with job opportunity”(24 countries, 28%) and “decent and affordable housing” (20 countries, 23%). The United States identified“reduced regulatory burden in housing production” and “increased economic opportunity for low-income
people” as key expected outcomes of NUP. Canada underscored “decent and affordable housing”,“sustainable urban mobility” and “better urban-rural connectivity”. Israel and Poland aim for “quality of life”
through NUP; Cabo Verde, reduction in poverty and inequality; Japan, further interaction between citizens
and stakeholders; and the Netherlands, “liveable and sustainable cities”.

Figure 2.2. Key outcomes countries aim to achieve through NUP, n = 86
Balanced territorial and urban development

47

A coherent vision for national urban development

38

Policy co-ordination across sectors

27

Productive and competitive cities with job opportunity

24

Decent and affordable housing

20

Basic urban services and infrastructure

19

Less urban sprawl, more compact and connected cities

17

Urban and rural connectivity

11

Adaptation to climate change

9Social cohesion8

Low-carbon transition

7

Sustainable urban mobility

7

Other

7

Participation of citizens

6

Circular economy

1

Urban safety

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were asked to selectthree responses.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 37
In-depth analysis of five global regions reveals broad agreement on certain priorities (especially coherent
vision for national urban development and balanced territorial and urban development) and somegeographical diversities regarding the expected outcomes for NUP (Table 2.1):
In Africa, the top three expected outcomes are a coherent vision for national urban development(8 out of 14 responding countries, or 57%), followed by balanced territorial and urban development(7 countries, 50%), and improved basic urban services and infrastructure (6 countries, 43%).

In the Arab states, decent and affordable housing is an important driver in NUP (4 out of
7 responding countries, or 57%), as is a coherent vision for national urban development(3 countries, 43%), balanced territorial and urban development (3 countries, 43%), and sectoral
policy co-ordination (3 countries, 43%).

In Asia and the Pacific, countries seek to achieve balanced territorial and urban development(7 out of 15 responding countries, or 47%), develop a coherent vision for national urban
development (6 countries, 40%), and improve basic urban services and infrastructure (6 countries,
40%).



European and North American countries highlight balanced territorial and urban development(23 out of 36 responding countries, or 64%), a coherent vision for national urban development(16 countries, 44%), and productive and competitive cities (13 countries, 36%).



Latin American and Caribbean countries emphasise improved policy co-ordination acrosssectors (9 out of 14 responding countries, or 64%), balanced territorial and urban development(7 countries, 50%), and a coherent vision for national urban development (5 countries, 36%),
reflecting their strong expectation of the co-ordinating role of NUP. They also focus urban policies
on reducing urban sprawl, improving urban services and infrastructure, and on decent andaffordable urban housing (4 countries each, 29% each).

Table 2.1. Key outcomes identified to achieve through NUP, by global region, n = 86
Number of countries selecting a given outcome
Africa(n = 14)

Asia andthe Pacific(n = 15)

Arab states(n = 7)

Europe andNorth America(n = 36)

Latin America andthe Caribbean(n = 14)

Urban safety

0

1

0

0

0

Circular economy

0

0

0

1

0

Participation of citizens

0

2

0

3

1

Other

1

3

0

3

0

Sustainable urban mobility

1

0

1

4

1

Low-carbon transition

1

1

0

5

0

Social cohesion

0

1

0

6

1

Adaptation to climate change

1

2

2

2

2

Urban and rural connectivity

2

2

2

4

1

Less urban sprawl, morecompact and connected cities

2

3

1

7

4

Basic urban services andinfrastructure

6

6

0

3

4

Decent and affordable housing

5

3

4

4

4

Productive and competitive
cities with job opportunity

4

2

2

13

3

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

38 
Africa(n = 14)

Asia andthe Pacific(n = 15)

Arab states(n = 7)

Europe andNorth America(n = 36)

Latin America andthe Caribbean(n = 14)

Policy coordination acrosssectors

3

5

3

7

9

A coherent vision for national
urban development

8

6

3

16

5

Balanced territorial and urban
development

7

7

3

23

7

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were asked to selectthree responses.

Institutional context for NUPs
Countries vary widely regarding institutional arrangements and the distribution of competences andresponsibilities for urban policies across levels of governments. Understanding the diversity is crucial fora contextualised assessment of NUP at global scale.
The answers to the NUP country survey demonstrate that whether a country has a unitary or federal
governance structure creates a distinct difference in competence at the national level. However, there arealso interesting variations among federal states or among unitary states regarding roles and responsibilities
for urban policy across different levels of government.
In most federal countries, state and provincial governments have significant responsibility for urban policy
and play a key role in urban development. However, in some countries, federal governments work closelywith state and local jurisdictions on urban matters and play a substantive role (Box 2.2). Unitary states also
vary in institutional arrangements. National governments in some countries maintain responsibility for
urban policy, while others employ more decentralised approaches. In both cases, most governments inunitary states make efforts to find a balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches (Box 2.3).
Analysis by global region shows geographical commonalities, although there are country variations.
African countries report a general tendency towards centralised institutional settings, with lessinstitutional capacity in regional and local governments, for example in Malawi, Rwanda and Senegal. In
the Arab states, national governments demonstrate strong national competence in urban matters andincreasingly work with local and regional governments. In Europe and North America, most countries
take a decentralised approach, with relatively strong competencies in local and regional governments.
Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean highlight strong institutional frameworks for urban policy
at the national level with relatively weak municipal administrative and financial capacity. In countries in
Asia and the Pacific, responsibilities tend to be shared across national, regional and local levels.

Box 2.2. Federal states’ distribution of competences and responsibilities for NUP
In Australia, the federal government does not have direct jurisdiction over urban policies anddevelopment, which fall under the responsibility of State/Territory and local government jurisdictions.
However, the federal government provides the settings for taxation, finance, welfare, superannuation,
foreign investment, and immigration policies as well as funding for specific projects (infrastructure anddevelopment). The Australian Government’s Smart Cities Plan and its key implementation mechanism,
City Deals, is an example of such co-ordination and investment.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 39
In Brazil, the federated entities have political, administrative and financial autonomy with competencies
determined by the federal constitution. However, asymmetries in the federative pact in relation to the
distribution of competencies and resources make the federal government responsible for supporting
municipalities in the implementation of urban policies, including capacity-building, financial resources,a toolbox for local planning, management and governance.
In Canada and the United States, state/provincial governments control urban planning and land-use
policies such as zoning, and federal governments provide financial and technical support to urban
development and urban policy initiatives undertaken at state/provincial or municipal levels.
In Ethiopia, the federal government provides support and capacity building, prepares overarchingstrategies, helps establish the appropriate organisational structure, allocates budgets necessary for thedevelopment of cities, and formulates laws at the federal level to ensure smooth policy implementation.
Regional and local governments share responsibility to devise urban strategies and regulations, and toprovide or signal the need for capacity building.
In Germany, the state and federal levels work together on shared responsibility, legislation of an
overarching framework for urban development, allocation of funding, and financial support contracts atthe state level for investment purposes, which are complemented by state and municipal levels.
In Nigeria, 10 ministries at the national level and several departments/agencies hold responsibilities
and roles in urban planning and development, indicated in the National Urban Development Policy andNational Housing Policy adopted in 2012. At sub-national level, State Urban and Regional Development
Authorities and Local Urban and Regional Development Boards are sometimes also in place.

Box 2.3. Unitary states’ distribution of competences and responsibilities for NUP
In Estonia, urban and other municipalities are responsible for spatial and strategic development
planning, and provision of public services within their territories.
In France, urban policy is inter-ministerial, partnership-based, contractual and participatory in its
approach, decentralised and deconcentrated in its implementation and integration of the social, urban
and economic dimensions within the city contract, and the setting up of citizens' councils.
In Hungary, leadership is at the national level, co-ordinated between the Ministry of Interior, the Ministryof Innovation and Technology, and the Ministry of Finance.
In Morocco, housing and urban development is primarily a national competency, and different
ministries have responsibilities for a wide range of issues including land use and housing.
Jordan presents a shift towards greater local competence.
Saudi Arabia extends the role of regional and local government, which the national government aims
to empower to implement national spatial policies.
In Myanmar, the national government is responsible for regulation, policies, strategies, monitoring andevaluation; the regional level is in charge of regulatory arrangements and implementation; local
governments cover most implementation issues.
Namibia, through its new Urban and Regional Planning Act (not yet operational), envisages
decentralisation or transfer of some approval procedures to regional and local governments for more
efficiency in land use planning and approval process.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

40 
In Norway, the private sector (such as entrepreneurs in construction, private investors, private
enterprises and entrepreneurs in the house-building sector) play an important role in urban development
as main contributors to both planning and building in urban areas.
In Slovakia, the central government influences the urban policies of municipal governments. The
Ministry of Transport and Construction, as the central state administration body, prepares andimplements NUP. The dual system of public administration authorises local governments to decideautonomously on the overall development of their territories.
Slovenia implements spatial development policy on national (state) and local (municipal) levels. The
regional level is not institutionalised, but the current legal framework allows inter-municipal planning.
In Sweden, the urban planning system is highly decentralised, although county administrative boards(part of the national government) have significant responsibilities and competencies, and can intervene
in issues that affect national interests, environmental quality standards, inter-municipal interests, andissues concerning health and safety and the risk of accidents, flooding or erosion. Regional
governments in general have little competence in urban policy.
In the United Kingdom, the central government is responsible for overall policies towards cities andurban development. Meanwhile, the government's City Deal and Devolution programmes allow a
degree of “tailored” devolution of responsibility to English cities and wider regions. Local enterprisepartnerships (LEPs) exist between local authorities and businesses involved in decision-making on local
priorities (investment in roads, infrastructure, buildings and facilities).
Note: Figures are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Regarding roles and responsibilities in urban policy at the national level, 83 countries indicated specifictypes of competence (Figure 2.3):
Regulation is the most common competence of national governments for urban policymaking anddevelopment. Out of 83 national governments, 74 (89%) identified regulatory responsibility for
urban matters as a national prerogative. In Israel, for example, the national government’s Israel
Planning Administration (IPA) takes a leading role in planning and regulating land use and spatial
development throughout the country.



58 countries (70%) report that they establish the legislative grounds for urban policies. The
legislative mandate extends to various urban issues, ranging from land use to housing, spatial
development and funding allocation. For example, in Turkey, the Ministry of Environment and
Urbanisation sets the legislative and administrative framework for “spatial development”, “planninglegislation”, “building legislation”, “housing” and “land registry”.



Out of the 58 countries that reported on the distribution of their legislative responsibilities,
12 indicated that they are shared at the national and sub-national levels. In Germany, both federal
and state governments have legislative power regarding planning laws.



50 countries (60%) report a national-level land use planning function. In Denmark, the national
government has overarching responsibility for spatial planning, urban development, and area-use
with related functions allocated across different ministries and authorities dealing with spatialplanning issues under the Planning Act.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 41


47 countries (57%) mentioned co-ordinating urban matters as a national competence. In Burkina
Faso, the Ministry of Town Planning and Housing co-ordinates the execution of sectoral projects
in urban areas and ensures the co-ordination of interventions and investments in cities inaccordance with planned development. In Luxembourg, the Department of Regional Planning is
responsible for regional planning and inter-ministerial co-ordination of sectoral policies relating toregional development and land use.



28 countries (34%) report that national governments possess fiscal capacities for urban
development. In Canada, the federal government participates in urban policy and development
through a variety of fiscal instruments. In the United States, the federal government is a source offunding for some urban policy initiatives undertaken at the state and local level.



26 countries (31%) report urban monitoring and evaluation activities as a national competence. For
example, in Slovenia, the government has the authority to monitor the legality of spatial planning
activities at local and regional levels.

Figure 2.3. Types of competences for urban matters at the national level, n = 83
Regulatory

74

Legislative

58

Planning

50

Co-ordination

47

Fiscal28

Monitoring and evaluation

26
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Note: No information was available for three countries out of the 86 survey respondents.

Urban policies at different levels of government
A country’s NUP links to and is affected by urban policies at other levels, namely urban policies by
sub-national governments (e.g. state, province, regions and cities) and those influenced by supra-national
bodies. Fifty out of 86 responding countries to the NUP country survey reported “policies that are affecting
their urban areas and that are not at the national scale”, thus providing concrete examples of sub-nationaland supra-national initiatives or frameworks.

Sub-national urban policies
Many countries provided examples of urban development strategies planned and implemented bysub-national governments. Whereas these sub-national policies have local objectives, they also mobilise
actions, strategies and resources of the national agenda towards specific territorial contexts. Aligningnational and sub-national urban policies is therefore crucial for both levels of government. Sub-national

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

42 
urban initiatives are evident in all parts of the globe and most illustrate links with NUP, such as alignment,
guiding, endorsement (Box 2.4).
Several countries provided examples of place-based or sub-national plans and strategies prepared bynational governments. Examples include: the Maritime Spatial Plan in Bulgaria, the Spatial Plan for the
Coastal Zone in Montenegro and the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plans in Turkey. In the
Netherlands, urban strategies equivalent to their explicit NUP (the National Strategy on Spatial Planningand Environment) are also produced by provinces and municipalities. Likewise, Korea developed national
policies to achieve objectives for specific regions. While these only cover specific geographical spaces ina country, these plans and strategies can be understood as NUPs.

Box 2.4. Examples of sub-national urban policies
Asia and the Pacific
In Australia, urban policies and development are the responsibility of State/Territory governments,
while their respective local governments are responsible for land-use zoning and development
approvals. Urban development along transport routes is another area-based focus, as illustrated byIsrael’s policy for urban development along mass transportation routes in Jerusalem and in the Tel Aviv
metropolitan area. Inter-regional territorial development policies and schemes are evident in
Kazakhstan for the Almaty, Shymkent and Aktobe agglomerations.
Thailand has masterplans for smart cities that include liveability, economic revitalisation, improved
quality of life, reduction of inequalities and inclusive infrastructure. Turkey established Regional
Development Agencies to prepare Regional Development Plans in accordance with the country’s
National Spatial Strategy Plan, and to support local actors, increase integration between sectors anddevelop spatial unity of local economies.

Europe and North America
In Austria, the region of Upper Austria developed a strategy, combined with financial resources, tostimulate urban-rural co-operation in a number of smaller urban areas to reduce the land take. Canada
regulates land use planning and urban policy implementation through provincial planning acts, withmunicipalities as "creatures of the province". The Act regulates land use and development, especiallyin the growth of cities. Germany has policies (programmes) on the Länder-level, like WiN (Wohnen in
Nachbarschaften, “Living in Neighbourhoods”) in Bremen and RISE (Rahmenprogramm Integrierte
Stadtteilentwicklung, “Framework Programme Integrated District Development”) in Hamburg.
Czechia implements Regional Innovation Strategies in its 14 regions. The strategies support cities’
competitiveness, innovation, research and development, and to better implement public and theEuropean Structural and Investment Funds. Similarly, Ireland has Regional Spatial Planning andEconomic Strategies for three regions. The aim is to develop metropolitan areas of the five major cities
in the country. For example, key policies from the Dublin Metropolitan Area Spatial Plan include
compact sustainable growth to promote consolidation of the city and suburbs, integrated transport andland use along high quality public transport networks, corridors and nodes, and enabling infrastructure
capacity. All local authorities in the Dublin metropolitan area must reflect such policies within their local
plans. Similar regional development policies exist in Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy and the Netherlands,
where the National Strategy on Spatial Planning and Environment has sub-national versions forprovinces and municipalities.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 43
Latin America and the Caribbean
Costa Rica intends to create regional plans that define guidelines for urban development in six regions
to conform with the National Urban Development Plan as defined by Urban Planning Law, while
Guatemala makes regional plans for comprehensive development and establishment of systems ofcities in the regions and to guide its territorial organisation. In Brazil, the constitutional competence for
implementing urban development policy lies with the municipalities. They must prepare master plans
as the basic instrument of urban policy. By 2018, 52% of Brazilian municipalities had master plans for
local regulation of urban policy.

AfricaIn Nigeria, the Niger State Urban Development Policy is being created in line with the provisions of the
Nigeria National Urban Development Policy of 2012. The State Policy will set out a framework for thedevelopment and management of urban centres as a basis for improved local economic development
and environmental sustainability. Zanzibar, Tanzania highlights similar initiatives. Madagascar has
regional-level territorial planning policy and urban-level development policies.

Arab states
Morocco’s policy for the creation of new cities, initiated in 2004, aims to plan cities around primaryurban agglomerations in response to growing urbanisation and housing demand. Morocco also points
to its 2011 “Plan Communal de Développement”, defining six-year socio-economic development
strategies for municipalities and including participatory citizen engagement, and its 2014-20 Industrial
Acceleration Plan for the formation of industrial ecosystems.

Supra-national urban policies
Cross-border policy issues, and urban issues of international concern and global ramification, such as
climate change, should be considered not only within a single country, but across nations. Co-ordinationand institutionalisation of urban issues among different actors, sectors and functions sometimes happens
beyond national territorial scales as supra-national urban dynamics. The NUP country survey found thatsuch supranational policy frameworks with urban competences were particularly evident in Asia, Europe
and Latin America:

Luxembourg engages in cross-border co-operation policy, with a focus on cross-border
agglomerations such as the Franco-Luxembourg conurbation of Alzette Belval, and with various
ministries. Examples include the Development, Monitoring and Implementation of Cross-border
Spatial Development Strategies led by the Ministry of Energy and Spatial Planning, and the Interministerial Co-ordination Committee for Cross-Border Cooperation led by the Ministry of Foreignand European Affairs.

Netherlands also has many years of experience with cross-border co-operation and international
agreements with Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland on rivermanagement and the urbanised delta areas. Some issues within NUP involving a cross-borderapproach relate to housing and labour markets, which go beyond administrative perimeters. Others
relate to public transport and infrastructure, energy and nature in relation to ecological and social
footprints.



A few countries refer to the contribution of European Union supranational policies and funding
mechanisms (e.g. EU Cohesion Policy, European Fund for Regional Development) in supporting
integrated urban or regional development (Austria, Bulgaria, Turkey), a city’s potential for
innovation, research and competitiveness (Czechia), and new forms of effective partnerships forfunctional urban areas beyond rigid administrative borders (Poland). At the EU scale, the New

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

44 Leipzig Charter, a continuation of the 2016 Pact of Amsterdam, is also considered a framework for
urban development by several countries (Box 6.3).
Colombia has a Prosperity for the Colombian Borders policy, targeting urban areas on and near
the border, with the objectives of promoting sustainable growth, reducing inequities with the rest of
the country, enhancing inclusion of ethnic groups along the border, and taking into account thecharacterisation of each border region.

Thailand adopted the ASEAN Community Vision 2025, which aims to sustain the momentum ofregional integration and further contribute to strengthening the ASEAN community-building efforts
and regional co-operation. The Vision also aims to enhance implementation of sustainable
development through the SDGs.



Myanmar is in the process of developing a joint spatial development plan for the Myawaddy-Mae
Sot cross-border area between Myanmar and Thailand.

NUP can play an important role in these contexts of cross-border and multi-national co-operation in urban
policy. First, NUP can work as a strong basis to guide the international policy making process. Second, it
can help co-ordinate and align policies across sub-national, national and supra-national scales.

Emerging policy needs for NUP
The contribution of NUP to rebuilding cities after COVID-19
Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath prompted cities to rethink how they deliver
services and how they plan their space (e.g. urban density, digitalisation and mobility in cities). To a certain
extent, “life after COVID-19” will be “life with COVID-19”, which stresses the need to rebuild cities over thelong term taking better account of needs such as social distancing and teleworking. The return to proximity
to essential urban services provides an opportunity to shift faster from goals of increasing mobility toenhancing accessibility by reimagining public spaces, urban design and planning. Essential concepts suchas the circular economy, localisation of the SDGs, tactical town planning and "the 15-minute city" canimprove quality of life while preserving productivity, social inclusion and the environment (OECD, 2020[2]).
NUP can also play a key role in driving this paradigm shift by engaging policymakers, town planners andcity dwellers, and developing an enabling framework for bottom-up and innovative urban strategies.
NUPs have a role to ensure that recovery strategies from the COVID-19 crisis address the uneven impactsof the crisis between and within urban areas. The COVID-19 crisis underlines the urgency to build more
resilient, greener and more inclusive cities. NUP can contribute to more balanced and polycentricurbanisation by aligning sectoral policies, facilitating multi-level dialogues, fostering rural-urban linkages
and addressing socio-spatial inequalities that the crisis revealed in cities, through an approach centred on
people and places. Whereas most responses to the NUP country survey were collected before the
COVID-19 pandemic started, active dialogues among countries at the OECD Working Party for Urban
Policy (in April and November 2020) as well as at the fifth Partners Meeting of the National Urban Policy
Programme (in December 2020) revealed countries’ ambition and expectation for NUP in the coming
years.

NUP contribution to global and regional urban agendas
NUPs are recognised as instruments for countries to implement global agendas such as the Agenda 2030
for Sustainable Development, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement, and the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction. In 2019, NUPs became part of the indicator framework for SDG 11 on cities.
This will increase countries’ attention to and interest in NUP. Despite uneven progress on the SDGs aroundthe world, some gains were visible before the COVID-19 pandemic. These include a decrease in the share

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 45
of children and youth out of school, an increase in women’s share of leadership roles, and improved accessto safely managed drinking water. COVID-19 exacerbated the risk of setbacks in implementing these global
agendas. For example, the UNDP and the Pardee Center for International Futures at the University ofDenver estimate that the COVID-19 pandemic could push up to 169 million people into extreme poverty
by 2030 (Abidoye et al., 2021[3]).
NUP should be leveraged better to address the unprecedented shocks in urban areas induced by climatechange. Embedding climate measures in an effective enabling framework such as NUP enhances
governments’ ambition and reduces cities’ emissions and exposure to climate risks. Urban areas haveuntapped opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By 2050 local governments can reduce bya third of urban emissions and national-local collaboration can achieve reduction of another third (Coalition
for Urban Transitions, 2019[4]). NUP can support the transition to the zero-carbon economy, as NUPs covera range of policy areas with a profound effect on climate policy goals and well-being, such as economic
development, land use, housing, transport, labour and health.
Many countries are also reviewing and renewing their NUPs against regional urban agendas. For example,
the Urban Agenda for the European Union, notably the Pact of Amsterdam, acknowledges the contributionof urban areas to development at large, and the need for national and European policy frameworks toconsider them to foster more territorial cohesion. Moreover, the “New Leipzig Charter – the transformative
power of cities for the common good” emphasises strong national urban policy frameworks, urban
resilience, including the risk of pandemics, and digital transformation. Its implementation plan calls forbetter connection and collaboration with existing urban networks and knowledge creation initiatives on thescience-policy continuum. Lastly, in Africa, several countries are revisiting their NUPs to achieve theAfrican Union’s Agenda 2063. This will be further discussed in Chapter 6.

NUP contribution to balanced urbanisation and urban-rural linkages
In many countries, ongoing and sometimes accelerating urbanisation remains a challenge. NUP canbalance territorial development, avoiding overconcentration in major cities and oversaturation of public
services and infrastructure, promoting a more polycentric system of cities of different size, and better
connectivity between urban and rural areas. Urban and rural areas’ development is connected throughfunctional relationships and complementarities (OECD, 2019[5]). Hence, urban policies should consider thefunctional geographies and relations addressing urban-rural linkages by means of integrated policies.
Place-based actions based on these functional geographies might foster the economic growth of all
territories and promote the quality of life and well-being. NUPs cannot help cities and rural areas in
isolation. On the contrary, they should promote complementarities and synergies within the urban-ruralcontinuum by a systemic and integrated approach. The development of intermediary cities plays a key rolein spatially balanced development within the urban-rural continuum. On one hand, intermediary cities canprovide functions and infrastructures for rural areas. On the other, they can balance the overconcentrationof activities in large cities and its negative impacts in terms of economic, social and environmental costs.
Rwanda’s NUP clearly illustrates the importance of urban-rural linkages and the role of secondary cities
and towns (Box 2.5).
The COVID-19 crisis starkly illustrated the importance of addressing socio-spatial inequalities in urban
areas and enhancing urban resilience, since cities marked with inequality and a high concentration of urban
poor proved more vulnerable than those that are better resourced, less crowded and more equal (OECD,
2020[2]). Inequality and divides within and between cities are increasing, and addressing them can be astrong political rationale for NUP.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

46 

Box 2.5. Mainstreaming urban-rural linkages in NUP: the case of Rwanda
Rwanda’s 2015 National Urbanisation Policy, currently in the implementation stage, has a significant
focus on urban-rural linkages. The NUP argues for the importance of managing urban sprawl in
peri-urban and rural areas, and enhancing mutual benefits and functions by stressing the need “toenhance the opportunities of increased demand of horticultural and livestock products in urban areas
and diversification of off-farm employment opportunities for the rural counterparts” and “to mitigate therisks of urban sprawl, resources depletion and other negative environmental impacts at the urban
peripheries”. Implementation used five ‘entry points’: (1) integrated human settlement planning andcoordination; (2) City of Kigali, secondary cities and other potential towns developed to spursocio-economic growth; (3) liveable, well-serviced, connected, compact, green, and productive urban
and rural settlements with cultural identity; (4) access to social and affordable housing; and (5)upgrading informal settlements.
The Urbanisation and Rural Settlement Sector Strategic Plan 2018-2024, meant to help implement the
NUP, echoes these messages. Key action includes transport services to connect urban and rural areas.
Source: Government of Rwanda (2015), National Urbanisation Policy.

Ways forward
The analysis in this chapter indicates that most countries value NUP as a tool to develop a common vision
for national urban development and facilitate inter-sectoral and inter-regional co-ordination. While NUPs
are commonly framed as “a coherent set of decisions through a deliberate government-led process ofco-ordinating and rallying various actors towards a common vision and goal that will promote moretransformative, productive, inclusive and resilient urban development for the long term”, countries havediverse definitions. Such definitions range from outcome-based dimensions, such as sustainable urban
development and social inclusion, to process-based dimensions, such as stakeholder engagement. For
instance, while some NUPs aim to achieve quality of life and well-being for urban residents, others distinctly
target disadvantaged urban areas. This underlines the need for more granular and contextualised NUP
monitoring across and within countries.
Whether a country is federal or unitary, all levels of government need to align policies in cities, in which
NUP can play a role. While the distribution of responsibilities of urban policy and development across andwithin countries reflects different underlying political, social, economic, geographic and constitutional
contexts, urbanisation and urban challenges call for co-ordinated efforts across levels of government.
Country examples show that NUP can act as a multi-level platform for dialogue and aligning policies,
including connecting cross-border and sub-national urban policies. In certain federal countries, where stateand provincial governments lead urban policymaking, the national government provides important
capacity-building, financial and technical support, which complements state/provincial action. Unitarycountries demonstrate both centralised and decentralised approaches to urban policy, which nonethelessstrive for co-ordination mechanisms.
This chapter’s findings indicate three recommendations:

Enhance the role of NUP as a comprehensive, strategic and shared vision for balanced,
quality and polycentric urbanisation, and effective alignment and co-ordination across places,
sectors and levels of government. The varying NUP definitions, drivers, and institutional contexts
highlight the diverse perception and implementation of NUP around the world, but also underscore

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 47
how policy makers can learn from each other’s experiences to enhance the potential of their NUP.
Countries that focus on the potential of NUP to set a vision could consider leveraging NUP
frameworks’ proven potential to go beyond vision-setting and strengthen implementation(e.g. enhancing vertical and horizontal co-ordination mechanisms, engaging diverse stakeholders).
Promote NUP as key framework to rethink post COVID-19 urban paradigms towards just,green and smart cities that can anticipate and respond to future shocks. The three most frequently
identified drivers of NUPs – “balanced territorial and urban development”, “a coherent vision for
national urban development” and “improved policy co-ordination across sectors” – speak to thestrength of existing NUP frameworks in shaping balanced and coherent urban development thatbridges policy siloes. NUP frameworks should thus be leveraged to anticipate and respond to theimplications of COVID-19 in cities.



Share knowledge and experience on NUP through multi-stakeholder dialogues, peer-learningand collaboration in global platforms such as the National Urban Policy Programme, to foster multistakeholder dialogues and peer-learning. Since 2016, the National Urban Policy Programme,
launched at the Habitat III Conference, plays an instrumental role in sharing experience acrossinternational organisations, national and sub-national governments, planning experts, scientificinstitutions and academia (Box 2.6). It could strengthen its analytical contribution, peer-learningand evidence base on issues related to:o

NUP’s contribution to short-term and long-term COVID-19 recovery and rethinking of cities toinform how national urban ministries can contribute to building better and greener cities,
drawing lessons from the crisis (e.g. urban density, digitalisation, accessibility in cities).

oFostering intermediary cities and urban-rural linkages, analysing functional relationships andcomplementarities within urban-rural continuums, and discussing policies to enhance theeconomic, social and environmental link within functional urban areas.

Box 2.6. National Urban Policy Programme
While 162 countries globally have NUPs in place in one form or another, there is a need for mutual
learning on how NUPs can meet new demands. In some countries, national and sub-national
governments may not have sufficient resources and specialised skills to undertake the NUP process.
To address this challenge, the OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance established the National Urban
Policy Programme (NUPP) at the Habitat III Conference in 2016. The NUPP is a global platform thatfacilitates the sharing of experiences on NUP and provides targeted support to countries building on
the expertise of the three organisations and supporting partners. The objective is to strengthen
knowledge and capacity in countries to develop, implement and monitor NUP in an effective, efficientand inclusive way.
The NUPP operates through two-year Workplans. Reflecting the growing interest and demand for
guidance in NUP development and implementation, the NUPP Workplan 2021–22 focuses on thefollowing four priorities:

Global monitoring. Monitoring NUP is a pillar of the NUPP mandate. The next phase will
explore further methodological development for more detailed and evidence-based monitoring.



Thematic studies and policy dialogues. The NUPP can invite partners to collaborate andconduct thematic studies and policy dialogues, building on their respective expertise.

Enhanced knowledge exchange. In response to countries’ need to exchange best practices,
the NUPP will continue to provide a platform for dialogue involving all levels of government.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

48 


Stronger engagement and collaboration. The NUPP will aim to solidify and enlarge its
partnerships, and engage partners more substantially and frequently in the activities proposed
above to create stronger complementarities and synergies.

Source: OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2019), The National Urban Policy Programme: Overview, https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/NUPPoverview.pdf.

References
Abidoye, B. et al. (2021), Leaving No One Behind: Impact of COVID-19 on the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), https://data.undp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Leaving-NoOne-Behind-COVID-impact-on-the-SDGs-second-flagship-2.pdf.

[3]

Coalition for Urban Transitions (2019), Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity,
https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.

[4]

Government of Rwanda (2015), National Urbanisation Policy.

[8]

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands (2019), “Draft National Strategy
on Spatial Planning and the Environment: A sustainable perspective for our living
environment”, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/rapporten/2019/08/01/draft-nationalstrategy-on-spatial-planning-and-the-environment-engels.

[1]

OECD (2020), “Cities policy responses”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19),
OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/cities-policy-responsesfd1053ff/.

[2]

OECD (2019), OECD Regional Outlook 2019: Leveraging Megatrends for Cities and Rural
Areas, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264312838-en.

[5]OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

[6]

OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2019), The National Urban Policy Programme: Overview,https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/NUPP-overview.pdf.

[7]

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 49

3 Key trends and characteristics of
NUP

This chapter presents key trends and characteristics of NUP in terms ofform, contents, stage, thematic scope and institutions. All 162 countries
studied have national-level urban policies, although in different forms, atdifferent development stages and with varying thematic foci. Based on acomprehensive survey across 86 countries, combined with desk research
information for an additional 76 countries, the chapter reveals that NUPs
matured since the first edition of the global monitoring in 2018. They takemore explicit forms, advanced to implementation stage and integrate widersocial and environmental objectives, including climate resilience.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

50 

Key findingsThe report identified 162 NUPs. Among them, 91 NUPs are identified in an explicit form, andcompared with the first edition of the report, the share of explicit NUPs has risen from 51% to56%. Regionally, the Latin America and the Caribbean region has the highest share of explicit
NUPs (68%).



Explicit NUPs typically have a stronger focus on ‘defining a vision’ (90% of surveyed NUPs),‘integration and co-ordination of cross-sectoral policies’ (83%) and ‘promotion of a system ofcities approach’ (83%), while striving less to ‘rely on robust urban scale data and ensures regularmonitoring and evaluation’ (52%).



NUPs have overall entered more operational stages. The share of NUPs in the implementation
or monitoring and evaluation stages slightly increased from 61% in 2018 to 62% in 2020.
Overall, NUPs in the diagnosis stage have reduced from 12% to 7%, while those in theformulation stage have increased from 11% to 20%.



Spatial structure and human development are the two most common thematic areas in NUPs,
with 80% and 78% of NUPs respectively, giving moderate or extensive attention to such themes.
Climate resilience has had more attention as a thematic area, rising from 36% in 2018 to 48%
in 2020, although this is still the lowest of the five themes, indicating that NUPs have addresseda wider range of thematic areas.

Fifty-four countries out of 86 countries (63%) rely on a ministry or agency specialising in urban
issues to lead the NUP process. These ministries or agencies are, to a large extent, specialised
in housing, infrastructure, spatial planning, environment and urban development.

Forms of NUP
This section analyses forms of NUP. It examines NUPs in an explicit form and in other national-level
policies with a spatial focus on urban areas or an important impact on urban areas. 1 Examples of suchpolicies include national development strategies with dedicated focuses on urban areas and national-levelsectoral policies and plans (e.g. housing, energy, transport, land-use) with elements addressing the urban
level (e.g. a national-level transport plan that incentivises the use of electric vehicles in urban areas orprioritises urban infrastructure development). It is crucial that such policies have been understood andanalysed as NUP in this study in order to better reflect the broader spectrum of national level policies with
an urban component.2 This approach has enabled a country without an explicit form of NUP to identify apolicy which either provides the most comprehensive and strategic vision for urban development or affects
urban areas the most. These policies were considered and analysed as part of NUPs for the country.
For this analysis, an explicit NUP is defined as a policy with “a title of ‘national urban policy’ or variant suchas ‘national urbanisation policy’ or ‘national urban strategy’ or ‘national urban development strategy’. The
definition is consistent with the 2018 report. The data was collected mainly through the country survey(86 countries) and complemented with desk research, including the UN-Habitat NUP database.
The 162 countries analysed in the report have a NUP in some form or stage. Of these 162 countries,
91 (56%) have or are developing an explicit NUP (Figure 3.1). This is an increase from the 2018 report,
where 76 out of 150 countries (51%) had an explicit NUP (UN-Habitat/OECD, 2018[1]).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 51

Figure 3.1. Forms of NUP, n = 162
Explicit NUPs
Other national policies with an urban focus

71
44%

91
56%

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020, the UN-Habitat NUP databaseand countries’ websites.

The survey data and desk research also indicate a regional variation in the distribution of explicit NUPs.
Across the regions in aggregate, the Latin America and the Caribbean region led with the highest share of
explicit NUPs (68%) followed by Africa (58%), Asia and the Pacific (57%), Arab States (53%) and Europe
and North America (50%) (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Forms of NUP by region, n = 162
Explicit NUPs

Other national policies with an urban focus

30
26

25

23
20

20

20

20

17

15

13
9

10

8

6
5
0

Africa(n=40)

Arab States(n=17)

Asia and the Pacific(n=46)

Europe and North America(n=40)

Latin America andthe Caribbean(n=19)

Note: A country which has both explicit NUPs and other national policies with an urban focus is grouped in ‘Explicit NUPs’. Data are drawn fromthe OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020, the UN-Habitat NUP database and countries’ websites.

The NUP country survey data showed that, regardless of whether a country had an explicit NUP or not,91% of the 86 responding countries identified at least one other national-level policy with a major focus
and impact on urban areas.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

52 
Non-explicit policies respond to urban issues across different sectors and scales, as is the case of thenational economic and social development plans in Thailand, the national spatial development policies in
Bulgaria, and regional and territorial development strategies in Armenia and the Czech Republic.
Sectoral policies and programmes include the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Programme, housing
policies in Eswatini and Nigeria, the national transport plan in Norway and the State Housing Plan
2018-2021 in Spain. Several other countries indicated they have a range of such policies.
In some cases, sectoral policies affecting urban areas (housing, sanitation and mobility) are managed
within one ministry, such as the Regional Development Ministry in Brazil. However, given the broad sector
issues and thematic areas identified with impacts on urban areas, in most cases such policies are spread
across different government ministries and departments. This provides a clear indication of the multi-sector
and dimensional focus and co-ordination required to achieve sustainable urbanisation.

Characteristics of NUP
In addition to forms of NUP, the report also examined the characteristics of NUPs. The NUP country survey
collected responses from 86 countries, with 58 ‘explicit NUPs’ and 28 ‘other NUPs’.

Explicit NUPs
Explicit NUPs evaluated from the survey demonstrate a high level of comprehensiveness. Among a wide
range of characteristics elaborated out of NUP consideration in the New Urban Agenda and its Action
Framework for the Implementation, the Habitat III Policy Paper 3 on National Urban Policies, and the OECD
Principles on Urban Policy (see Chapter 1), the country survey found the three most common
characteristics to be: i) “NUP defines strategic, long-term, and shared vision for national urban
development” (52 out of 58 countries, or 90%), ii) “integrates and co-ordinates cross-sectoral policies”(48 out of 58, 83%), and iii) “applies an integrated territorial perspective, promoting a system of cities
approach and connectivity between urban and rural areas” (48 out of 58, 83%) (Figure 3.3). However, a
few other characteristics are nearly equally commonly selected, including “develops co-ordination
mechanisms among and across different levels of government, clarifying roles, responsibilities andresources” and “ensures and promotes engagement and participation of sub-national governments andstakeholders”.
Fewer number of countries (36 out of 58, 62%) consider their NUP “develop implementation mechanisms
with legal, regulatory and financial tools and support capacity development”. Laws are a primary means of
NUP implementation. Clear legislative frameworks and instruments, including capacities to enforce andregulate, must be embedded in the NUP process. Likewise, combined with human resources, effective
financial allocation can reduce implementation gaps and policy failures (UN-Habitat, 2014[2]). The NUP
implementation mechanism will be discussed in Chapter 4.
The least considered characteristic by explicit NUPs was “relies on robust urban scale data and ensuresregular monitoring and evaluation” (30 out of 58 countries, 52%). The result is consistent with one of the
key findings of the first edition of the report, which identified inadequate access to the urban data,
knowledge and tools for evidence-based policymaking as a key challenge (UN-Habitat/OECD, 2018[1]).
Robust urban scale data should be a basis for the formulation, monitoring and evaluation of NUP, and isthus an essential part of NUP. This point was also emphasised during the Habitat III process; the Policy
Unit 3 Policy Paper advised that NUP should be grounded in the most current and comprehensive
qualitative and quantitative data and this in itself is a process of improving collection of disaggregatedurban data (United Nations, 2016[3]). Continuous data collection and monitoring should be undertaken
throughout the NUP process to be able to track progress over time and assess policy impacts. This will befurther discussed in Chapter 5.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 53

Figure 3.3. Key characteristics of NUPs in explicit forms, n = 58
Defines strategic, long-term and shared vision for national urban development

52

Integrates and co-ordinates cross-sectoral policies (urban economy, social
inclusion, climate change, technological innovation, etc.)48

Applies an integrated territorial perspective, promoting a system of cities
approach and connectivity between urban and rural areas

48

Ensures and promotes the engagement and participation of subnational
governments and stakeholders (citizens, the private sector, academics, etc.)

44

Develops co-ordination mechanisms among and across levels of government,
clarifying roles, responsibilities and resources

44

Develops implementation mechanisms with legal, regulatory
and financial tools and supports capacity development

36

Relies on robust urban scale data and ensures regular monitoring and evaluation

30

0

20

40

60

Note: Country respondents could select multiple characteristics fulfilled by their explicit NUP. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities
Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

NUPs in non-explicit forms
The top two characteristics of the reported NUPs in non-explicit forms are “to ensure and promote
engagement and participation of sub-national governments and stakeholders” (19 out of 28 non-explicit
NUPs, or 68%) and “to develop implementation mechanisms with legal, regulatory and financial tools, andcapacity development” (19 out of 28, 68%), followed by “to develop co-ordination mechanisms among andacross levels of government, clarifying roles, responsibilities and resources” (18 out of 28, 64%)
(Figure 3.4). The overall result suggests that NUPs in non-explicit forms are more focused on the process,including an emphasis on stakeholder engagement and implementation and co-ordination mechanisms.
There are distinct characteristics between explicit NUPs and other NUPs. As discussed previously, explicit
NUPs are often “defining strategic, long-term and a shared vision for national urban development”,
whereas a much lower number of ‘non-explicit’ NUPs (17 out of 28 countries, or 61%) has such a character.
Similarly, not many NUPs in non-explicit forms are “integrating and co-ordinating cross-sectoral policies”(15 out of 28, or 54%) or “applying an integrated territorial perspective” (15 out of 28, or 54%). This result
is not surprising, as the policies analysed here focus on sectoral contents such as economic, spatial,
human development, environmental sustainability and climate resilience rather than integrated urban
development.
Finally, the NUP survey found that only 46% (13 out of 28) of non-explicit NUPs “rely on robust urban scaledata and ensure regular monitoring and evaluation”. The result was similar to the case for explicit NUPs.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

54 

Figure 3.4. Key characteristics of NUPs in non-explicit forms, n = 28
Engagement and participation

19

Implementation and capacity development

19

Policy integration and co-ordination across sectors

18

Co-ordination across levels of government

18

A strategic, long-term and shared vision

17

System of cities and urban-rural connectivity

15

Data, monitoring and evaluation

13

0

5

10

15

20

Note: Country respondents could select multiple characteristics fulfilled by their other national policy with an urban focus. Data are drawn fromthe OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Stage of development of NUP
The NUP process has five stages: feasibility, diagnosis, formulation, implementation, and monitoring andevaluation. The NUP country survey and supplementary research evaluated the progress made bydifferent countries in the NUP development process since 2018.
The result shows that NUPs have progressed to more operational stages since 2018. Out of 157 NUPs
with available information, 38% were in the development stages (11% in feasibility, 7% in diagnosis, 20%
in formulation) and 62% are being or have been implemented (46% in implementation, 16% in monitoringand evaluation) (Figure 3.5). These numbers are analysed at face value and need careful interpretation,
as some countries are in the process of revising their NUPs or formulating a new one, and thus reported
stages of development in flux rather than static. Compared to 2018, the largest progress was from thediagnosis to formulation stage, reported by countries such as Jordan, Myanmar and Zambia. NUPs in
the diagnosis stage reduced from 12% to 7%, while those in the formulation stage increased from 11% to20%. Countries such as the Czech Republic, Malawi, Saudi Arabia and Sweden reported progressing
from the development to the implementation stage (Table 3.1). The share of NUPs in the implementation
or monitoring and evaluation stages slightly increased from 61% in 2018 to 62% in 2020.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 55

Figure 3.5. Stages of development of NUP in 2018 and 2020, n = 150 (2018), n = 157 (2020)
Feasibility

Diagnosis

Formulation

Implementation

Stages of NUPs in 2018
19
13%

Monitoring and evaluation

Stages of NUPs in 2020
24
16%

18
11%

25
16%

11
7%

18
12%

31
20%

16
11%
73
48%

72
46%

Note: No information was available for five NUPs out of the 162 NUPs identified. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance
National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020, UN-Habitat/OECD (2018), Global State of National Urban Policy,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264290747-en, the UN-Habitat NUP database and countries’ websites.

Table 3.1. Major progress in NUP stage of development from 2018 to 2020, in selected countries
Progress in existing NUPs
Change in stage of development (2018 to 2020)

Country

Feasibility to Formulation

Bolivia, Iran

Diagnosis to Formulation

Jordan, Myanmar, Zambia

Diagnosis to Implementation

Czech Republic, Saudi Arabia

Feasibility to Implementation

Malawi, Tanzania

Formulation to Implementation

Australia, Slovak Republic, Sweden

New NUP introduced
Stage of development of new NUP

Country

Feasibility

Korea, Greece

Diagnosis

Romania

Formulation

Colombia, Ecuador, Finland, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands

Implementation

Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ethiopia, Serbia, Spain

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020 and UN-Habitat/OECD (2018),
Global State of National Urban Policy, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264290747-en.

Out of 91 explicit NUPs, 9 (10%) are in the feasibility stage, 6 (7%) in the diagnosis stage, 22 (24%) in theformulation stage, 38 (42%) in the implementation stage and 16 (17%) in the monitoring and evaluation
stage (Figure 3.6). In 2018, a larger proportion (30%) of the explicit NUPs were in early development
stages (feasibility and diagnosis). The new wave of explicit NUPs is now reaching the formulation andimplementation stages.
The majority of NUPs in non-explicit forms (65%) are operational (51% in implementation and 14% inmonitoring and evaluation) and 35% are in the development stages (14% in feasibility, 7% in diagnosis
and 14% in formulation).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

56 

Figure 3.6. Stages of explicit and non-explicit NUPs in 2020, n = 91 (explicit NUPs), n = 66 (nonexplicit NUPs)
Feasibility

Diagnosis
Explicit NUPs

16
17%

Formulation

Implementation

Monitoring and evaluation
Non explicit NUPs

9
10%

9
14%

9
14%

6
7%
5
7%

9
14%

22
24%

38
42%

34
51%

Note: No information was available for five out of the 71 non-explicit NUPs identified. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance
National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020, UN-Habitat/OECD (2018), Global State of National Urban Policy,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264290747-en, the UN-Habitat NUP database and countries’ websites.

Thematic scope of NUP
Analysis of the thematic scope was undertaken for 113 NUPs with available data out of 119 NUPs that arein the formulation stage or beyond. For continuity with the 2018 edition, the same five broad thematic
categories were analysed in 2020: economic development, spatial structure, human development,
environmental sustainability and climate resilience. The level of attention given to each thematic area wasassessed on a scale from low to moderate to extensive, with commonly defined principles (see Chapter1). The data shows that spatial structure has the highest attention among the five thematic areas, with 80%
of NUPs giving this moderate or extensive attention. Human development, economic development andenvironmental sustainability follow, with 78, 67 and 64% respectively (Figure 3.7). Climate resilience was
the least considered thematic area among the five themes, with 48% of NUPs giving moderate to extensive
attention to them.
In comparison to 2018, the analysis indicates that NUPs have become more comprehensive, covering
wider thematic areas. Between 2018 and 2020, the shares of NUPs giving extensive or moderate attention
to four of the five themes have remained high: spatial structure (78% in 2018 and 80% in 2020), humandevelopment (83% in 2018 and 78% in 2020), economic development (69% in 2018 and 67% in 2020) andenvironmental sustainability (68% in 2018 and 64% in 2020). In contract, the data indicates a large
improvement in climate resilience, rising from 36% in 2018 to 48% in 2020. Although the results of thecomparison need to be interpreted carefully, 3 they indicate that NUPs have overall extended their thematic
scope.
The analysis by five global regions indicates that the attention (moderate and extensive) to spatial structure
was more evident in the NUPs in Europe and North America (88%), Latin America and the Caribbean(88%) and the Arab States (82%) and least evident in Africa (60%) (Figure 3.8). On the other hand, humandevelopment was more prevalent in NUPs from the Arab States (88%), Asia and the Pacific (83%),
Latin America and the Caribbean (81%) and in Africa (80%). Interestingly, 80% of NUPs from Asia and thePacific and 69% of those from Latin America and the Caribbean indicated to have moderate or extensive
attention to environmental sustainability, implying the magnitude of the theme.
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 57

Figure 3.7. Levels of attention given to selected themes in NUP, n = 113
Extensive

Spatial structure

Moderate

Low

45

Human development

35

38

Economic development

4130

Environmental sustainability

34

41

15
0

22

37

23

Climate resilience

20

36

33
10

20

52

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
%

Note: No information was available for 6 out of the 119 NUPs that are in the formulation stage or beyond. Data are drawn from the OECD/UNHabitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020, the UN-Habitat NUP database and countries’ websites.

Figure 3.8. Moderate to extensive attention to themes of NUP by region, n = 113
Economic development
Environmental sustainability

Spatial structure
Climate resilience

%
100
90

82

88

83 83
77

80

88

63
55

88
81

80
69

70
60

88

Human development

57
50

62

80
69

66

60
52

50

50

44

38

40

36

30
20
10
0

Arab States

Asia and the Pacific

Europe and North America

Latin America andthe Caribbean

AfricaNote: No information was available for 6 out of the 119 NUPs that are in the formulation stage or beyond. Data are drawn from the OECD/UNHabitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020, the UN-Habitat NUP database and countries’ websites.

In addition to the analysis of the five broad thematic categories, levels of attention to 20 sub-themes werealso analysed in the NUP country survey 2020 (Table 3.2). The results revealed more precise priorities in
NUPs at the global scale, as well as some gaps across sub-themes within a broad thematic category.
Under the theme of ‘human development’, for example, the data shows that relatively less attention is given
to ‘promoting social cohesion and fighting against spatial segregation (with 24 NUPs with extensive
attention), compared with other sub-themes such as ‘ensuring access to basic urban services andinfrastructure (39 NUPs)’ and ‘ensuring adequate and affordable housing’ (32 NUPs). Under ‘spatial
structure’, two sub-themes given the most extensive attention were ‘tackling urban sprawl’ (34 NUPs) andGLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

58 ‘sustainable mobility’ (32 NUPs), while slightly less attention was given to ‘promoting urban-ruralconnectivity’ (29 NUPs) and ‘developing public spaces’ (27 NUPs).

Table 3.2. Levels of attention of NUPs by sub-theme, n = 69
Theme
Spatial structure

Economic development

Human development

Environmental sustainability

Climate resilience

Sub-theme

Extensive

Moderate

Low

Tackle urban sprawl, pursue sustainable land use and promotecompact and connected cities

34

22

2

Recognise urban-rural interdependency and promoteconnectivity between urban and rural areas

29

26

5

Pursue sustainable mobility (e.g., foot, bike, public transit) inand between urban areas

32

16

9

Develop public space as economic, human and environmental
assets for cities

27

25

6

Apply a system of cities approach and promote balanced
territorial development in a country, connectivity among cities

31

22

3

Increase productivity and competitiveness in cities of all sizes

27

24

6

Promote education and skills in labour market in cities

10

24

23

Adapt technological innovation

12

25

17

Alleviate poverty

24

18

15

Ensure access to basic urban services and infrastructure(e.g., water, sanitation, waste management, public transport,
digital infrastructure)

39

15

3

Ensure adequate and affordable housing

32

15

8

Promote social cohesion and fight against spatial segregation

24

23

9

Promote circular economy in cities

13

25

20

Promote sustainable urban consumption and production
patterns

12

29

16

Improve air and water quality

21

30

7

Reduce GHG emissions and promote low-carbon transition incities22

24

11

Identify risks and promote disaster risk management strategies

24

22

11

Promote risk-sensitive land use in urban areas

28

18

11

Promote green and blue infrastructure, ecosystems,
biodiversity and nature-based solutions

19

29

9

Develop disaster risk financing mechanisms

13

13

31

Note: The sum of each row is smaller than the total number of NUPs (69), due to the fact that not all countries provided answers to all the
sub-themes. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

The NUP country survey 2020 also identified thematic focuses other than the five themes. Common
answers were on education, culture and social integration, among others. NUPs in Bolivia and Mexico
give particular attention to indigenous communities, while gender and inter-generational integration are
key themes in the NUP of Brazil. In Finland, immigration and newcomer policies are covered by its NUP.
Moreover, smart cities, smart technologies and urban innovation are reported as important themes in NUPs
in the Czech Republic, Finland, Madagascar, Malawi and Portugal.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 59

Institutions leading the NUP process
Regarding the institutions leading their NUP process (Figure 3.9), 54 out of 86 countries (63%) rely on aministry or agency specialised in urban issues to lead the NUP process. These ministries or agencies areto a large extent specialised in housing, infrastructure, spatial planning, environment and urban
development. Examples include the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development in New Zealand andChile’s National Council for Urban Development. In 35 countries (41%) a ministry or agency in charge ofgeneral national planning or development is leading the process. Examples include the Ministry of Financein Estonia, the Planning Administration in Israel, the Ministry of Transport and Local Government in
Iceland, the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Tourism in Montenegro, the Federal Ministry of theInterior, Building and Local Community in Germany, and the Office of the National Economic and Social
Development Council in Thailand. In Hungary, the Prime Minister’s Office is taking the lead. In somecountries, the Ministry for Local Government is leading the NUP process, for example Norway andZambia. Six countries reported that the ministry responsible for regional development is leading the NUP
process: Brazil, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Poland. In Austria, the Ministry for Agriculture,
Regions and Tourism is co-ordinating the NUP process.
In some countries, two or more ministries are co-leading the NUP process. For example, in Finland theMinistry of Economic Affairs and Employment is co-leading it with the Ministry of the Environment. In
Tanzania, the President’s Office, Regional Administration and Local Government, and two other ministries
are involved in leading the NUP process.
Fifteen countries (22%) indicated that the NUP leading institution is ‘not clearly defined’ as there is not anational ministry with clear mandate for urban issues, and urban policy is dealt with as part of different
sectoral policies at national level. This is the case for Costa Rica, Eswatini, Kazakhstan, Nepal,
Netherlands, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia and Sweden.

Figure 3.9. Institutions leading the NUP, n = 86
A ministry/agency specialised in urban issues

54

A ministry/agency in charge ofgeneral national planning/development35

Not clearly defined (e.g. sectoral ministries
handle urban issues within their sectoral policies)

15

Other ministry/agency

10

Others

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Note: Respondents were allowed to select multiple responses. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy
Country Survey 2020.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

60 

Ways forward
The findings of this chapter indicate that NUPs have become more explicit, operational and comprehensive
since 2018. Of the 162 identified NUPs, 91 (56%) are identified as explicit NUPs, compared with 51% in
2018; many NUPs have advanced from diagnosis to formulation and implementation stages; and the levelsof extensive and moderate attention increased for four out of five thematic areas.
In light of the COVID-19 recovery, countries face an increasing need for strengthening place-based
decision-making and coherence in urban development. NUPs should play a more explicit role in developinga strategic and shared vision and co-ordinating policies across sectors and levels of government. A moreclearly formulated NUP can drive more coherence across different urban policies undertaken at thenational level (OECD, 2017[4]), and provide more effective support to cities and towns to tackle theircomplex challenges (United Nations, 2016[3]).
In addition to explicit NUPs, the survey stressed the importance of other national level policies that affecturban areas, which interconnect to form a systemic NUP framework. Such policies were found to ensure
and promote engagement, participation, co-ordination and implementation mechanisms.
Countries should also continue to make their NUPs more comprehensive, by giving attention to a wide
range of themes reflecting their urban policy contexts. Growing attention to climate resilience as a thematicarea of NUPs indicates that NUPs are becoming an integrated urban management and planning systems
Finally, the analysis highlighted the lack of comprehensive and disaggregated urban data as a key
challenge in the formulation of NUPs. Strategies to improve the collection of disaggregated urban dataneed to be put in place as the basis of NUP formulation and to ensure regular and effective monitoring andevaluation of such policies.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 61

Annex 3.A. List of NUP
Annex Table 3.A.1. List of NUP (identified from the NUP country survey)
Responding
Country (n=86)

Name of NUP

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

National urban agency

Weblink

Algeria

Politique aménagement duterritoire, urbanisme et ville

2010

Yes

Implementation

Ministère de l’Habitat, de l’Urbanisme et de laVille (MHUV) Ministère de l’Intérieur, desCollectivités Locale et de l’Aménagement duTerritoire (MICLAT)

Armenia
Australia

National Urban Strategy“Smart Cities Plan” and (itsmain delivery mechanism)“City Deals”
Strengthening centres ofcities and towns
Urban Planning andConstruction Code

2019
2016

Yes
Yes

Formulation
Implementation

Urban Development Committee
Department of Infrastructure, Transport,
Regional Development and Communications

2019

No

Implementation

Austrian Conference on Spatial Planning

No

Implementation

Développement d’une offre
ferroviaire suburbaine type
RER
Politica Nacional parael Desarrollo Integral deCiudades(National Policy for the
Integral Development ofCities)National Policy for Urban
Development(Politica Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Urbano –

2015

No

No information

SNCB

Loi n° 10-02 du 29 juin 2010 portant approbation
du Schéma National d'Aménagement duTerritoire.
https://www.joradp.dz/FTP/jo-francais/2010/F2010061.pdf
In progress
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/city-deals/
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/smartcities/plan/index.aspx
https://www.oerok.gv.at/raum/themen/staerkungder-orts-und-stadtkerne
https://apa.az/az/i%%CC%87nfrastruktur/millisehersalma-ve-tikinti-normativ-senedleribazirlanacaq-547331
https://www.belgiantrain.be/fr/aboutsncb/themes/rer

Underdevelopment

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of Public Works, Services andHousing/Vice-ministry of Housing and
Urbanism

http://www.urbanobolivia.org/

Under
development(to be launchedin 2021)

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of Regional Development

No link (to be launched in 2021)

Austria
Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bolivia

BrazilGLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

62 
Responding
Country (n=86)
Bulgaria

Burkina Faso

Cabo Verde

CanadaChile

Colombia
Costa Rica

Croatia

Cuba

Czech Republic

Denmark

Name of NUP
PNDU)Regional Development
Policy(Regional Development Act;
National Spatial
Development Concept of
the Republic of Bulgaria)
Politique nationale del’habitat et dudéveloppement urbain
Política nacional doordenamento do território eurbanismo(National policy on spatialplanning and urbanism)
Investing in Canada
Infrastructure Programme
Política Nacional de
Desarrollo Urbano
Política de Ciudades 4.0
National urban
development policy
2018-2030 and action plan
2018-2022
Spatial Development
Strategy of the Republic of
Croatia
National Land Planning
Scheme; the National
Urban Policy of Cuba
The principles of urban
policy of the
Czech Republic
Danish Act on Urban
Renewal and Urban

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

National urban agency

Weblink

2018 (originally
2008)

No

Implementation

Ministry of Regional Development and Public
Works

https://www.mrrb.bg/bg/zakon-za-regionalnotorazvitie/
https://www.mrrb.bg/bg/nacionalna-koncepciyaza-prostranstveno-razvitie-za-perioda-2013-2025godina/

2008

Yes

Implementation

Ministère de l’Urbanisme et de l’Habitat

N/A

2019

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation

Ministério das Infraestruturas do Ordenamento
do Território e Habitação

https://www.governo.cv

2017

No

Implementation

Infrastructure Canada

2014

Yes

Implementation

National Council for Urban Development

2019
2018

Yes
Yes

Formulation
Implementation

Ministerio de Vivienda, Ciudad y Territorio
Ministry of Housing and Human Settlements(MIVAH)https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/icp-pic-INFCeng.html
https://cndu.gob.cl/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/L4-Politica-NacionalUrbana.pdf
In progress
http://www.mivah.go.cr/Biblioteca_Politicas_Politic
a_y_Plan_Nacional_Desarrollo_Urbano.shtml

2017

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning

2018

Yes

Implementation

Institute of Physical Planning (IPF)

2017

Yes

Implementation

The Ministry for Regional Development

2015

No

Implementation

Ministry of Business and Growth; Ministry of
Immigration, Integration and Housing

https://mgipu.gov.hr/o-ministarstvu-15/djelokrug/pr
ostorno-uredjenje-3335/strategija-prostornograzvoja-republike-hrvatske/4096
In progress

https://www.mmr.cz/getmedia/ede18d30-7bc24d2b-9011f527446872e8/ZUP_2017.pdf?ext=.pdf
https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2015/1041
https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2013/587

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 63
Responding
Country (n=86)

Name of NUP

Estonia

Development; Danish
Planning Act
Agenda del Hábitat
Sostenible del Ecuador
2036
National regional policy

Eswatini

Housing Policy

Ethiopia

National Urban policy

FinlandNational Urban Strategy(under preparation - several
initiatives, programmes andcontract-based policy are
actual forms of the NUP)
Politique de la Ville

EcuadorFranceYear

Explicit NUP

Stage

National urban agency

2019

Yes

Formulation

Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano y Vivienda

http://habitatsostenible.miduvi.gob.ec/

2014

No

Ministry of Finance

2001

No

https://www.rahandusministeerium.ee/et/regionaal
areng-ja-poliitika
N/A

2005,
modified 2013
2019

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation
Monitoring andevaluation
Implementation

Yes

Formulation

2014

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation

Ministry of Housing & Urban Development
Ministry of Urban Development andConstruction
Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment,
Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of
Finance

N/A…

Germany

Nationale
Stadtentwicklungspolitik

2008

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation

Ministère de la cohésion des territoires et desrelations avec les collectivités territoriales(MCTRCT) et l’Agence nationale de lacohésion territoriale (ANCT)
Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building andCommunity

Ghana

Ghana National Urban
Policy Framework andAction Plan

2012

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation

Ministry of Local Government and Rural
Development

GreeceSpatial and Urban Planning
Reform [Law 4296/2014];
Environmental
Improvement and Private
Urban Planning[Law 4280/2014]
National Urban
Development Policy
Law of Territorial Ordinance

2014

No

Monitoring andevaluation

Ministry of Environment and Energy

In progress

Yes

Feasibility

2003

No

Implementation

GuatemalaHonduras

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

Weblink

CIV-Viceministerio de Desarrollo urbano yVivienda
Ministerial Office of Socialisation and Digital

N/A

https://www.nationalestadtentwicklungspolitik.de/NSPWeb/DE/Home/ho
me_node.html
http://www.mlgrd.gov.gh/ctnmedia/filer_public/35/5f/355fece2-831e-46829a2efea73e4f334a/nup_framework___action_plan.pdf
N/A

N/A
N/A

64 
Responding
Country (n=86)
Hungary
Iceland

Iran

IrelandIsrael

Italy

Japan
JordanKazakhstan

KuwaitName of NUP

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

National urban agency

Weblinkof Honduras
Modern Cities ProgrammeHöfuðborgarstefna(Capital-city policy)

2017
In progress(2022)No
Yes

Feasibility
Feasibility

Accompaniment of Presidential Projects
Prime Minister’s Office
Ministry of Transport and Local Government

National Urban Policy andSmart City Strategy
Programme
National Planning
Framework
Comprehensive National
Outline Plan forConstruction, Development
and Conservation (alsoreferred to as NOP 35,
National Master Plan 35 orTama 35)
National Program for
Metropolitan Areas
2014-2020
National Spatial Strategy

In progress

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of Road and Urban Development(MoRUD)2018

No

Formulation

http://npf.ie

2016

No

Implementation

Department of Housing, Planning and Local
Government
Israel Planning Administration

2019

No

Implementation

Agency for Territorial Cohesion

http://www.ponmetro.it/

2015

Yes

Implementation

http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001127196.pdf

National Urban Policy
Decree of the Governmentof the Republic of
Kazakhstan “On approval of
the State program fordevelopment of regions for
2020-2025”
Kuwait National

In progress
2019

Yes
Yes

Formulation
Monitoring andevaluation

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism
Ministry of Local Administration (MoLA)
Ministry of National Economy of the Republicof Kazakhstan

2017

No

Formulation

General Secretariat of the Supreme Council

http://www.newkuwait.gov.kw/home.aspx

N/A
In progress (basis for NUP is set in strategic
regional plan for Iceland 2018-2024, “C.4 Capitalcity policy”: https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/02Rit--skyrslur-og-skrar/Byggdaaaetlun_20182024_ENSKA.pdf
https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/sveitarstjornir-ogbyggdamal/byggdamal/adgerdaaaetlun/adgerd/?it
emid=7bb569f6-b2b1-11e8-942c-005056bc530c
N/A

https://www.gov.il/he/Departments/General/tama_
35_docs

N/A
http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/P1900000990

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 65
Responding
Country (n=86)

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

2019

No

Implementation

2005

No

Formulation

for Planning and Development
The Ministry of Environmental Protection andRegional Development of the Republic of
LatviaCouncil for Development and Reconstruction

2019

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of the Environment

2018

No

Monitoring andevaluation

National Urban
Development Policy
National Urban Policy

2019

Yes

Implementation

2019

Yes

Implementation

Ministère de l’Énergie et de l’Aménagement duterritoire, Département de l’aménagement duterritoire
Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire, del’Habitat et des Travaux Publics
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban
Development

Malta

The Strategic Plan for theEnvironment andDevelopment (SPED)

2015

Yes

Implementation

MexicoNational Strategy for
Territorial Planning (ENOT),the Sectoral Programme forAgrarian, Territorial and
Urban Development 20192024; the National
Programme for Territorial
Planning and Urban
Development (PNOTDU);
the National Housing
Programme (PNV); and the
National Land Policy (PNS)
National Sustainable

2019

Yes

Formulation

2016

Yes

Monitoring andLatviaLebanonLithuania

Luxembourg

Madagascar
MalawiMontenegro

Name of NUP
Development Plan
Regional Policy (strategy
document – Regional Policy
Guidelines 2021-2027)
National Physical Master
Plan of the Lebanese
territory
Comprehensive Plan of the
Territory of the Republic of
Lithuania
Aménagement du territoire

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

National urban agency

The document is intergovernmental, since the
SPED is a national policy document intended
to be applied horizontally within all government
however the planning authority oversees the
document
Secretariat for Agrarian, Land and Urban
Development (SEDATU)

Ministry of Sustainable Development andWeblink
http://polsis.mk.gov.lv/documents/6588

https://www.iauidf.fr/fileadmin/DataStorage/Institut/Noc_compete
nces/liban_SDATL_english.pdf
http://www.bendrasisplanas.lt/2019/12/13/en/

N/A

N/A
https://urbanpolicyplatform.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/06/Malawi-UrbanPolicy_2nd-April-2019.pdf
https://www.pa.org.mt/en/strategic-plandetails/strategic%%%%%%20plan%20for%20the%20environment%20and%20development

N/A

http://www.nssd2030.gov.me/

66 
Responding
Country (n=86)

MoroccoMyanmarNamibia

Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand

Nicaragua
Nigeria
NorwayPanamaParaguay
Peru

Philippines

Name of NUP
Development Strategy 2030
(Nacionalna strategijaodrživog razvoja do 2030.
Godine (NSOR))
Politique de la Ville

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

National urban agency

evaluation

Weblink

Tourism2012

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation

Le Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire
National, de l’Urbanisme, de l’Habitat et de laPolitique de la Ville
Ministry of Construction

http://www.mhpv.gov.ma/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/guide-pv.pdf

National Urban Policy of
MyanmarNational Spatial
Development Framework:in line with the Urban andRegional Planning Act 2018
National Urban
Development Strategy
Regionale
Verstedelijkingsstrategie
Government policy
statement on housing andurban development
National Transport Plan

In progress

Yes

Formulation

In progress

Yes

Feasibility

Ministry of Urban and Rural Development(MURD)

https://www.lac.org.na/laws/2018/6631.pdf

2017

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of Urban Development

In progress

In progress

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations

N/A

In progress(end 2021)

Yes

Diagnosis

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

https://www.hud.govt.nz/urbandevelopment/government-policy-statement-gps/

2014

No

No information

Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure

2012

Yes

Implementation

Federal Ministry of Works and Housing

2017

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Local Government andModernisation

https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/12181012_01.
pdf
http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NationalReport-Africa-Nigeria-English.pdf
N/A

National Urban
Development Policy
White paper on urban
sustainability and ruralstrength
National Territorial Planning
Policy of Panama
National Housing and
Habitat Policy of Paraguay
National Urban
Development Plan
“Territory for All” 2006-2015
National Urban

2019

Yes

Diagnosis

2018

No

Formulation

2006

Yes

Formulation

Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción ySaneamiento

2017

Yes

Implementation

Department of Human Settlements and Urban

Ministerio de Vivienda y Ordenamiento
Territorial
Ministerio de Urbanismo Vivienda y Hábitat

In progress

www.Miviot.gob.pa, Resolución No. 468-2019 de
27 de junio de 2019https://www.muvh.gov.py/sitio/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/PNVH-Digital.pdf
http://eudora.vivienda.gob.pe/OBSERVATORIO/destacados2/PlanNacionalDesarrolloUrbano20062
015.pdf
https://hlurb.gov.ph/wp-

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 67
Responding
Country (n=86)

Name of NUP

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

Development and Housing
Framework (NUDHF)

Development (DHSUD)

PolandNational Urban Policy 2023

2015

Yes

Implementation

Portugal

Sustainable Cities Strategy

2015

Yes

Korea

1. Comprehensive National
land Plan; 2. Do
comprehensive plan; 3.
Si/Gun comprehensive
plan; 4. Regional plan; 5.
Sector plan
Project (2019-2021) Elaboration of urban policy
as a tool for strengthening
the administrative capacity
and strategic planning ofurban areas in Romania
Spatial development
strategy of the RussianFederation for the period up
to 2025
National Urbanization
PolicyNational Spatial Planning

2020

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation
Feasibility

2019

Yes

Diagnosis

2019

Yes

2015

National spatial policy
Lettre de politiquesectorielle et dudéveloppement duministère en charge del'urbanisme

Romania

Russianfederation

Rwanda
Sao Tome andPríncipe

Saudi Arabia
SenegalNational urban agency

Ministry of Development Funds and Regional
PolicyDG Teertório
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

Weblink
content/uploads/services/lgu/clupguidebook/NUDHF%20Full%20Version%20%20FINAL.pdf
https://www.gov.pl/web/fundusze-regiony/politykamiejska
https://www.dgterritorio.gov.pt/sites/default/files/pu
blicacoes/Cidades_Sustentaveis2020.pdf
N/A

Ministry of Public Works, Development andAdministration

N/A

Monitoring andevaluation

Ministry of Economic Development

https://www.economy.gov.ru/material/file/a3d075a
a813dc01f981d9e7fcb97265f/130219_207-p.pdf

Yes

Implementation

Rwanda Ministry of Infrastructure

2019

Yes

Formulation

2019
2018

Yes
No

Implementation
Diagnosis

Ministry if Public Works, Infrastructures,
Natural resources and Environment(MOPIRNA) / Cabinet of Territorial Planning(PNOT)
Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs
Ministère en charge de l’urbanisme

https://bpmis.gov.rw/asset_uplds/files/National%2
0Urbanization%20Policy.pdf
https://www.nrv-norvia.com/en/projects/nationalplan-for-the-territory-development-of-sao-tomeand-principe

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

N/A
N/A

68 
Responding
Country (n=86)

Name of NUP

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

SerbiaSustainable Urban
Development Strategy of
the Republic of Serbia 2030

2019

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Construction, Transport andInfrastructure

Slovak Republic

2018

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Transport and Construction

2004

No

Formulation

Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning

Spain

The urban development
policy of the Slovak
Republic by 2030
Spatial Development
Strategy of Slovenia
Spanish Urban Agenda

2019

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Urban
AgendaSwedenStrategy for Liveable Cities

2018

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of the Environment and Energy;
Ministry of Finance (since 2019)

Switzerland

Politique desagglomérations 2016+ de laConfédération
National Human
Settlements Development
Policy2016

Yes

Implementation

N/A

No

Implementation

Office fédéral du développement territorial
ARE (DETEC) et le Secrétariat d’État àl’économie (DEFR)
Ministry of Lands, Housing and Human
Settlements Development

The Twelfth National 20172021
Politiques sectorielles

2017

No

2019: mobilité /2015: habitat
2010

No

Monitoring andevaluation
Feasibility

Office of the National Economic and Social
Development Council of Thailand (NESDC)MDCT/MEHAT/MALE/MT

https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MOP/Publik
acije/sprs_eng.pdf
https://apps.fomento.gob.es/CVP/detallepublicaci
on.aspx?idpub=BAW061
https://www.aue.gob.es/que-es-la-aue#inicio
www.regeringen.se/4971fa/contentassets/b5640fd
317d04929990610e1a20a5383/171823000webb.
pdf
Short version in English:
https://www.government.se/49f4b6/contentassets/
093aaf895dbd44119d5ee023138c0f94/strategyfor-livable-cities---short-version
https://www.are.admin.ch/are/fr/home/villes-etagglomerations/strategie-et-planification/politiquedes-agglomerations.html
http://lands.go.tz/uploads/documents/en/1460190
379National_Human_Settlements_Development_Poli
cy_2000_0.pdf
https://www.nesdc.go.th/nesdb_en/ewt_dl_link.php?nid=4345
N/A

Monitoring andevaluation

Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation

https://kentges.csb.gov.tr/kentges-english-i-98653

Slovenia

Tanzania

ThailandTunisia
TurkeyIntegrated Urban
Development Strategy andAction Plan (KENTGES)
2010-2023

Yes

National urban agency

Weblink
https://www.mgsi.gov.rs/lat/dokumenti/urbanirazvoj
https://www.srbija.gov.rs/dokument/45678/progra
mi-planovi-strategije-.php
https://www.mindop.sk/uploads/media/177add300
b0faa6f4201a4d8a240021e77552653.pdf

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 69
Responding
Country (n=86)
Turkmenistan

UkraineUnited Kingdom
United States
ZambiaName of NUP

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

Programme for thedevelopment ofconstruction and energy in
Turkmenistan for 20192025
State Strategy of Regional
Development for the period
until 2020
City Deals

2019

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Construction and Architecture

N/A

2014 (withamendments in
2019)
2011

No

Feasibility

Ministry of Communities and Territories
Development

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/385-2014%%D0%BF

No

No information

N/A

1981

No

No information

2019

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of Housing, Communities and local
Government
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Department of Physical Planning, Ministry of
Local Government

Community development
block grant
National Urbanisation
PolicyGLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

National urban agency

Weblink

https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbgentitlement/
N/A

70 

Annex Table 3.A.2. List of NUP (identified from desk research)
Country (n=76)

Name of NUP

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

Urban National Priority
Programme 2016-2025
Law on Territorial Planningand Development

2016

Yes

Feasibility

2014

No

Implementation

Politica Nacional deOrdenamento do Territorio e
do Urbanismo
Politica Nacional Urbana

2015

Yes

Feasibility

Ministry of Territorial Planning and Housing

2019

Yes

Implementation

National Planning andDevelopment Strategy
National Urban Sector
PolicyState Scheme of the
Territorial Organisation
Bhutan National
Urbanisation Strategy

2007

No

2011

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation
Implementation

https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/03/p
nu_final_-_pagina_simple_dec-2019.pdf
https://upda.gov.bh/en/category/other-laws-anddecrees#
N/A

2000

No

Implementation

Ministry of the Interior, Public Works andHousing
Ministry of Works, Municipalities Affairs, andUrban Planning
Department of Urban Development; Ministry of
Local Government
Ministry of Architecture and Construction

2011

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Works and Human settlement,
Department of Urban Development and Housing

Spatial Plan Guide,Republic of Srpska
Town and Country Planning
Act
National Land Use Plan

2007

No

Implementation

2013

Yes

2010

No

Monitoring andevaluation
Implementation

Ministry of Spatial Planning, Civil Engineeringand Ecology
Ministry of Infrastructure and Housing

https://www.mowhs.gov.bt/wpcontent/uploads/2010/11/Bhutan_National_Urba
nization_Strategy_2008.pdf (2008 Strategy)
N/A

Burundi Vision 2025

2011

No

2014

Cameroon

National Urban
Development Strategy
2014-2018
Politique Urbaine Nationale

Chad

Stratégie Nationale deAfghanistan
Albania

AngolaArgentina
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belarus
BhutanBosnia andHerzegovina
Botswana
Brunei
Darussalam
BurundiCambodia

National urban agency
Directorate of Local Governance
Ministry of Public Works and Transport

Weblink
http://policymof.gov.af/home/wpcontent/uploads/2019/01/Urban-NPP.pdf
http://planifikimi.gov.al/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=5636&token=984b991a0c725de5fa11e1
24cfbb746d25e5d054
N/A

N/A

N/A

Ministry of Development Funds

N/A

Implementation

Ministry of Water, Environment, Spatial Planning
and Town Planning

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Land Management, Urban Planningand Construction

https://www.presidence.gov.bi/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/Vision-Burundi2025.pdf
https://cambodia.unfpa.org/en/publications/natio
nal-strategic-development-plan-2014-2018

2014

Yes

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

N/A

2015

No

Monitoring andevaluation
Formulation

Ministry of Urban Planning

N/A

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 71
Country (n=76)

Name of NUP

China (People’s
Republic of)Comoros

Logement
National Urbanisation Plan
2014-2020
Poverty Reduction and
Growth Strategy Paper

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

Congo

Côte d’Ivoire

2014

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

2011

No

Implementation

National Development Plan

No information

No

Implementation

Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire, del’Urbanisme, chargé des Affaires Foncières etdes Transports Terrestres
Ministry of Construction, Urban Planning andHousingService to Promote Home
Ownership Tenure (SPAPF)
Decree Urbanism

2011

No

1957

No

Monitoring andevaluation
Implementation

Ministry of Construction, Housing, Sanitation and
Urbanism
Ministry of Infrastructure, Public Works andReconstruction

2012

No

Implementation

Secretary of State for Housing

N/A

Dominican
Republic

Strategie nationale deDéveloppement Urbain
2012-2015
Organic Law of National
development

2012

No

Implementation

Congress

Egypt

National Urban Policy

2015

Yes

Diagnosis

https://www.intec.edu.do/downloads/documents/i
nstitucionales/marco-legal/Ley_112_LEY_ORGANICA_DE_LA_ESTRATEGIA_N
ACIONAL_DE_DESARROLLO.pdf
N/A

El Salvador

Política Nacional deVivienda y Hábitat

2015

Yes

Implementation

EritreaFiji

Master Plan for Cities
Urban Upgrading Project

No information
2014

No
Yes

Gabon

2014

No

2007

No

Formulation

GuineaMooted National Urban
Development Policy
Poverty Reduction Strategy
2007-2011
Politique Nationale Urbaine

Implementation
Monitoring andevaluation
Diagnosis

2017

Yes

Feasibility

India

National Urban Policy

2018

Yes

Implementation

Democratic
Republic of theCongo
Djibouti

GambiaGLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

National urban agency

Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban
Development
Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

Ministry of Public Works
Ministry of Local Government, Urban
Development, Housing and Environment
Ministry for Promotion and Investment, Public
Works, Transportation, Housing and Tourism
Ministry of Local Government and Lands
Ministère de la Ville et de l’Aménagement duTerritoire
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

Weblink
http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2014-03/16/content_
2640075.htm
N/A

https://www.imf.org//media/Websites/IMF/imported-full-textpdf/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/_cr12242.ashx
N/A
N/A

http://observatorio.vivienda.gob.sv/archivo/Pol%
C3%ADtica%20Nacional%20de%20Vivienda%2
0y%20H%C3%A1bitat%20VF.pdf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
https://smartnet.niua.org/sites/default/files/resour

72 Country (n=76)
Indonesia

Iraq
Kenya
Kiribati
Kyrgyzstan

Lao People’s
Democratic
Republic
Liberia
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Marshall Islands

Mauritania
Mauritius
Micronesia

Name of NUP
Framework
National Policies andStrategies for Urban
Development towards
Sustainable Competitive
Cities for 2045
National Urban Policy
National Urban
Development
Kiribati Development Plans
2012-2015
National Sustainable
Development Strategy
2013-2017
Master Plan for
Comprehensive Urban
Transport in Vientiane
CapitalNational Urban Policy

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

National urban agency

Weblink

2015

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of National Development

ces/nupf_final.pdf
N/A

In progress
2012

Yes
Yes

Feasibility
Formulation

Ministry of Municipalities and Public Works
Ministry of Land and Urban Development

N/A
N/A

2012

No

Implementation

Ministry of Internal and Social Affairs

2013

No

Implementation

National Council for Sustainable Development

2006

No

Implementation

Urban Development and Administration
Authority

http://www.mfed.gov.ki/sites/default/files/kiribatidevelopment-plan-2012-2015.pdf
https://www.unpage.org/files/public/kyrgyz_national_sustainabl
e_development_strategy.pdf
N/A

2015

Yes

Diagnosis

N/A

National Physical
Perspective Plan 2006-2030
National Physical Plan

2006

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of Internal Affairs, development of
Urban Affairs
Urban Planning Agency

2010

Yes

Ministry of Housing and Local Government

National Strategies for
Sustainable development
Politique Nationale de la
Ville
Vision 2003-2018 Strategic
Development Plan
Framework
Master Plan
National Development
Strategy
National Strategic
Development Plan 2004-

2009

No

Monitoring andevaluation
Implementation

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

https://www.planmalaysia.gov.my/index.php/en/li
hat-rancangan-fizikal-negara
N/A

2014

Yes

Ministry of Housing, Land Affairs and Urbanism

N/A

2003

No

Monitoring andevaluation
Feasibility

Majuro Atoll Local Government

N/A

2020
2006

No
No

Implementation
Feasibility

Ministry of Equipment, Urbanism and Housing
Ministry of Housing and Lands

2004

No

Feasibility

Department of Housing and Urban Development

N/A
https://housing.govmu.org/Documents/Planning/nds.pdf
https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/linkeddocuments/cobp-fsm-2015-2017-sd-02.pdf

N/A

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 73
Country (n=76)
Moldova

Mongolia
Mozambique
Nauru

Oman
PakistanPalau
Papua New
GuineaQatar
Samoa
Singapore
Solomon Islands
SomaliaSouth Africa
South Sudan
Sri Lanka
Sudan

Name of NUP

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

2001

No

Implementation

Ministry of Regional Development andConstruction

N/A

2015

No

Formulation

Ministry of Construction and Urban Development

2017
Revised 2009

Yes
No

Feasibility
Implementation

Ministry of Housing and Lands
Ministry for Finance and Sustainable
Development

http://pdc.ceu.hu/archive/00003166/01/millenniu
m_development_goals.pdf (2007 Strategy)
N/A
https://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Countri
es/Nauru/2a.pdf

2010

No
No

National Master
Development Plan 2020
National Urbanisation Policy(2010-2030)
National Development
Strategy 2011-2016
Samoa National Urban
PolicyMaster Plan

2006

No

Feasibility

2010

Yes

Implementation

Supreme Committee for Town and Planning of
the Sultanate of Oman
Physical Planning and Housing Section in
Planning Commission; Ministry of Climate
ChangeMinistry of Public Infrastructure, Industries andCommerce
Physical Planning Board

N/A

2014

Monitoring andevaluation
Diagnosis

2011

No

Implementation

Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics

N/A

2013

Yes

Implementation

N/A

2015

No

National Urban Policy(2016-2035)
Somali Urban Development
Program for the Somali
RegionIntegrated Urban
Development Framework
National Urban Policy
Megapolis Plan
National Urban Policy

No information

Yes

Monitoring andevaluation
Formulation

Planning and Urban Management Agency,
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Urban Redevelopment Authority

2008

No

2016

Yes

2012
2015
2016

Yes
Yes
Yes

2023
Concept of Sustainable
Development of Settlementsof the Republic of Moldova
Comprehensive National
Development Plan
Politica Urbana Nacional
National Sustainable
Development Strategy
2005-2025
National Spatial Strategy
and Oman Vision 2040
Vision 2025

National urban agency

Weblink

N/A

N/A
N/A

Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey

https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Planning/Mast
er-Plan
N/A

Implementation

Ministry of Planning

N/A

Monitoring andevaluation
Formulation
Implementation
Diagnosis

Department of Cooperative Governance andTraditional Affairs
Ministry of Housing and Physical Planning
Urban Development Authority
Ministry of Economy and Planning and Ministryof Municipal and Rural Affairs

https://iudf.co.za/

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

N/A
N/A
N/A

74 
Country (n=76)
Syrian Arab
Republic
Timor-Leste

Togo
Tonga

TuvaluUgandaUnited ArabEmirates
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela

Viet Nam
Yemen
Zimbabwe

Name of NUP

Year

Explicit NUP

Stage

National Standards for
Regional Planning andSpatial Planning
National Strategic
Development Plan 20112030
Declaration of Policy ofUrban Sector
Tonga Strategic
development Framework
2015-2025
National Strategy for
Sustainable Development
2005-2015
Uganda National Urban
Policy2014

Yes

Formulation

Higher Commission of Regional Planning

N/A

2011

No

Feasibility

National Development Agency

N/A

No information

No

Implementation

Ministry of Urban Planning and Housing

N/A

2015

No

Implementation

Planning Urban and Management Division

http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ton168846.p
df

2005

No

Diagnosis

No information

2017

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban
Development

Urban and Regional
Structure Framework (2030)
Law for Land Use andSustainable Development
Master Plan of Population
Settlement
Vanuatu Land Use Planning
PolicyUrban Land Law

No information

No

Implementation

2009

No

Implementation

2010

No

Diagnosis

Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council and Urban
Planning Steering Committee
Senate and House of Representatives of the
Oriental Republic of Uruguay
The Uzbek Agency of Communal Services

http://prdrse4all.spc.int/sites/default/files/tuvalu_
national_strategy_for_sustainable_development.
pdf
https://mlhud.go.ug/wpcontent/uploads/2019/07/National-Urban-Policy2017-printed-copy.pdf
https://www.ecouncil.ae/PublicationsEn/planabu-dhabi-full-version-EN.pdf
N/A

2013

No

Implementation

2009

No

Implementation

Urban Development
Management Law
Regional Plans

In progress

Yes

Formulation

Ministry of Construction

2011

No

Feasibility

1970

Yes

Implementation

Ministry of Planning and International
Cooperation
Department of Physical Planning

Growth Point/Rural Service
Centre Strategy

National urban agency

Physical Planning Unity, Ministry of Internal
Affairs
National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic ofVenezuela

Weblink

N/A
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/van174015.p
df
http://www.pcivil.gob.ve/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/marco-legal/LEY-DETIERRAS-URBANAS.pdf
N/A
N/A
N/A

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 75

References
OECD (2017), National Urban Policy in OECD Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264271906-en.

[4]OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

[5]

UN-Habitat (2014), The Evolution of National Urban Policies: A Global Overview, UN-Habitat,
https://unhabitat.org/the-evolution-of-national-urban-policies.

[2]

UN-Habitat/OECD (2018), Global State of National Urban Policy, OECD Publishing, Paris/United
Nations Human Settlements Programme, Nairobi, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264290747en.

[1]

United Nations (2016), Policy paper 3: National urban policy, https://habitat3.org/wpcontent/uploads/Policy-Paper-3-English.pdf.

[3]

Notes
1

In the 2018 report, two types of NUP were identified: explicit NUPs and partial (or implicit) NUPs. An
explicit NUP was defined as a policy with “a title of ‘national urban policy’ or variant such as ‘national
urbanization policy’ or ‘national urban strategy’ or ‘national urban development strategy’. The category of“partial, or implicit NUP” acknowledged that a policy document that is not explicitly labelled as NUP couldin practice function as a NUP. A partial NUP was defined as having “many of the elements of a NUP but
not yet brought together as a formal, or explicit NUP”.
2

In the 2018 report, such policies are not clearly defined and understood as NUPs. As a result, several
countries indicated that they did not have a NUP (explicit or partial) in their urban policy landscape, eventhough there were national sectoral policies that have a spatial focus on urban areas.
3

Clearer guidance was provided to assess the level of attention (extensive, moderate or low) for the NUP
country survey 2020 as well as for the analysis, compared with the analysis for the 2018 report (seeChapter 1).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 77

4 Factors for successful NUP
processes

This chapter explores key factors for successful NUP processes, byanalysing mechanisms for policy alingment and co-ordinatation,
stekeholder engagement, and implementation and capacity gaps.
Stakeholder engagement is key for better policy prioritisation in formulating
and implementing NUP, which can also guide countries, regions and cities
to more concerted alignment of their actions and agendas. In addition,
conducive constitutional and legislative frameworks, national-subnational
co-financing arrangements, the capacity and performance of local
government, and democracy and transparency in governance, areimportant enabling factors.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

78 

Key findingsOut of 86 countries surveyed, 64 (74%) have deployed formal multi-ministerial platforms
between the leading NUP ministry or agency and relevant sectoral ministries.

In order to co-ordinate between national and sub-national governments, 51 countries (59%) use
legislation and regulatory mechanisms and 44 (51%) have a platform for dialogue between
national and sub-national governments in different NUP stages.



In 82 countries (95%), NUPs include at least one mechanism for horizontal policy alignment
among local governments in and between urban areas.

A large majority of countries engage sub-national governments ‘extensively’ or ‘moderately’ in
the NUP process, which has flow-on benefits for NUP implementation. Forty-four NUPs (51%)
have a platform for dialogue between national and sub-national governments in different NUP
stages.



In addition to sub-national governments, many countries are taking innovative measures toengage non-governmental stakeholders (urban residents, civil society, academia, the private
sector) in the NUP process. Forty-three out of 66 countries (65%) have introduced special
measures to ensure that their NUP is sensitive to vulnerable urban populations.

Out of 48 responding countries with a NUP in the implementation stage or beyond, 26 countries(54%) consider insufficient financial and human resources to be two major NUP implementation
challenges. This echoes the findings of the first edition of the global monitoring in 2018. Anothermajor challenge is a lack of co-ordination caused by policy siloes and institutional fragmentation(23 countries, 48%).



Of 48 surveyed countries, 32 (67%) reported that the most important source of financing NUP
implementation is national government investment. They also recognise the need to mobilise
diverse sources of financing, including national-sub-national co-financing (20 countries, 42%),
public-private partnerships (12 countries, 25%) and private financing (9 countries, 19%) andmobilisation of communities or co-operatives (6 countries, 13%).

Aligning policies among and across levels of government
The success of a NUP is determined by a range of factors throughout the five stages of NUP (feasibility,
diagnosis, formulation, implementation and monitoring and evaluation). National and sub-national
governments, as well as their implementing agencies, are facing a number of challenges hereinafter
analysed, including: aligning NUPs with other sectoral policies across government; determining the rightlevels of engagement with different stakeholder groups and at what stage of the process; and bridging thefunding gap. This section examines alignment and co-ordination mechanisms among and across national,
regional and local governments.

Horizontal co-ordination at the national level
Most countries have formal alignment and co-ordination mechanisms between their NUPs and othersectoral policies with urban impacts at the national level (Figure 4.1). Out of 86 countries surveyed,
64 (74%) have deployed formal multi-ministerial platforms between the leading NUP ministry or agency
and relevant sectoral ministries. Twenty-six countries (30%) also reported formal bilateral co-ordination
mechanisms between the leading NUP ministry/agency and other ministries. Twenty-six countries (30%)
reported that co-ordination across sectoral ministries is either informal or ad-hoc.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 79
Several countries have longstanding experience with inter-ministerial co-ordination mechanisms for urban
matters. An example is the Inter-ministerial Commission for the City, Housing and Territory (COMICIVYT)
of Chile, which is led by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Planning and includes the Ministry of Interior
Security, General Secretariat of the Presidency, the Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism, andother line ministries in charge of social development such as public works, farming, mining, transport andtelecommunications, national assets, energy and environment. COMICIVYT has put special emphasis on
co-ordinating national efforts to improve citizens’ quality of life, in light of the need for co-ordinatedinvestments in public infrastructure as well as land-use planning. New Zealand’s Ministry of Housing and
Urban Development also uses cross-government mechanisms such as inter-agency working groups andcross-government agency management groups to develop and implement policies, including its NUP. In
Germany, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community and several other national
ministries convened within a cross-departmental policy with spatial focus on “Social City (Soziale Stadt)”
zones. Ghana has an operational Urban Advisory Platform that comprises all urban-related ministries,
departments and agencies, allowing urban stakeholders to evaluate the progress of programmes and seek
opportunities for partnerships as they arise.
A number of countries have recently introduced alignment and co-ordination mechanisms. Burkina Faso
established the National Development Planning Commission (CNPD) by Decree in June 2019. In
Kazakhstan, the council for the management of the Almaty agglomeration is being formed and intends toextend this experience to other urban agglomerations. Namibia established an Inter-institutional Task
Team under the leadership of the Ministry of Urban and Rural Development (MURD) to undertake the
National Urban Land Reform Programme. Nepal formed the Nepal National Urban Forum in December
2019, and the country’s umbrella Urban Development Act is soon going to take effect.
Ireland is currently in the early stages of forming an operations-focused urban forum/task force for eachof its five cities, reflecting the metropolitan area strategic plan. Each task force aims to include aco-ordinating and enabling function. The initiative is led by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local
Government (DHPLG).

Figure 4.1. Mechanisms to align NUP with sectoral policies at the national level, n = 86
Formal multi-sectoral platforms between the leading NUP
ministry/agency and relevant sectoral ministries/agencies

64

Formal bilateral co-ordination mechanisms between the leading
NUP ministry/agency and relevant sectoral ministries/agencies

26

Informal/ad-hoc co-ordination

26

Others

8

None

2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Note: data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were allowed to
select multiple responses.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

80 
Vertical coordination between national and sub-national governments
Most of the responding countries also have formal mechanisms for vertically aligning policies in the NUP
process. Out of 86 countries, 51 (59%) use legislation and regulatory mechanisms and 44 (51%) have aplatform of dialogue between national and sub-national governments in different NUP stages (Figure 4.2).
Some countries have developed a multi-sector, multi-level co-ordination mechanism, which engages bothnational sectoral ministries and sub-national governments, and in some cases also includes
non-governmental stakeholders:

Czechia created the National Permanent Conference in 2015 to serve as a high-levelcommunication platform. Different ministries, managing authorities, regions, cities and other
territorial partners participate. The main role of the conference is to address issues regarding theterritorial dimension of European funds as well as regional, urban and rural development aspects.
In addition, 13 Regional Permanent Conferences provide regular meetings for representatives ofregional, urban and local governments, economic and social partners and representatives of civilsociety in all Czech regions and provide inputs for the National Permanent Conference.

Israel also strives to facilitate vertical policy alignment. In September 2019, the Planning
Administration called for proposals to local authorities and regional planning bureaus to identify
and submit areas suitable for urban regeneration. Over 100 proposals from 70 local authorities
were submitted and will be assessed based on a set of quality-driven criteria, such as the project’s
location, its potential to impact on its surrounding area and to improve the public sphere, and theengagement of the local community and local authority. The selected areas will be re-planned
through policy documents, outline plans and strategic regeneration plans. The national government
finances the planning processes and provides professional guidance.

Zambia’s vertical alignment mechanisms are linked to the different stages of a NUP. During
diagnosis and formulation, the Ministry of Local Government held consultative meetings with local
authority representatives and provincial level institutions to align the NUP with sub-national policies
and programmes. During the implementation phase, the existing District and Provincial
Development Co-ordinating Committees ensure vertical policy alignment. The NUP proposes theestablishment of a NUP Implementation Unit, ensuring both vertical and horizontal policy
co-ordination and alignment, spearheading monitoring and evaluation, and building capacity,
including resource mobilisation for the implementation of activities.

Figure 4.2. Mechanisms for vertical policy alignment in the NUP process, n = 86
Legislation and regulation: Mandating the preparationof local plans that align with NUP objectives

51

A platform of dialogue between national and s
ubnational governments in different stages of NUP

44

Others

6

None

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were allowed to
select multiple responses.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 81
Horizontal co-ordination within and between urban areas
In 82 out of 86 countries (95%), NUPs include at least one mechanism for horizontal policy alignment
among local governments in and between urban areas. The two most common mechanisms are ‘formal
arrangement to ensure co-ordination among local governments in the urban area’ (47 countries out of 86,
or 55%) and ‘capacity building or technical assistance programmes for local government
policymakers/officials to facilitate co-ordination’ (42 countries, 49%). This is followed by ‘fiscal and financial
incentives from national government’ (28 countries, 33%), ‘monitoring and information sharing(e.g. comparable data across local governments) to facilitate co-ordination’ (21 countries, 25%) and‘informal, voluntary arrangements to facilitate co-ordination among the local governments in the urban
area’ (21 countries, 24%) (Figure 4.3).
Several countries have formal arrangements in place to align sub-national policies for urban matters. For
instance, Canada’s Metro Vancouver collaboratively plans for and delivers regional-scale services. It
regulates air quality and urban growth, manages a regional park system and provides affordable housing.
Metro Vancouver is a political body and corporate entity operating under provincial legislation and isgoverned by a board of directors comprised of elected officials from each local authority. In Latvia, theDevelopment Planning System Law mandates co-ordination for the drawing up of development and policy
planning documents; at the same time, five regional public bodies which are supervised by the Ministry ofEnvironment and Regional Development, ensure co-ordination of local municipalities’ interests underregional development strategies. There are also several associations representing local municipalities toensure co-ordination of priorities and investments among local governments, such as Latvian Associationof Local and Regional Governments, Latvian Large Cities Association, Association of Regional Centres,
Association of Coastal Municipalities, Association of Municipalities of Riga Metropolitan Area. Nigeria’s
NUDP provides for the establishment of a National Urban and Regional Commission at the national levelwith similar bodies at state and local government levels for overall co-ordination, although full
implementation of this provision has not yet occurred,
National fiscal incentives in Finland are linked to ‘MAL contracts’, which are joint municipal plans in major
city regions to integrate land use, infrastructure for new housing areas and sustainable transport. New
agreements are being negotiated for urban regions of Helsinki, Tampere, Turku and Oulu for 2020-31.
Ireland is providing a EUR 2 billion Urban Regeneration and Development Fund for a wide range of
projects, such as low carbon and climate resilient projects in an urban context. Mexico’s Metropolitan
Fund seeks to make an impact by investing in sustainable mobility, green-blue infrastructure, public space
and infrastructure for resilience, water and waste management. In addition, its Secretariat for Agrarian,Land and Urban Development (SEDATU) facilitates the signing of collaboration agreements in
74 metropolitan areas, facilitating joint planning and metropolitan governance.
Some countries prefer informal co-ordination mechanisms which build on one or more associations ofmunicipalities. Highlighting the strategic importance of its supra-municipal scale of action as an asset andstrategy for the delivery of its NUP, Brazil’s Public Consortium Law and Metropolis Status, and the National
System of Urban and Metropolitan Information (an instrument of its NUP), support consortiums, exchange,technical co-operation and joint actions for urban development.
Examples shared by various European countries, such as Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Serbia
and Ukraine, show that they have been active in enabling multiple horizontal policy-alignment mechanisms
within countries and across borders. For example, in Bulgaria, regional development councils have been
established to ensure horizontal co-ordination. The country’s regional integration plans are the basis forinvestment which are implemented through co-ordinated partnerships between several municipalities.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

82 

Figure 4.3. Mechanisms for horizontal policy alignment among local governments in and between
urban areas, n = 86
Formal arrangement (e.g. metropolitan planning authority)
to ensure co-ordination among local governments in the urban area

47

Capacity building/technical assistance programmes for
local government policymakers/officials to facilitate co-ordination

42

Fiscal and financial incentives from national government

28

Monitoring and information sharing (e.g. comparable
data across local governments) to facilitate co-ordination

21

Informal, voluntary arrangements to facilitate co-ordination among local
governments in the urban area (e.g. non-binding metropolitan council,
a cross-border policy co-ordinator)

21

Others

6

None

4
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Note: data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were allowed to
select multiple responses.

Working together with stakeholders
Engaging sub-national governments
This section examines the extent and means for engaging sub-national governments and othernon-governmental stakeholder groups in the NUP process. The analysis, based on the NUP country
survey, suggests that in most cases sub-national governments have been substantially engaged
throughout the NUP process (Figure 4.4). For example, 48 of 59 responding countries (81%) engage subnational governments extensively or moderately during the formulation process.

Figure 4.4. Engagement of sub-national governments in the NUP process, by level of attention andby stage of NUP development, n = 86
Extensive
Feasibility

23

Diagnosis

24

Formulation

25

Implementation

Moderate
27

10

17

23

11

21

18
0

16

21

20

Monitoring and evaluation

Low

17
20

7

11
30

40

50

60

70

Note: Not all countries provided answers to all the questions for this analysis. The number of responding countries also reflects the stages ofdevelopment of their NUPs. Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 83


In Australia, all City Deals involve engagement with sub-national governments, as they require apartnership between different levels of government in order to be agreed and delivered. Each City
Deal involves different types and levels of engagement.



In Brazil, currently in the formulation phase, the national municipal associations provide strong
representation of sub-national governments and participate at strategic times during theformulation process.

Chile established a multi-stakeholder National Council for Urban Development to monitor the
NUP’s implementation and support a holistic view to urban development through diverse
representatives from the central government, local governments, the private sector and civilsociety. They also established several regional councils for urban development, with a view tofostering place-based urban policymaking (Box 4.1).

France identified an extensive contribution of sub-national governments to the formulation phaseof the NUP. This was achieved through consultations with key stakeholders and actors in regional
and local urban policies, to define and prioritise the NUP objectives into a roadmap. This roadmap
was further strengthened by the commitments of sub-national governments and the private sector,
which were formalised into pacts.

One of the key outcomes of engagement with sub-national authorities in the formulation phase is better
prioritisation of different policy challenges, as reported by Estonia, Eswatini, Jordan, Netherlands,
Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Spain. They also reported that better prioritisation has led to concerted action
by some sub-national authorities to undertake aligned actions. In Ecuador, joint roadmaps and feedback
moments were developed not only for the NUP agenda, but also for parallel regulations. In Myanmar,
sub-national engagement led to more comprehensive and action-oriented results. In Poland, it led to amore precise, qualitative and coherent national policy document. In Spain, some regional governments
are preparing sub-national urban agendas that are aligned, both in their objectives and in their indicators,
with the Spanish Urban Agenda (also see Box 6.5).
Some countries have shared valuable lessons on the lack of sub-national engagement. In Peru, the lowlevel of participation of the sub-national governments in the elaboration of the ‘National Plan for Urban
Development Territory for All’ resulted in the municipalities not giving importance to the planning process,leaving real estate developers to set urban development patterns, and preventing the ministry from
exploiting synergies and articulating objectives with sub-national governments.

Box 4.1. Stakeholder engagement in Chile’s National and Regional Councils for Urban
Development
Chile’s National Council for Urban Development (CNDU) was created in parallel with its NUP, with theaim of monitoring its implementation, and at the same time to serve as an advisor and counsellor on
urban policy at the national level, developing initiatives and policy recommendations with a view oncontributing towards cities’ improvement and fostering residents’ quality of life.
The CNDU is composed of 31 representatives, including central and local government representatives,
the private sector, academia and civil society. The main tasks of the CNDU are:

Assess sectoral policies on issues that have relevant implications in the development of cities
and territories, making relevant proposals.

Enrich urban public policies to promote continuous improvement of Chilean cities.

Mediate and integrate the public, private, academic and social areas around the construction of
the city with a long-term view.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

84 


Advise the national government on the implementation of the five areas of the NUP; social
integration, economic development, environmental balance, identity and heritage,
institutionalisation and governance. This implies deepening and proposing reforms on
institutional, legal and functional dimensions.



Establish urban development council at the regional level, in order to ensure that regional views
are fully considered in the work of CNDU.

Contribute to the fulfilment of the international agreements that Chile has signed regarding: New
Urban Agenda, Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction and Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

The CNDU gathers different stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, allowing for an exchange ofexperience and knowledge and creating opportunities for work under a constant deliberation exercise
for research. The CNDU invites diverse research centres and academic institutions to generate
co-operation opportunities and agreements in order to reinforce and promote a local, regional andnational discussion agenda on urban issues.
Chile also created Regional Councils for Urban Development to promote the decentralisation process
required to foster urban policies with a place-based approach. This process began in 2019 in
two regions out of 17. Four regional councils have been implemented to date.
Regional councils for urban development aim to: i) advise regional authorities on urban development
issues; ii) enhance the co-ordination between the different regional urban actors; iii) enrich national andregional public policy proposals in urban matters; iv) collaborate on the definition of a vision for thedevelopment of regional cities with a coherent approach to the NUP; v) propose a regional perspective
for the implementation of the NUP; vi) establish a bridge of collaboration between this regional instanceand the CNDU. In this way, regional councils promote discussion and solutions, from a local perspective
and incorporate local actors which are better suited and more informed about each region’s reality.
Source: (OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance, 2020[1]).

The Global Taskforce-UCLG 2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda also
provides insights on sub-national government engagement in the NUP process (Box 4.2). The survey
analysed the participation of local and regional governments (LRGs) and local government associations(LGAs) in their countries’ NUPs. The result shows a somewhat different picture from that previously
discussed, based on the NUP country survey. Although the majority of the 89 respondents of the survey
confirmed that they recognise their NUPs, a quarter do not know whether a NUP exists or not in theircountries. This implies that local and regional governments in these countries do not feel sub-national
engagement as strongly. In addition, although a large majority of LRGs and LGAs contribute into the NUP
process, their participation is reported to be ‘moderate’ during feasibility and diagnosis phases (48% and
43% respectively). The result shows that the involvement of LRGs and LGAs decreases and remains low
after the formulation stage, implying that national governments should engage them in a more extensive
manner in the post-formulation stages to support more effective implementation, monitoring and evaluation
of NUPs.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 85

Box 4.2. The Global Taskforce-UCLG 2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030
AgendaIn 2020, the Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments and United Cities and Local
Government (UCLG) carried out a survey to understand the level of localisation of the SDGs aroundthe world. The survey was addressed at LRGs and LRAs from several world regions: Latin America,
Africa, Middle East and West Africa, North America, Eurasia and Asia-Pacific (Europe is not includedin this analysis). 89 participants (45 LGAs and 44 LRGs) responded.
The survey included three questions regarding NUPs in their countries.


The first question was whether the country has or is in the process of developing NUPs or
strategies. Sixty-nine% of the LGAs and 55% of the LRGs said their countries have NUPs, while
16% of both LGAs and LRGs replied that their countries do not have NUPs. A further 16 and
30% respectively said they do not know whether a NUP exists in their country.



Where a NUP was in place, a second question inquired whether LGAs had contributed to the
NUP process. The majority of LGAs (23) said they had contributed to the process, whereas 6
LGAs responded they had not.

When a NUP was in place and engagement at sub-national level confirmed, a third question
focused on the stage (from feasibility to evaluation) and level (low, moderate, extensive) at
which such a contribution was. According to the results, most LGAs were engaged at thefeasibility and diagnosis stage, while the level of engagement decreases at the formulation
stage and remains low after it.

Source: Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments and United Cities and Local Government (2020), Global Taskforce-UCLG
2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda.

Engaging non-governmental stakeholder groups
The NUP country survey also examined the extent to which three non-governmental stakeholder groups(civil society/community organisations, academia and research institutions, and the private sector) havebeen engaged in the NUP process (Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7).
During the diagnosis stage, 43 out of 72 responding countries (60%) have engaged civil society/community
organisation, 42 (58%) countries have engaged academia or research institutions, and 37 (51%) haveengaged the private sector, either extensively or moderately. During the formulation stage, 37 out of
68 countries (54%) reported either an extensive or moderate engagement with civil society/community
organisation/citizens, 35 (51%) with academia/research institutions, and 33 (49%) with the private sector.
Among the three non-governmental stakeholder groups, the analysis shows that the private sector is not
as engaged as the other stakeholder groups. For example, during the implementation stage, only 9 out of
47 responding countries (19%) have engaged the private sector extensively, compared withacademia/research institutions (13 out of 48 countries, 27%) and civil society/community organisations(12 out of 48 countries, 25%). The same trend is observed in all the NUP processes.
The data shows that the level of engagement is different across stages of NUP. Overall, while nongovernmental stakeholder groups are engaged relatively well during earlier stages (e.g. feasibility,
diagnosis and formulation), this is not the case during the monitoring and evaluation stage. Taking civilsociety/community organisation as an example, only 7 out of 48 countries (15%) engaged them extensively
during the monitoring and evaluation stage, compared with the feasibility (18 out of 67 countries, 27%),

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

86 
diagnosis (13 out of 63, 21%), formulation (13 out of 57, 23%) or the implementation stage (12 out of 48,
25%).
The NUP country survey provided a variety of practices engaging non-governmental stakeholder groups.
Paraguay extensively engaged all three non-governmental stakeholder groups during the formulation
phase by sharing the draft NUP document for feedback ahead of face-to-face meetings and virtual
discussions. The formulation of the NUP was also enriched by exchanges with academic experts andleaders of housing policy in different parts of the world, and discussion materials were made available
online. Mexico has engaged civil society and citizens through state forums organised in the cities of
Toluca, Pachuca and Mexico City throughout the development of its national development plan. In addition,
an inter- and multi- sectoral forum on “Sustainable Developmnent and Territory” was organised by the
Secretariat for Agrarian, Land and Urban Development (SEDATU) in collaboration with the Ministry ofEnvironmental Resources. In Zambia, the Ministry of Local Government engaged grassroots women’sorganisations and People’s Process on Housing and Poverty as part of a technical committee during thediagnosis and formulation stages of the NUP, in order to ensure the NUP process was fully inclusive.

Figure 4.5. Engagement of civil society and community organisations in the NUP process, by levelof attention and by stage of NUP development, n = 86
Extensive

Feasibility

Moderate

18

Diagnosis

13

Formulation

13

Implementation

12

Monitoring and evaluation

27

22

30

20

24

20

21

7
0

Low

15

15
10

25
20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Not all countries provided answers
to all the questions for this analysis. The number of responding countries also reflects the stages of development of their NUPs.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 87

Figure 4.6. Engagement of the private sector in the NUP process, by level of attention and by stageof NUP development, n = 86
Extensive

Feasibility

Moderate

14

Diagnosis

30

8Formulation

28

21

9

Monitoring and evaluation

23

29

12

Implementation

Low

25

19

4

19

15

0

27

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Not all countries provided answers
to all the questions for this analysis. The number of responding countries also reflects the stages of development of their NUPs.

Figure 4.7. Engagement of academia and research institutions in the NUP process, by level ofattention and stage of NUP development, n = 86
Extensive

Feasibility

Moderate

12

Diagnosis

Low

29

18

9

24

11

Formulation

13

Implementation

13

16

19

Monitoring and evaluation

12

18

16

0

22

10

20

15

30

40

50

60

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Not all countries provided answers
to all the questions for this analysis. The number of responding countries also reflects the stages of development of their NUPs.

The three most used means to ensure the participation of urban residents in the NUP process are: ‘formal
face-to-face consultation of relevant urban residents’ (29 countries out of 86, or 34%); ‘representation in
the NUP process’ (26 countries, 30%) (e.g. inviting key urban residents in a steering committee/expert
group meetings); and ‘open access to NUP documents and data to urban residents’ (25 countries, 29%).
This was followed by ‘online communication’, such as a web-based survey (20 countries, 23%).
13 countries (14%) use ‘co-creation’ such as inviting urban residents to be part of the formulation ormonitoring of NUPs (Figure 4.8).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

88 

Figure 4.8. Means of citizen engagement in the NUP process, n = 86
Formal face-to-face consultation with relevant urban residents

29

Representation in the NUP processes

26

Open access to NUP documents and data to urban residents

25

Online communication

20

Co-creation

13

None

12

Others

4
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Respondents were allowed to
select multiple responses.

Many countries shared their innovative initiatives to increase the participation of residents in the NUP
process and/or raise awareness and foster knowledge sharing:

Cabo Verde engaged non-governmental agents into a wider participatory process and submitted
a number of urban profiles for online public consultation to foster innovation in the delivery of its
NUP.



France created citizen councils within the National Framework of City Contracts, guaranteeing aspace in all steering bodies for citizen initiatives.



Germany has used pilot projects such as the Hansaforum in Munster to test new content andcreative methods for collaboration at different levels, with residents invited to take an active part inurban development at neighbourhood level. Germany also brings together 1 000 participantsannually at the NUP congress to discuss current issues and civil society projects.

Poland gathered 600 comments through consultations, including from city activists, individuals,
experts, academics and chambers of commerce.

Serbia invited students from faculties of architecture and geography to take part in co-creation
workshops as representatives of youth.

Thailand engaged representatives of communities and the general public from 77 provinces in the
NUP formulation process through open meetings where they provided their recommendations.



Costa Rica provided the entire population with free access to geospatial information, which in thelong run will promote greater engagement of citizens in urban policy and meeting the objectives of
their NUP.

Inclusion of vulnerable urban populations
Sixty-six countries provided information on the introduction of special measures during the NUP process
for vulnerable urban populations, and 43 countries (65%) have introduced special measures to ensure that
their NUP is sensitive to vulnerable urban populations (Figure 4.9) both at the process level(e.g. participation, consultation, engagement and evaluation) and in the NUP itself (e.g. guidelines topromote inclusion and participation in further urban programmes, objectives, funding, data). Particular
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 89
attention is paid to disabled people, the youth, the elderly and women, followed by slum dwellers and theurban poor. To a lesser degree, issues regarding children, minorities and migrants are included in NUP
processes. Some countries also mentioned the homeless, unemployed, internally displaced persons(IDPs), LGBTI people (lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender and intersex individuals) and people
living in areas more susceptible to disaster risk. A recurring theme was ‘social cohesion/inclusion’, and‘improving access to affordable housing’, ‘upgrading informal settlements’, ‘human rights’, ‘urban mobility’and ‘health services’ were most frequently mentioned.
The most common way to include vulnerable groups is ‘participation’, for example online or in national foraor special events in Bolivia, in urban consultations in Cuba, in public hearings in Kazakhstan, or inyouth/elderly focus group meetings in Thailand. This is followed by ‘consultation and engagement’ in one
or more phases of the NUP process, for example in the formulation and implementation stages in Ethiopia
and in the monitoring and evaluation stage in Sao Tome and Principe. In Mexico, various participatory
mechanisms were applied to generate inputs for the NUP, including a workshop for the incorporation of
the gender perspective.
In Nigeria, vulnerable populations were highly involved in the formulation process, including for instancethe internally displaced persons (IDPs), migrants, unemployed, slum dwellers, urban poor and youth.
Panama is revising its 2019 NUP ‘Política Nacional de Ordenamiento Territorial de Panamá’ because of
the original lack of citizen participation.

Figure 4.9. Special measures in NUP process for vulnerable urban populations, n = 66
Number and share of NUPs which include special measures in the NUP process to ensure NUP is sensitive tovulnerable urban populations
Yes

No

23
35%

43
65%

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Some countries combine measures related to vulnerable groups with other sectoral strategies. For
example, in Thailand, the NUP contains development guidelines and indicators related to specificvulnerable groups which are linked to other national plans for early childhood development, the elderly andpeople with disabilities.
An alternative is a spatial or place-based approach targeting neighbourhoods characterised by vulnerable
populations (e.g. informal settlements). This is often linked with the goal of reducing social and spatial
inequities within or across urban areas.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

90 


Colombia’s ‘Cities 4.0 Policy’ aims to comprehensively improve informal neighbourhoods andproposes different solutions for cities depending on the living conditions.



The key objective of France’s NUP is social cohesion and solidarity towards disadvantaged
suburban neighbourhoods and their inhabitants.

Germany’s ‘Soziale Stadt’ (Social City) programme focuses on disadvantaged areas on the basisthat vulnerable groups predominantly live in these areas and they will benefit from the spatiallytargeted urban development grants.



Italy uses a data-oriented target for poor neighbourhoods.



Malta seeks to integrate social facilities for vulnerable groups to improve access to public transport,
jobs and leisure space.

Increasing implementation capacity
Major implementation mechanisms
This section discusses key barriers, capacity and drivers for the implementation of NUPs. Four types of
implementation mechanisms are commonly and evenly used according to the country survey, namely
regulatory and legislative, institutional/collaborative partnerships, financial measures, and awarenessraising and capacity building. Twenty-seven out of 48 responding countries (56%) with a NUP in theimplementation stage or beyond use either “regulatory and legislative” or “financial” implementation
mechanisms. “Awareness raising/capacity building” are each used in 26 out of 48 (54%) NUPs in theimplementation stage or beyond, and “institutional/collaborative partnerships” are used by 25 out of 48(52%) (Figure 4.10).
Regulatory and legislative measures are key instruments for NUP implementation, often used to alignpolicies, both horizontally and vertically. In Bulgaria, the national Bulgarian Regional Development Act
mandates sub-national governments’ responsibility for the preparation of plans aligned with the country’s
NUP. Chile illustrated that its legislative frameworks, such as the Law on Land Market Transparency, theLaw on Contribution to Public Space, and an upcoming Law on Social and Urban Integration, have directly
supported the implementation of the NUP. In addition, “DOM online”, a digital platform which allows
municipal administrative procedures through the Internet, also supports the NUP implementation by
improving social integration in cities, with the promotion of social housing, balanced densification andmodernisation of ministerial management.
Financial measures included national budget lines, instruments and incentives, such as grant schemes in
Estonia and the fiscal incentive of EUR 500 million per year in France. In several European countries,
including Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia and Portugal, European Union funds and investments play a role. Cuba
finances local development projects through a levy of 1% of local economic product.
As for institutional and collaborative partnerships, Estonia, Senegal and Ukraine have inter-ministerial
bodies in charge of co-ordinating and monitoring NUP implementation. Other examples include the ‘Pactwith Neighbourhoods for All Businesses (PaQte)’ in France as part of an integrated approach to promoteeconomic activity and employment in neighbourhoods, the ‘State-Commune Territorial Cooperation
Agreements’, whereby inter-municipal agents have been hired in Luxembourg and the ‘Urban Partnership
Initiative’ in Poland.
Diverse measures for awareness raising and capacity building also exist, including through social media(Philippines, Turkey), guidelines for capacity development or policy training (Czechia, Ethiopia, Peru),
training in higher education and universities (Algeria, Ethiopia), publicly accessible interdisciplinary
knowledge (Germany), or online communication platforms such as ‘Fórum das Cidades’ in Portugal.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 91

Figure 4.10. Types of implementation mechanisms for NUPs, n = 48
NUPs in the implementation stage or beyond (47 NUPs)
Regulatory and legislative

27

Financial

27

Awareness raising/capacity building

26

Institutional/collaborative partnerships

25

Others

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Many countries, including Austria, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, Italy and Madagascar, reported that
implementing their NUPs depends on sub-national governments to a large extent. The most frequently
mentioned roles for sub-national entities are strategic, integrated and urban planning, and land use
regulation and planning, followed by infrastructure development, provision of public services,
environmental protection, public transport, co-ordination with other communities or municipalities, andhousing. In France, NUP ‘City Contracts’ engage departmental, regional, inter-communal and municipal
institutions and the civil society.

Implementation challenges for national governments
The NUP country survey examined challenges to NUP implementation faced by national governments(Figure 4.11). The most significant challenges to NUP implementation at the national level are ‘insufficienthuman resources’ (26 of 48 countries, or 54%), identified by countries such as Colombia, Finland,
Lebanon and Rwanda, and “insufficient financing resources (26 of 48 countries, or 54%). For instance,
rapid urbanisation and urban sprawl generate high financial and technical needs to manage emerging
towns, as illustrated by Tanzania. In Czechia, the challenge may not necessarily be the lack of financial
resources per se, but the lack of flexibility in funding allocation to support local needs for sustainable urban
development. In Chile, a challenge is how to make sure that sectoral ministries, regional and local
governments mobilise their own resource to achieve the ambitious goals of the national urban development
policy (PNDU). The National Council of Urban Development (Box 4.1), through recommendations and a
dedicated fund, plays an important role in influencing investment decisions of sectoral ministries. However,mobilising key ministries is still a challenge given the council’s limited budget.
Twenty-three of 48 countries (48%) identified ‘policy siloes and institutional fragmentation’ as majorbottlenecks, which is consistent with the expectation that NUP should ultimately contribute to ‘improved
policy co-ordination across sectors’. In Austria, each region has its own strategies and instruments for
implementing a commonly adopted national policy, which raises co-ordination needs. Ghana reported
having multiple stakeholders with policy planning, management and operational responsibilities and an
institutional framework not adequately facilitating horizontal co-ordination for inter-sectoral policy
formulation. Nigeria mentioned the absence of an integrated approach to urban planning and

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

92 
development, with a siloed approach to policy formulation and implementation. In Portugal, horizontal
co-ordination is also challenged by the fact that national sectoral institutions and policies do not explicitly
take into account territorial and urban impacts.
Specific challenges reported by countries in terms of horizontal co-ordination include:Discontinuous political cycles and changes in the administration (Ecuador, Portugal).

A gap between political priorities and technical expertise on urban matters (Ecuador).

An awareness gap among technical actors and policy makers at all levels (Spain).



A lack of prioritisation of urban matters in the national agenda (Finland).

The locked-in patterns of existing urban form (low densities) and infrastructure (lack of public
transport) preventing the implementation of best practices for urban planning (Israel).



A lack of targets and indicators to measure and follow up on implementation (Norway).



Fragmentation of the responsibilities of various ministries with respect to cities, causing overlaps
at regulatory level and delaying programmes which execute public investments (Peru).



A lack of classification of urban areas preventing a more strategic and targeted intervention(Portugal).

Figure 4.11. Greatest challenges for NUP implementation at the national level, n = 48
NUPs in the implementation stage or beyond (48 NUPs)
Insufficient human resources

26

Insufficient financing resources

26

Policy siloes and institutional fragmentation

23

Lack of technical expertise

12

Lack of political will/policy continuity

8

Other

2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Implementation challenges for sub-national governments
The NUP country survey enquired about the challenges faced by sub-national governments as
implementation partners of NUPs. Similar to the challenges at the national level, insufficient financial
resources are the most significant challenge at local and regional level (26 countries of 48, or 54%),
followed by insufficient human resources (22 countries, 46%). In contrast, the lack of technical expertise(19 countries, 40%) tends to be more important at the sub-national level, followed by lack of political will
(11 countries, 23%), while the institutional challenges (i.e. overlapping/unfunded mandates, unclear
responsibility, policy inconsistency) are less common at those scales (8, or 17%) (Figure 4.12). Countries

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021 93stressed that there is a large diversity of conditions and challenges between sub-national governments,
with varying levels of capacity to raise revenues or train professional staff.
A number of countries highlighted challenges related to human and financial capacities at the sub-national
level. For example, as a result of the tax system in Israel, local authorities prioritise the development ofcommercial land uses over residential units, leading to unbalanced development both at regional and urban
scales. In Kazakhstan, despite the decentralisation of planning power enshrined in law in 2014, the‘functional decentralisation’ differs from one local authority to another depending on its capacity.
Sub-national governments in Nigeria play a key implementing role, despite insufficient financial allocation
to urban planning and the lack of required skills and expertise restricting their capacity. Portugal is going
through a comprehensive decentralisation of responsibilities from central to local governments in parallelwith a progressive metropolitan governance political agenda, which calls for the strengthening of capacities
and institutions responsible for urban planning, development and management at sub-national levels.
Portugal’s sovereign debt crisis and subsequent intervention had an impact on both local budgets andcurrent expenses.
A lack of technical expertise at the sub-national level is common to many countries. In Ethiopia, there isa lack of skilled professionals to manage emerging urban issues; Italy has poor sub-national capacity to
implement public infrastructure investment, resulting in delays; Nigeria faces gaps in relation to datacollection, analysis and innovative technologies; Portugal often hires private consultants for policy
processes and reports a sub-optimal engagement and knowledge transfer to improve public sector
capacities.
Challenges related to the lack of political will and/or policy continuity are prominent in Thailand where
newly elected mayors tend to change the policy direction of a city, as is the case in many countries. In
Turkey, policy continuity is hindered by deficiencies in the technical, administrative and financial capacitiesof the municipal administrations.

Figure 4.12. Greatest challenges for NUP implementation at the sub-national level, n = 48
NUPs in the implementation stage or beyond (48 NUPs)
Insufficient financial resources

26

Insufficient human resources22

Lack of technical expertise

19

Lack of political will/policy continuity

11

Overlapping/unfunded mandates, unclear responsibility
and/or policy inconsistency with the national level

8

Other

2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Financing NUP implementation
The NUP country survey shows that the principal source of financing for NUP implementation is national
government investment (32 of 48 countries, or 67%), followed by co-financing between national andsub-national governments (20, or 42 %) and sub-national government investment (17, or 35%).
International donor financing is also a common source of financing (16, or 33%). Public-private

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

94 
partnerships (12, or 25%), private financing (9, or 19%) and the mobilisation of communities andco-operatives (6, or 13%) are less popular means of financing (Figure 4.13).

Figure 4.13. Sources of financing for NUP implementation, n = 48
NUPs in the implementation stage or beyond (48 NUPs)
National government investment

32

Co-financing between national and subnational governments

20

Subnational government investment

17

Support from international donors

16

Public private partnership

12

Mobilising private financing (e.g. domestic banks)

9

Mobilising communities/co-operatives

6

Others

4
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Looking at regional variation, national government investment and co-financing between national and subnational governments are particularly common in Europe and North America, used by 14 countries (56%)
and 13 countries (52%), respectively. In Africa, while national government investment is the most common
source of financing (8 out of 10 countries, or 80%), international donor funding and public-private
partnerships are also widely used (7 countries each, 70%) (Figure 4.14).

Figure 4.14. Sources of financing for NUP implementation, regional data, n = 48
NUPs in the implementation stage or beyond (48 NUPs)
National government investment
Subnational government investment
Mobilising private financing (e.g. domestic banks)

Co-financing between national and subnational governments
Support from international donors
Public private partnership
Mobilising communities/co-operatives
Others

16

14

14

13

12
10

8

8

8
6

7

4 4

4

2

2
0

7

Africa(n=10)

3

6
3

1

1
Arab States
(n=3)

6 6

2 2

5
3

1 1

Asia and the Pacific
(n=8)

2

Europe and North America(n=25)

2

1
Latin America and the
Caribbean(n=3)

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 95
Some country specific examples of NUPs financing mechanisms include:In Chile, the main source of funding is the national government (from the Ministries of Housing and
Urbanism; and of Public Works), including the National Regional Development Fund, dedicated toproviding funding to regions for the implementation of urban policies.

In Colombia, the diagnostic work on urban policy pointed to the opportunity and necessity ofincreasing local governments’ own revenue sources, through such instruments as land-value
capture and cadastre upgrading. The role of the national government consists of bringing technicalassistance to help localities develop and implement such instruments.



Ethiopia’s co-financing mechanism aims to support selected secondary cities based on theirperformance.



In France, city contracts (contrats de villes), which engage national and local stakeholders, entail
pooling of financial resources to better support multi-level governance and ensure a successful
co-ordinated NUP implementation.



In Germany, urban development grants are co-financed; 1/3 each from national, state andmunicipal level, while the NUP is financed by national level.

Portugal’s ‘ClimAdaPT Local Project’ is a NUP-relevant blended finance mechanism supported by
the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism (EEA Grants), financed and managed by
Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, in addition to support from the ‘Fundo Português de Carbono’.

Private funding is a major resource in Algeria in order to reduce the pressure on the state budget.
This occurs on the one hand by developing diversified financing mechanisms (e.g., diversified andadapted banking products, savings, real estate management products from public property, etc.)
and on the other hand, by strengthening the role of companies with a view to developing the
mortgage market. This reflects that housing is a priority area of the Algerian Government, inparticular the social issue of ‘access for all to decent and affordable housing’.



In Peru, the ‘Works for Taxes’ mechanism is an example of PPP, promoting the execution of priority
public investment projects that have a regional and local impact. It allows private companies tofinance and execute public investment projects, subsidised from their income tax, by signing a legal
agreement with a public entity. The private company can gain compliance and receive a certificate
issued by the Public Treasury, for the amount of the corresponding investment, which will be used
to pay the income tax.

Measuring enabling environment for cities
Since NUPs are situated within a broader national institutional environment for urban management, othernational enabling factors have an important influence on the capacity for sub-national governments tomanage cities effectively. Twelve such factors were identified by the City Enabling Environment (CEE)
Rating initiative, led by the Cities Alliance, United Cities and Local Governments Africa (UCLGA) andUnited Cities and Local Government Asia Pacific (UCLG-ASPAC) (Box 4.3).
The CEE initiative identified and monitored gaps in institutional frameworks that affect sub-national
governments in Africa as well as in the Asia and the Pacific region, particularly in the implementation of
the SDGs and the New Urban Agenda through three assessments of African countries (2012, 2015, 2018)
and one in Asia and the Pacific in 2017. The results indicate that the enabling environment has improvedin African countries overall, although still “unfavorable” in select countries. Moreover, “citizen participation”,“transparency” and “financial transfers from central to local government” contribute the most in the
improvement of the enabling environment. At the same time, “local government own revenue” and “urban
strategy” received the lowest scores in the 12 factors. This suggests countries should increase theresources and their implication into the development of urban strategy, which play an important role in the
population’s satisfaction.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

96 

Box 4.3. City Enabling Environment (CEE) Rating initiative
The CEE Rating initiative investigated 12 factors through four regional assessments: i) constitutionalframework; ii) legislative framework; iii) local democracy; iv) financial transfers from the central
government to local government; v) own revenues; vi) capacity building of local government
administrations; vii) transparency; viii) citizen participation; ix) local government performance; x) urban
strategy; xi) gender equality; xii) climate change.
The initiative assigned a rating to the quality of provisions for each factor in each country, based on an
in-depth qualitative assessment. It helps countries to draw lessons from each other, stimulate dialogue
between ministers, mayors and development partners on the state of decentralisation and build
consensus on institutional reforms to implement. The ‘urban strategy’ factor is most relevant to thecontext of NUPs, and the CEE has rated urban strategy by assessing if a “clear national urban strategy
exists, along with the financial and technical arrangements and capacities necessary to implement it”.
Until today, three assessments of African countries (2012, 2015, 2018) and one assessment in Asiaand the Pacific in 2017 have been conducted.
The 2018 Africa report demonstrated that, overall, the enabling environments have improved, with 35 of
53 countries increasing their rating score between 2012 and 2018 (UCLGA/Cities Alliance, 2018[2]).
However, most African countries still had an enabling environment rated as either ‘unfavourable’(13 countries) or ‘requiring major reform’ (21). Only four countries received the highest rating of‘favourable’ and a further 12 ‘somewhat favourable’. Although the overall ratings increased, there werevariations between regions: e.g. East African countries improved their average score by 45%, whilecentral African countries only by 3%. The indicators which contributed most to the improvement of theenabling environment in Africa were ‘citizen participation’ and ‘financial transfers from central to local
governments’. The strong improvement of these categories is a positive reflection of the political will to
support decentralisation. It is concerning however, that the second lowest improvement is in ‘urban
strategy’, as it was three years after the adoption of the New Urban Agenda that recommended member
states, including African countries, to adopt NUPs to meet the challenges of a primarily urbanising world.
In the 2018 Asia and the Pacific report, 13 out of 28 countries were assessed as ‘very high performing’in terms of their enabling environments, 12 as ‘high performing’, 2 as ‘moderately performing’ and 1 as‘lesser performing’. The highest scoring criteria across all countries were ‘transparency’ and ‘citizen
participation’, while the lowest scoring were ‘local government own revenue’ and ‘urban strategy’. Again,
the poor performance of urban strategy shows that many countries had urban strategies that were either
poorly conceived or were not accompanied with appropriate resources to support implementation.
The findings of the CEE rating initiative point to many opportunities for governments at all levels tostrengthen enabling environments for cities in African and Asia-Pacific countries. This assists countries
to make the necessary improvements to meet the urban management-related targets of the SDGs andother global agendas. The next edition of the CEE Rating for African countries will be delivered in 2022.
Source: UCLGA/Cities Alliance (2018), Assessing the Institutional Environment of Local Governments in Africa: 3rd Edition,
https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/assessing-institutional-environment-local-0;
UCLGASPAC/Cities Alliance (2018), City Enabling Environment Rating: Assessment of the Countries in Asia and the Pacific,
https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-alliance-knowledge/city-enabling-environment-rating-assessment.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 97Ways forward
The chapter identified a number of factors for national governments to take into consideration to ensure
the success of their NUPs. A key factor is aligning and co-ordinating NUPs with other sectoral policies,
horizontally across ministries and vertically between different levels of government. To that effect, a vast
majority of countries use formal mechanisms, such as use of legislation and regulatory mechanisms orinformal voluntary arrangements. There are various methods to achieving policy alignment, and the best
approach will depend on the local national and sub-national context and institutional structure. Regardlessof how national governments approach policy alignment with NUPs, it is important that they first set out todo so.
National governments facilitate different levels of engagement with sub-national governments andstakeholder groups across the NUP process. A majority of countries do engage sub-national governments,
either ‘extensively’ or ‘moderately, throughout the NUP process. When formulating NUP, strong
sub-national and stakeholder engagement is likely to lead to better policy prioritisation in the NUP, as wellas having the flow-on benefit of sub-national governments taking greater effort to align their urban actions
and agendas with the NUP. The levels of engagement of non-governmental stakeholders is lower thanthat of sub-national governments, which may reflect the related financial and resource constraints.
However, there are significant benefits to increasing the engagement of civil society and community
organisations in the diagnosis and formulation stages to ensure an inclusive NUP process through‘participation’, ‘consultation’, ‘engagement’ and ‘representation’. This, in turn, can lead to policy outcomesthat clearly respond to the needs of vulnerable populations, such as the upgrading of informal settlements,
affordable housing, urban mobility and improved health services. A key lesson is that an effective
participatory approach will require the engagement of sub-national government and other stakeholder
groups throughout the NUP process, not only at a single stage such as formation.
National governments resort to a wide range of mechanisms for NUP implementation, including a
combination of regulatory and legislative instruments such as laws; partnerships and agreements between
institutions; financial measures and incentives; awareness raising and capacity building. National
governments face various implementation challenges; the most prevalent is insufficient financial resources.
Horizontal co-ordination challenges are also common, caused by policy siloes and institutional
fragmentation whereby national sectoral institutions fail to effectively define responsibilities and integrate
their plans and actions. In most countries, NUP implementation is dependent on the role of sub-national
governments. Sub-national governments are typically needed to enact the NUP through strategic urban
and land-use planning, as well as local infrastructure, housing, environmental protection actions and public
services. But in most cases, sub-national levels lack the human resources and technical expertise for suchan implementation.
These findings indicate two recommendations going forward:Engage local and regional authorities, and stakeholder groups in the design, implementationand monitoring of NUP, involving all segments of society to address the needs of the mostvulnerable, such as women, the elderly, youth, the disabled, migrants and minorities.

Consider varied sources of finance to support the implementation of NUP, including nationalsubnational co-financing arrangements, public-private partnerships, private financing andinitiatives led by communities or co-operatives. Governments can consider options to address thefinancial resources challenge during implementation of NUPs. While the most common sources offinancing are national government investment, co-financing arrangements with sub-national
governments are increasingly being used. Non-governmental sources of financing are also
commonly available and can reduce pressures on state budgets. Many countries benefit frominternational donor funding, including EU instruments, the World Bank and United Nations funding

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

98 
and technical assistance. Other sources with strong potential include public-private partnerships,
private financing and the mobilisation of communities or co-operatives.

References
Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments and United Cities and Local Government(2020), Global Taskforce-UCLG 2020 survey on the localisation of the SDGs and the 2030
Agenda.

[4]

OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

[1]

UCLGA/Cities Alliance (2018), Assessing the Institutional Environment of Local Governments in
Africa: 3rd Edition, https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/cities-allianceknowledge/assessing-institutional-environment-local-0.

[2]

UCLG-ASPAC/Cities Alliance (2018), City Enabling Environment Rating: Assessment of theCountries in Asia and the Pacific, https://www.citiesalliance.org/resources/publications/citiesalliance-knowledge/city-enabling-environment-rating-assessment.

[3]

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 99

5 Data, monitoring and evaluation of
NUP

This chapter explores how countries collect data and use monitoring andevaluation to improve the national urban policy (NUP) process. It examines
data sources used in the NUP process, types of NUP monitoring andevaluation frameworks, as well as how the results are used. The chapter
also discusses effective design of NUP monitoring and evaluation
frameworks, including aligning NUP targets and indicators with the
Sustainable Development Goals and other global indicators. Finally, thechapter presents selected internatioanl initiatives to address demand forurban-scale data and develop a more robust and internationally comparable
framework.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

100 

Key findingsCountries primarily use data obtained or produced at national level by the statistical office(66 out of 86 countries, or 77%), by relevant ministries or agencies (54 countries, 63%) or by
the lead NUP ministry or agency (53 countries, 62%). A majority (48 countries, 58%) use datafrom research institutes, signalling an important synergy between policymakers and academia.



Bottom-up processes for data collection could be improved, with only 34 countries (40%) using
data from sub-national governments and 29 countries (34%) from the private sector.

Countries use diverse frameworks to monitor and evaluate their NUP. Policy dialogues andworkshops are the most common mechanism (40 countries, 59%), followed by progress reports(33 countries, 48%) and specific targets and indicators (26 countries, 38%).



NUP monitoring and evaluation can help countries revisit their NUP (38 countries, 56%),
improve multi-level co-ordination (32 countries, 47%) and allocate budget and invest in support
of NUP implementation (27 countries, 40%). 21 countries (31%) indicate that NUP monitoringand evaluation are part of their SDG monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

To address demand for urban-scale data, international organisations are developing a morerobust and internationally comparable framework to measure the degree of urbanisation, also
relevant to NUP monitoring and evaluation.

Data in the NUP process
Data is essential to drive evidence-based policy making, and the national urban policy (NUP) process is
no exception. This chapter investigates how countries use data, and which types of data, in the NUP
process (Figure 5.1). Unsurprisingly, most data are obtained from the national government: 66 countries(77%) report using national census data or data produced by the national statistical office, 54 (63%) use
data obtained from relevant ministries and agencies, 53 (62%) use data produced by the lead NUP
ministries and agencies.
Forty-eight countries (56%) use data from academia and research centres, highlighting an important areaof synergy between policymakers and academic experts. Additionally, geographic information systems(GIS) and maps are used in 47 countries (55%), reflecting the importance of understanding context-specificfactors that facilitate place-based policy making.
Bottom-up processes involving the collection of data from either sub-national governments or from theprivate sector and other stakeholders (e.g. market surveys, community-led data) are addressed
respectively by 34 (40%) and 29 (34%) countries. While direct use of bottom-up data could be scaled up
in NUP processes in general, some countries do have sophisticated national-level data collection systems
that incorporate data from bottom-up processes. These report the data as issuing from the national
statistical office, which may explain the relatively low share of data use from sub-national governments
and private sector/other stakeholders. In either case, lead NUP ministries should engage in regulardialogue with local governments to ensure the latest data and information is reflected, especially when
formulating/revising NUP processes. Data from social media is used by only 10 countries (12%), which
could reflect the fact that such data may not always be relevant or that there may be privacy and credibility
concerns surrounding its use.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 101Figure 5.1. Data sources used in the NUP process, n = 86
National census/data obtained from national statistical office

66

Data obtained from relevant ministries/agencies

54

Data produced by the lead NUP ministries/agencies

53

Data obtained from academia/research institutes

48

GIS and maps

47

Data obtained from subnational governments

34

Data obtained from the private sector and other stakeholders

29

Social media

10

Others

4
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Types of monitoring and evaluation frameworks
Countries use varied frameworks to monitor and evaluate their NUP (Figure 5.2). Most frequent were“dialogues, workshops and conferences to discuss NUP performance with sub-national governments andstakeholders”, reported by 40 (59%) of the 68 countries with NUP in or beyond the formulation stage. Thiswas followed by “publication of progress reports” (33 countries, 48%), “reporting to legislative assemblies”(27 countries, 40%) and “development and use of targets and indicators” (26 countries, 38%). Over aquarter of countries (21 countries, 31%) indicate that NUP monitoring and evaluation frameworks are partof their Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) monitoring and evaluation frameworks (e.g. voluntary
national review), while only 15 countries (22%) use third-party monitoring and evaluation (e.g. from a courtof audit or academic review). Given the expected role of NUP in achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and the New Urban Agenda (Chapter 6), countries could make more effort to align NUP
monitoring and evaluation frameworks with global agendas.
In France, the National Observatory on Urban Policy monitors and assesses inequalities anddevelopment gaps in priority neighbourhoods. The observatory also contributes to the evaluationof policies in the priority neighbourhoods. It prepares an annual report for parliament andgovernment. The 2018 report focused on local employment and economic development.



In Turkey, the national government uses biannual municipal surveys containing selected indicators
to measure progress on NUP at the local level. The government produces biannual activity reports
to measure progress at the national level. These are submitted to the Monitoring and Steering
Committee. and published online for the public.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

102 

Figure 5.2. Types of NUP monitoring and evaluation frameworks, n = 68
Dialogues, workshops and conferences to discuss NUP performancewith subnational governments and stakeholders

40

Publication of progress reports

33

Reporting to legislative assemblies

27

Development and use of targets and indicators

26

Part of SDG monitoring and evaluation framework

21

Third party monitoring and evaluations

15

Others

6
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Note: Note: data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. The survey question aimed
at NUPs in the “formulation stage” or beyond (i.e. not in “diagnosis” or “feasibility” stages), hence the results cover 68 countries instead of 86.

Designing NUP monitoring and evaluation to serve broader purposes
Successful formulation, implementation and review of NUP depends on the quality and credibility of themonitoring and evaluation systems in place. The NUP country survey examined how countries use orintend to use the results of monitoring and evaluation of their NUP (Figure 5.3). Many countries employ
the results of monitoring and evaluation to revise their current NUP (38 NUPs, 56%) or to improve multigovernance co-ordination (32 countries, 47%). Thirty countries (44%) disseminate the results to relevant
legislative bodies, sub-national governments and stakeholders, while 27 countries (40%) use the results
to improve budget allocation and investments supporting NUP implementation.
The results illustrate potential to use NUP monitoring and evaluation for wider purposes, including multilevel dialogues, awareness raising, budget allocation and investment decisions. In addition, although only
19 countries (28%) use the results of monitoring and evaluation to contribute to SDG monitoring
frameworks, such as voluntary national reviews, aligning NUP monitoring and evaluation frameworks with
SDGs and other domestic policy frameworks would be key for effectiveness (Chapter 6).

Developing a more robust urban monitoring framework
As discussed, more than a third of countries surveyed (26 out of 68, or 38%) use a goals, targets andcorresponding indicators within their NUP monitoring and evaluation frameworks (Figure 5.2). However,data and evidence at the urban scale is not always available, which makes quantitative assessment of
NUP impacts difficult. The NUP country survey shows few countries reporting that their NUPs are groundedin “robust urban-scale data” (Chapter 3). The lack of urban-scale data is also highlighted in monitoring theSDGs, for which several indicators should be collected from cities or urban areas. To address demand forurban-scale data, international organisations are developing a more robust and internationally comparable
framework to measure the degree of urbanisation, also relevant to NUP monitoring and evaluation.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 103Figure 5.3. Intended use of monitoring and evaluation of NUPs, n = 68
Used for revising the current NUP

38

Used to improve multi-governance co-ordination mechanisms

32

Disseminated to relevant legislative bodies, subnational governments andstakeholders

30

Used for improving budget allocation and investments supporting NUP
implementation

28

Contributed to SDG monitoring framework (e.g. voluntary national reviews)

19

None

3

Other

2
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Note: Note: data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. The survey question aimed
at NUPs in the “formulation stage” or beyond (i.e. not in “diagnosis” or “feasibility” stages), hence the results cover 68 countries instead of 86.

Applying a harmonised definition of cities, rural and urban areas
Monitoring global agendas requires internationally harmonised indicators for cities, urban and rural areas.
For example, the Global Monitoring Framework of the SDGs includes several indicators that should becollected for cities or rural and urban areas. However, in the absence of an international harmonised
framework, indicators rely on national definitions that vary and thus limit international comparability (United
Nations Statistical Commission, 2020[1]).
Since 2016, six international organisations, namely the European Commission (EC), the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Labour Organization (ILO), theOECD, UN-Habitat and the World Bank, work together to develop a new method to delineate cities,
metropolitan, urban and rural areas for international statistical comparison. In March 2020, the United
Nations Statistical Commission endorsed the new method, called the Degree of Urbanisation. The Degreeof Urbanisation classifies the territory of a country into three groups along the urban-rural continuum: (1)cities, (2) towns and semi-dense areas, and (3) rural areas (Box 5.1). Applying the method will provide a
new perspective on the urban system of a country and allow comparisons of urban data across countries.

Box 5.1. A new definition of the degree of urbanisation
In March 2020, the 51st session of the United Nations Statistical Commission endorsed a new method
to delineate cities, urban and rural areas, called the Degree of Urbanisation. It includes two concepts
for defining cities and their surroundings: the Degree of Urbanisation and the Functional Urban Area.
The Degree of Urbanisation classifies the territory of a country into three groups – (1) cities, (2) towns
and semi-dense areas, and (3) rural areas – based on population density, population size and contiguity
using 1 km² grid cells. To delineate cities, first an urban centre (or a high-density cluster) is identified.
An urban centre consists of contiguous grid cells with a density of at least 1,500 inhabitants per km²
and with a population of at least 50,000. Local units (e.g. municipalities) classified as cities have at least
50% of their population in urban centres.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

104 
Applying the Degree of Urbanisation reveals that, as of 2015, almost half the world’s population (48%)
live in cities, a quarter (24%) in rural areas, and the remainder (28%) in towns and semi-dense areas.
The population living in cities is projected to reach 55% in 2050. The newly defined category “towns
and semi-dense areas” avoids the urban-rural dichotomy and captures the urban-rural continuum.
The new method also delineates functional urban areas (FUA), or metropolitan areas, by identifying
commuting zones around each city. This makes it possible to gauge cities beyond their administrative
boundaries in a comparable way across countries and assess their performance according to a set of
economic, social, environmental and institutional indicators. While the OECD in collaboration with theEuropean Commission introduced the concept of FUA in 2010 and applied it to OECD countries, the
new method extends it on a global scale.
The Degree of Urbanisation complements rather than replaces definitions used by national statisticalinstitutes and ministries. It is expected to help examine and monitor SDGs and other urban policy
agendas globally through internationally comparable data and statistics.
Source: OECD/European Commission (2020),
Cities in the World: A New Perspective on Urbanisation,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d0efcbda-en; United Nations Statistical Commission (2020), A recommendation on the method to delineate cities,
urban and rural areas for international statistical comparisons,https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/51st-session/documents/BG-Item3jRecommendation-E.pdf.

Selecting appropriate geographical scale for measuring policy impacts
Measuring policy impacts at the urban level requires selecting the appropriate scale of analysis. Dependingon the phenomenon under consideration, monitoring indicators at some geographical scales can be more
appropriate than others, encouraging different levels of granularity. While sub-national authorities measureoutcomes within the boundaries of their jurisdictions, it is often important from the NUP perspective toconsider the economic dynamic of contiguous local authorities that function as an integrated urban area.
Applying the concept of FUAs allows consideration of commuting flows, and thus reflects the full extent oflabour markets and other functional linkages (Box 5.1). The OECD Principles of Urban Policy, launched in
2019, also highlight the importance of applying the appropriate scale in designing and implementing urban
policy (Box 5.2).

Box 5.2. OECD Principles on Urban Policy
Building on 20 years of urban policy work, the OECD Principles on Urban Policy, adopted by all
OECD countries in March 2019, offer a framework to guide national and sub-national policymakers inbuilding smart, sustainable and inclusive cities in responsibility shared between the public, private andnon-profit sectors. The 11 principles are organised around the “3S” framework of scale, strategy andstakeholders:

Adapt to the scale where people live and work in real life, beyond administrative perimeters
drawn on a map.



Align all policy sectors that play a key role in cities – from economic development and education
to housing, transport and land use – into a coherent strategy.

Engage stakeholders from all segments of society to put people at the centre of urban policy.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 105
Under ‘scale’, three principles present the importance of targeting effective ambits for policy action:
Maximise the potential of cities of all sizes to advance national and global prosperity and wellbeing over time.



Adapt policy action to the place where people live and work.

Support interdependencies and co-operation between urban and rural areas.

The Principles were developed with diverse stakeholders, including international organisations(e.g. UN-Habitat, UNEP), development banks (e.g. World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank),
networks of cities and local governments (e.g. United Cities and Local Governments, ICLEI), research
institutes and academia (e.g. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy), and the private sector.
The OECD is developing an implementation toolkit including an urban repository and an assessment
framework.

Figure 5.4. OECD Principles on Urban Policy

Source: OECD (2019), OECD Principles on Urban Policy, http://www.oecd.org/cfe/Brochure-OECD-Principles-Urban-Policy.pdf.

Defining localised yet comparable indicator frameworks
To go beyond national averages and shed light on territorial disparities, many regions and cities define
place-specific NUP indicators. Still missing, however, is a consensual, comparable and standardisedframework to measure performance across regions and cities from an international comparative
perspective. To that end, the OECD’s localised SDGs indicator framework presents a useful approach. It
bridges this gap with consistent definitions and comparable indicators across regions and cities of OECDand selected partner countries (Box 5.3 and Chapter 6).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

106 

Box 5.3. Measuring cities’ and regions’ progress towards the SDGs
The OECD developed a framework to localise SDG targets and indicators and measure the progressof regions and cities towards each of the 17 SDGs. This consensual, comparable and standardisedframework benchmarks performance within countries, and across regions and cities to support public
action across levels of government.
In the context of OECD countries, at least 105 of the 169 underlying SDG targets were identified as
relevant for regions and cities. Indicators were then selected based on their applicability to the context
and specificities of OECD countries. The result is 105 SDG targets and 135 indicators for OECD regions
and cities (also referred as the Sub-national SDG Targets).
With its 135 indicators, the OECD’s localised SDG indicator framework allows 601 regions and649 cities (above 250 000 inhabitants) in OECD and partner countries to measure progress on the
SDGs. A web-based visualisation tool (www.oecd-local-sdgs.org) fosters peer learning and policy
dialogues across similar regions and cities. The framework also defines target “End Values” for 2030
(derived from either the United Nations framework, based on expert assessments, or the bestperforming cities and regions per OECD country), which allow regions and cities to assess where theystand and how much distance remains.
Analysis of the 649 cities shows that cities are performing relatively well regarding SDG 2 (food security
and agriculture), as 78 out of 111 cities (30%) with available data already reached the end value for2030. In contrast, SDG 13 (climate action) appears as the most challenging goal: only 11 out of
543 cities (2%) reached the end value (Figure 5.5). Localised indicators show that OECD cities’ path
towards the SDGs remains challenging, with 70% of cities or more not yet at end values for 2030 in
15 of the 17 SDGs.

Figure 5.5. Performance of cities in OECD countries on SDG 2 and SDG 13

Source: OECD (2020[2]), Measuring the Distance to the SDGs in Regions and Cities, https://www.oecd-local-sdgs.org/index.html.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 107

Ways forward
The analysis in this chapter indicates that countries primarily use national-level data for their NUP process(77%) alongside other valuable sources, including academia and research centres (58%), sub-national
governments (40%) and the private sector or other stakeholders (34%). There is room for ministries
engaged in NUP to diversify their data sources, in particular from local governments, to ensure NUP
processes reflect the latest data and information.
The chapter reveals that countries should consider scaling up the use of targets and indicators for morerobust monitoring and evaluation of NUP. Whereas countries monitor and evaluate NUP performance
primarily through policy dialogues, workshops and conferences (40 countries, 59%), a relatively low share(26 countries, 38%) report developing and using targets and indicators for NUP monitoring and evaluation.
Recent initiatives by international organisations to develop a more robust and internationally comparable
framework, for instance to measure the degree of urbanisation, are relevant and applicable to NUP
monitoring and evaluation.
Finally, this chapter highlighted that, beyond revising NUPs, countries use the results of NUP monitoringand evaluation to improve co-ordination between ministries and across levels of government (32 countries,47%). This illustrates the role of NUP in co-ordination within a country and confirms that NUP should not
be seen as an end in itself, but as a means to improve governance for sustainable urban development.
Going forward, countries should continue to invest in robust urban-scale data to design NUPs that
address place-based concerns, foster monitoring and evaluation, and facilitate evidence-based
stakeholder dialogue, accountability and integrity throughout the NUP process.

References
OECD (2020), A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis report,
OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715en.

[6]

OECD (2020), Measuring the Distance to the SDGs in Regions and Cities, OECD, Paris,
https://www.oecd-local-sdgs.org/index.html.

[2]

OECD (2019), OECD Principles on Urban Policy, OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs,
Regions and Cities, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/cfe/Brochure-OECD-Principles-UrbanPolicy.pdf.

[5]OECD/European Commission (2020), Cities in the World: A New Perspective on Urbanisation,
OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d0efcbda-en.

[4]

OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

[3]

United Nations Statistical Commission (2020), “A recommendation on the method to delineate
cities, urban and rural areas for international statistical comparisons, background document
for the 51st session, prepared by the European Commission, ILO, FAO, OECD, UN-Habitat
and World Bank”, https://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/51st-session/documents/BG-Item3jRecommendation-E.pdf.

[1]

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 109

6 Advancing the Sustainable

Development Goals and global
agendas through NUP

This chapter presents a new analysis of the links between national urban
policy (NUP) and the global urban-related agendas. It analyses how
countries recognise NUP’s potential to advance the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development (SDGs), the New Urban Agenda (NUA), the Paris
Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Since a
country’s NUP is now officially a part of the SDGs indicator framework(SDG 11.a.1), the chapter also measures how NUPs fulfil the criteria.
NUP’s potenital to advance the SDGs is measured not only for Goal 11 butother goals. Finally, the chapter discusses how to align and co-ordinate
between NUP and SDGs implementation from the perspectives of
institutions and monitoring frameworks.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

110 

Key findings

National urban policy (NUP) is largely considered as an important vehicle to implement global
urban agendas, in particular the SDGs (58 out of 86 countries, 67%) and the New Urban Agenda(52 countries, 60%), as well as regional agendas such as Urban Agenda for the European
Union, the New Leipzig Charter and the Africa Agenda 2063. Countries also clearly indicatedthat NUPs can help achieve the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework, reflecting thesignificant potential of cities to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to reduce disaster risks.

Besides SDG 11 on cities and communities, NUPs contribute most extensively to SDG 6 onclean water and sanitation (30 NUPs), SDG 9 on industry, infrastructure and innovation (29NUPs), SDG 13 on climate action (28 NUPs) and SDG 8 on decent work and economic growth(24 NUPs).



The fact that a country’s NUP is now officially a part of the SDGs indicator framework (SDG
11.a.1) will accelerate the development of NUPs in the coming years. Currently, 23 countries(40%) have NUPs which fulfil all the three ‘qualifiers’ of SDG 11.a.1, 31 countries (53%) reported
to meet two qualifiers, and 4 countries (7%) meet one qualifier. Overall, 30 countries havereported that either their NUPs or RDPs meet all the three qualifiers, thus fulfilling the SDG 11.a.

Among the three qualifiers, 54 NUPs (95%) were reported to fulfil the qualifier “balanced
territorial development”, while the qualifier “respond to population dynamics” was reported tohave been “fulfilled” by 53 NUPs (93%). The third qualifier, “increase local fiscal space” wasfulfilled only by 26 NUPs (46%), implying room for improvement.



Whereas in over half of the countries (53%) the NUP process is conducted by the same ministry
or agency that is responsible for the implementation of SDG 11, in 20% of countries such
implementation is undertaken by other ministries and government agencies, which presents aco-ordination challenge.

The role of NUP in advancing and localising global agendas
Urbanisation has long been recognised as a global priority challenge, especially within global agendas
developed over the past decade, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDGs); the
New Urban Agenda (NUA); the Paris Agreement; and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
This chapter discusses the link between NUPs and such global agendas, in particular the role of NUPs in
advancing their implementation in a shared responsibility approach across ministries, agencies and levelsof government. The chapter gives special attention to SDG 11.a.1, as related data provides a baseline tomeasure subsequent progress of NUPs in light of international agreements.

NUP and global agendas
Many countries recognise that NUP helps achieve global agendas with a strong urban focus. This isconsistent with the rapid urbanisation in many countries, and international frameworks increasingly
emphasising sustainable urban development. The top two global commitments to which NUPs are reported
to contribute are the SDGs (58 out of 86 countries, 67%) and the NUA (52 countries, 60%) (Figure 6.1).
Sixty percent of responding countries indicated their NUPs helped to implement both the SDGs and the
NUA, as compared to only 11% that indicated their NUP helped implement either of the two international
agendas. Indeed, implementing the NUA is expected to accelerate the implementation of the SDGs and
SDG 11 in particular, as the NUA details implementation of the urban dimension of the SDGs. The NUA
also stresses that its follow up and review must have effective linkages with the SDGs to ensure
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 111co-ordination and coherence in their implementation (United Nations, 2016[1]). In Cuba, NUP is specificallydesigned to implement the NUA and is also aligned with SDGs (Box 6.1).
Annex 6.A provides detailed information per country in terms of national governments’ commitment tothese agenda as a means to address local urbanisation through co-ordinated actions at local, national andglobal levels. Surveyed countries also recognise urban policies’ strong potential to advance the goals set
in these global agendas, such as ending poverty, protecting the environment, improving partnerships, andenhancing sustainable production and consumption.

Figure 6.1. NUP contributions to achieving global agendas that the NUPs help achieve, n = 86
70
60

58
52

50

46

40
29

30
20

14

10
0

The 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development

The New Urban Agenda

The Paris Agreement under theUnited Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change

The Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction

OthersNote: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Box 6.1. Aligning NUPs, the SDGs and NUA: The example of Cuba
The national urban policy of Cuba, the National Action Plan Cuba 2017-2036, is for the implementationof the NUA in Cuba and is also aligned with the SDGs. The action plan is a tool to implement the NUA
by orienting cities and human settlements in the country to the ideals of the NUA. It translates NUA
principles into a strategic plan of results and priority actions for Cuba to achieve positive impact for
Cubans. Beside implementing the NUA, the action plan constitutes a long-term plan to improve urban
and territorial development.
The action plan’s strategic framework is adapted to the priorities of provinces and municipalities. It also
proposes the development of compact urban structures, where the internal potential of cities ismaximised, vulnerabilities are reduced and extreme weather events are prepared for. It also contributes
to the strengthening of capacities and the formulation of instruments to implement the NUA. The plan
includes resources to implement environmental measures and actions to reduce vulnerability and adapt
to climate change, including areas of extreme flood danger, coastal edges and regulations to reduce
vulnerability in high-risk areas.
The action plan was prepared by the national and local authorities with the technical assistance of
UN-Habitat. The National Action Plan Cuba 2017-2036 received the Scroll of Honour from UN-Habitatin 2018 for its outstanding contributions to the development of human settlements and implementationof the NUA.
Source: OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

112 
More than half of the countries (46 countries, 53%) reported that NUP contributed to advancing the national
level commitments made under the Paris Agreement (Figure 6.1). NUP is aligned with the provisions andpriorities of the Paris Agreement in a range of countries, including Algeria, Armenia, Austria, Burkina
Faso, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iran, Jordan and Mexico, with special emphasis on efforts to combat
climate change in urban areas. This reflects the significant potential of cities to mitigate and adapt to climatechange through increasingly visible and ambitious urban climate action measures. Indeed, the importanceof engagement of all levels of government to effectively implement climate action is clearly recognised in
the Paris Agreement (Box 6.2).
Moreover, 29 countries (34%) also recognise the potential role that their NUPs can play to advance theSendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction by addressing urban vulnerability to disasters, including
climate change-related events (Figure 6.1). Other global agendas include the Addis Ababa Action Agenda(AAAA), which echoes the need to support local governments in their efforts to mobilise revenues toenhance inclusive sustainable urbanisation.

Box 6.2. Recognition of local actions in global agendas
Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development
In the means to implement Agenda 2030, a specific call is made for public institutions to “work closelyon implementation with regional and local authorities, sub-regional institutions, international institutions,academia, philanthropic organizations, volunteer groups” (United Nations, 2015[2]). Agenda 2030 also
underscores the key role of local authorities in scaling up action, effecting change and securing
sustainable human settlements (United Nations, 2015[2]). While the SDGs were not explicitly designedby or for local and regional governments – with the exception of SDG 11, dedicated to sustainable cities
and communities – they provide a universal ambition and valuable framework for all levels ofgovernment to align global, national and sub-national priorities within policies striving to leave no one
behind. This is particularly relevant as national averages often misrepresent realities in regions andcities, and they tend to mask large territorial disparities, compromising the SDGs’ premise of leaving no
one behind. OECD economic and well-being indicators at the sub-national level confirm that national
averages mask important within-country disparities. For example, while “fine particulate matter 2.5”
seems to have been achieved in Australia at the country level in 2017 (value lower than 10 micrograms
per cubic metre), four cities of Australia appear to be lagging behind in this indicator – the worst- city
being 5 micrograms per cubic metre above the suggested levels (OECD, 2020[3]). Moreover,
implementing Agenda 2030 requires cities’ and regions’ action in most SDGs given their policy
prerogative, role in public investment and closer connection to citizens.

Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement acknowledges that climate change is a common concern of humankind, and that
local communities – among other groups such as indigenous peoples, migrants and children – must be
properly engaged when taking action to address climate change (UNFCCC, 2015[4]). The Paris
Agreement specifically recognises the importance of engagement of all levels of government toeffectively implement climate action (Preamble §15), specifically highlighting their role with regard toadaptation, loss and damage and capacity building (Articles 7.2, 7.5, 8.4, 11.2).

Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030
The Sendai Framework underscores the importance of local action in great depth, beginning with its
emphasis that “international, regional, sub-regional and transboundary co-operation is pivotal in
supporting the efforts of states, their national and local authorities, as well as communities and

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 113businesses, to reduce disaster risk” (UNDRR, 2015[5]). The key target to “substantially increase thenumber of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020” (§18e) is
rendered more actionable at all levels of government with the recognition that “there is a need forfocused action within and across sectors by states at local, national, regional and global levels” (§20)
to achieve the framework’s priorities. The importance of local action is further embedded in three of theframework’s guiding principles:“Disaster risk reduction and management depends on co-ordination mechanisms within andacross sectors and with relevant stakeholders at all levels, and it requires the full engagementof all state institutions of an executive and legislative nature at national and local levels and aclear articulation of responsibilities […]” (§19e);“While the enabling, guiding and co-ordinating role of national and federal state governments
remain essential, it is necessary to empower local authorities and local communities to reduce
disaster risk, including through resources, incentives and decision-making responsibilities, as
appropriate” (§19f);

“While the drivers of disaster risk may be local, national, regional or global in scope, disasterrisks have local and specific characteristics that must be understood for the determination of
measures to reduce disaster risk” (§19i).

Source: United Nations (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org; OECD (2020), A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis report, OECD
Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en; UNFCCC (2015), The Paris Agreement,
https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf; UNDRR (2015), Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendaiframework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030.

The NUP country survey reveals interesting trends across the five global regions regarding recognition of
NUP to the four urban-related global agendas (Figure 6.2):
Regarding the SDGs, Arab States present the highest share of countries (6 out of 7 countries, or86%) recognising the role of NUPs, followed by Africa (11 out of 14 countries, 79%), Latin America
and the Caribbean (10 out of 14 countries, 71%), Asia and the Pacific (10 out of 15 countries, 67%)
and Europe and North America (21 out of 36 countries, 58%).

Regarding the NUA, a similar result was observed: countries in Africa and Arab States present
higher shares, with 79% (11 out of 14) and 71% (5 out of 7), respectively, followed by countries in
Latin America (57%), in Europe and North America (56%) and in Asia and the Pacific region (53%).

Regarding the Paris Agreement, the survey results indicate that all the seven respondents in ArabStates consider the Paris Agreement in their NUP, followed by countries in Asia and the Pacific(11 out of 15 countries, 73%), Africa (8 out of 14, 57%), Latin America and the Caribbean (7 out of
14, 50%), and Europe and North America (13 out of 36, 36%). This indicates increased awarenessof the role of NUPs, especially in Arab States and Asia and the Pacific, in implementing climatechange related actions within their urban areas, which may well reflect the environmental
sustainability and resilience challenges characterising both regions, including extensive urban
development along coastal zones and related flood-risks (UN-Habitat, 2018[6]). The result for Asiaand the Pacific is coherent with the fact that their NUPs overall gave stronger attention toenvironmental sustainability (77%) and climate resilience (55%) than NUPs in the other regions(see Figure 3.8).

The role of NUP to help achieve the Sendai Framework was found to be most prevalent in countries
in Latin America and the Caribbean (8 out of 14, 57%) and in Arab States (4 out of 7, 57%), followed

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

114 
by countries in Asia and the Pacific (7 out of 15, 47%), Africa (5 out of 14, 36%) and in Europe andNorth America (5 out of 36, 14%).

Figure 6.2. Share of NUPs that help achieve selected global agendas, per global region
2030 Agenda

The New Urban Agenda

Paris Agreement

Sendai Framework

%
100
90
80
70
60
50

40
30
20
10

0

Africa(n=14)

Arab States(n=7)

Asia and the Pacific(n=15)

Europe and North America(n=36)

Latin America and the
Caribbean (n=14)

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020, NUPs and regional agendas.

Countries also use NUP to implement regional agendas such as the Urban Agenda for the European Union(EU), the New Leipzig Charter and the Africa Agenda 2063. Countries that reported addressing the Urban
Agenda for the European Union in NUP include Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Netherlands,
Norway, Serbia, Slovak Republic and Slovenia. NUP can also support implementing the New Leipzig
Charter, adopted in November 2020, which provides a key policy framework document for sustainableurban development in Europe and guides the next phase of the Urban Agenda for the EU (Box 6.3). The
African Union’s Africa Agenda 2063 is a blueprint and master plan aiming to transform Africa into the global
powerhouse of the future. Burkina Faso, Ethiopia and Zambia had included the Africa Agenda 2063 intheir NUPs, particularly to support the implementation of its goal 4 on modern and liveable habitats in theface of increased urbanisation on the continent.

Box 6.3. The New Leipzig Charter
The New Leipzig Charter – the transformative power of cities for the common good – was adopted at
the Informal Ministerial Meetings organised on 30 November 2020 under EU German Presidency. It
provides a key policy framework document for sustainable urban development in Europe.
Building on the original 2007 Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, the New Leipzig Charter
highlights the fact that cities need to establish integrated and sustainable urban development strategies
and ensure their implementation for the city as a whole, from functional areas to neighbourhoods. It
outlines five key principles of good urban governance: i) urban policy for the common good, ii) integrated
approach, iii) participation and co-creation, iv) multi-level governance, and v) place-based approach. It
also puts forward three city dimensions – the just, the green and the productive city – complemented
by the cross-cutting dimension of digitalisation.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 115The New Leipzig Charter is also accompanied by an Implementing document which intends to guidethe next phase of the Urban Agenda for the EU according to renewed parameters.
Source: EC (2020[7]), New Leipzig Charter: The Transformative Power of Cities for the Common Good,
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/brochures/2020/new-leipzig-charter-the-transformative-power-of-cities-forthe-common-good.

Monitoring the progress of SDG 11.a through NUP
The SDG target 11.a aims to “support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban,
peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning”. In order tomonitor the progress of SDG 11.a, the newly revised indicator 11.a.1 states “number of countries that havenational urban policies or regional development plans that: (a) respond to population dynamics, (b) ensurebalanced territorial development, (c) increase local fiscal space” (Box 6.4). This section assesses whether
or not NUPs contain these elements, or ‘qualifiers’.
Results hereinafter analysed stem from a ‘self-reporting of countries, as part of the NUP country survey.
In the absence of methodological guidance to assess whether or not a country’s NUP or RDP actually‘responds to population dynamics’, ‘ensures balanced territorial development’ or ‘increases local fiscal
space’, the country survey information was treated at face value. Therefore, in addition to collecting
quantitative (i.e. yes/no) answers, the survey also asked countries to provide qualitative information
through brief explanations of their selection for each of the qualifiers.

Box 6.4. The three ‘qualifiers’ of the SDG 11.a.1 indicator
Respond to population dynamics
Policies and plans should respond to population dynamics. This qualifier examines how NUP addresses
population composition, trends and projections in achieving development goals and targets. Grounding
policies and plans in the most current and comprehensive spatial and demographic data and projections
is indeed a prerequisite for successful implementation. In most countries, the challenges posed by rapid
urbanisation stem from the fact that policy and planning framework and their implementation are
outpaced by population growth and having urban policy priorities that may not prioritise inclusive
development for current and future residents. This strains provision of infrastructure services andcreates socio-economic challenges and environmental damage.
Forecasting demographic trends and needs in the diagnostic phase of NUPs enables governments toplan for urbanisation, including provision of adequate land, infrastructure and services in a cost-efficientand less socially disruptive manner. Furthermore, the national data collection for urban policies andplans can provide the impetus to improve national data collection on urban areas, providing baselines
to monitor urban policies among other SDG indicators.

Ensure balanced territorial development
Policies and plans should ensure a spatially coherent territory that includes a balanced system of humansettlements, cities and towns along the urban, peri-urban and rural continuum, including addressing
social, economic, environmental and spatial disparities that may exist among them. NUPs should also
promote distinctive strengths and encourage beneficial territorial interactions for efficient andsustainable growth of the country. Such policy frameworks should strengthen and direct urban and rural

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

116 
flows towards the most sustainable patterns of production, consumption and equitable resource
distribution, as they can strike the balance between competition and solidarity between territories of acountry.

Increase local fiscal space“Fiscal space” is defined as the financing that is available to government as a result of concrete policy
actions for enhancing resource mobilization, and the reforms necessary to secure the enabling
governance, institutional and economic environment for these policy actions to be effective, for a
specified set of development objectives (UNDP, 2007[8]). Local fiscal space is understood as the sumof financial resources available for improved delivery of basic social and economic services at the local
level without any prejudice to the sustainability of a government’s financial position. As a third qualifier,increasing local fiscal space involves ensuring that sub-national and local governments have theadequate financial resources to carry out their responsibilities, including successful implementation ofpolicies and plans. As such, policies and plans should ensure that the transfer of competences from
central to local levels is accompanied by commensurate devolution of financial resources andautonomy. This includes enhancing their capacity to expand and diversify endogenous financial
resources and revenues and not to over rely on central transfers.
Source:UN-Habitat and UNFPA (2020), Metadata on SDGs Indicator 11.a.1 Indicator category: Tier III.,https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2021/01/metadata_on_sdg_indicator_11.a.1_06_2020.pdf; United Nations (2018), Tracking Progress
Towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements: SDG 11 Synthesis Report,
https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2019/05/sdg_11_synthesis_report_web2_0.pdf; UNDP (2007), Fiscal Space for What? Analytical
Issues from A Human Development Perspective, United Nations Development Programme.

According to the NUP country survey, 23 NUPs and 17 Regional Development Plans (RDPs) fulfil all thethree qualifiers, 31 NUPs and 20 RDPs met two of the qualifiers, and 4 NUPs and 6 RDPs meet only
one qualifier (Figure 6.3). Overall, 30 countries have reported that either their NUPs or RDPs meet all thethree qualifiers, thus fulfilling the SDG 11.a. The survey result for NUPs by country is found in the Annex
6.A of this report.

Figure 6.3. Number of NUPs and RDPs that fulfil SDG 11.a.1, by number of qualifiers, n = 58 (NUPs),n = 43 (RDPs)
1 qualifier

2 qualifiers

Number of qualifiers fulfilled by NUP

3 qualifiers
Number of qualifiers fulfilled by RDP

4
7%

6
14%

17
40%

23
40%

31
53%
20
46%

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 117
Among the three SDG 11.a.1 qualifiers, the first qualifier “ensure balanced territorial development” isreported as “fulfilled” by 54 NUPs (93%), and the second qualifier “respond to population dynamics” isreported as “fulfilled” by 55 NUPs (95%). Many countries reported that their NUP focused on either one or
two qualifiers. In contrast, the third qualifier “increase local fiscal space” was regarded as “fulfilled” by only
26 NUPs (45%) (Box 6.5). A similar trend was observed with RDPs. The first qualifier ‘respond to
population dynamic’ and the second qualifier ‘ensure balanced territorial development’ were reported as
fulfilled by 41 and 37 countries respectively, while the third qualifier “increase local fiscal space” wasreported as fulfilled only by 19 countries.

Figure 6.4. Number of NUPs and RDPs that fulfil the SDG 11.a.1, by type of qualifier, n = 58 (NUPs),n = 43 (RDPs)
NUP

60

RDP

55

54

50

41
37

40
30

26
19

20
10
0

“Respond to population dynamics”“Ensure balanced territorial development”“Increase local fiscal space”

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

The strong focus on “balanced territorial development”, in NUPs (55 countries) and RDPs (37 countries)
could be attributed to the fact that many NUPs and RDPs aim to ensure sustainable land consumption, a
key issue for countries undergoing urbanisation. In many countries, low density urban development andurban sprawl are characteristics of cities, locking in unsustainable land and other resource-use patterns.
The survey responses indicate that countries appreciate the importance of evaluating the impacts of
unplanned urban expansion on their cities and the value of NUPs as an instrument to address theassociated challenges.
Many NUPs (53) and RDPs (40) also consider “population dynamics”. This reflects the people centred
nature of NUPs and RDPs, and indicates that they help address challenges associated with urban
population growth and development trends. It also implies that countries recognise well that the majorityof people live and will continue to live in cities, and that urban policy needs will increase. NUPs that focus
on population dynamics are pro-people in their formulation and aim to ensure increased opportunities,
equity and freedom of choice for all without leaving anyone behind. They have targeted actions addressing
all age sets of the population and catering for their needs for infrastructure and services, reflecting the
projected demographic changes.
Finally, fewer NUPs (26) and RDPs (19) include “fiscal space”, suggesting that efforts are needed to makecountries have a clearer understanding of the third qualifier, its importance in sustainable urban
development and how it may be integrated in their NUPs and RDPs. Fiscal space is a critical element foreconomic, social and environmental investments in urban areas and a necessary ingredient for achieving

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

118 
the SDGs, as any cities’ abilities to create and sustain economic growth is enhanced or constrained by its
fiscal capacity. Urbanisation and expanding urban areas in most countries have increased demands for
public services, with principal revenue sources often not able to keep up with rapidly rising demands,
exposing them to fiscal pressures. On the other hand, they are also concerned that higher taxes to financethe increased demands may drive away and deter business investment, and create an additional burden
for urban residents. Effective NUPs can help strike the right balance to maximise public fiscal capacity andprovide incentives to raise and apportion revenue to address finance deficits for sustainable urban
development.
The result of the NUP survey presents many examples of how NUPs and RDPs have been integrating thethree qualifiers; one example is in improving financial accountability in countries such as Austria,
Germany and Sweden, where NUPs or RDPs have strong fiscal equalisation mechanisms as an indicatorof national commitment to preserve a balanced urban system. Furthermore, these countries indicated theunique catalytic role of development banks in improving fiscal space by supporting policy and institutional
reforms in partner countries, enhancing quality of urban programmes and advancing global agendas.
Further examples are presented in Box 6.5Box 6.5.

Box 6.5. Examples of how NUPs and RDPs have integrated the 3 qualifiers
Bulgaria (3 qualifiers): To ensure balanced development of Bulgarian regions and to overcome
negative demographic trends, the National Concept for Spatial Development (NCSD) and the country’s
regional development plan are based on regional socio-economic and demographic trends.
Furthermore, fiscal support and transfer for regions, cities and municipalities are stipulated, withpopulation as a main distribution criterion. NCSD recommends moderate polycentrism to ensure thebalanced territorial development of Bulgaria.
Costa Rica (3 qualifiers): The National Urban Development Policy 2018-30 (PNDU) for Costa Rica
promotes balanced territorial development by proposing a system of cities, and urban development
decisions based on the system. Key to the system is the articulation of a network of intermediate cities
to allow sharing and capitalise on the best experiences. Fiscal space is an important element, creating
tools to finance and manage urban development, including modifying the Urban Planning Law.
Specifically, it focuses on the importance of improving real estate tax and special contributions as thetwo main fiscal instruments.
Egypt (Qualifier 1 and 3): The 2015 National Urban Policy addresses rapid population growth and thecapacity of current and new cities to absorb the population growth. The future system of cities includedin the plan describes the potential of Egyptian cities and identifies priority urban cluster areas fordevelopment. Furthermore, the NUP promotes fiscal decentralisation and the boosting of local
revenues, e.g. through optimising land-based financial instruments.
Montenegro (Qualifiers 1 and 2): The Spatial Plan of Montenegro aims at achieving spatially balanced
and sustainable socio-economic development, as well as ensuring quality natural and living
environments. Furthermore, it defines new building zones, infrastructural upgrades and the amount ofutility charges and city rents to increase local fiscal space.
Slovenia (Qualifiers 1 and 2): Improving territorial cohesion for balanced regional and sustainable
development taking into consideration and use of endogenous spatial planning potentials (resources)
has been key aim of its NUP, the Slovenia Spatial Development Strategy. Territorial cohesion is basedon enhancing territorial effectiveness, connecting three dimensions of space - physical, economic, andsocial/cultural - and is inclusive and based on participatory processes.
Source: OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 119Linking the 17 SDGs through NUP
Although the 17 global SDGs have been agreed on by nations, national governments alone cannot achieve
the ambitious goals, as in many countries, cities and regions have core competencies for policy areas
underlying the SDGs such as water, housing, transport, infrastructure, land use or climate change. Indeed,at least 105 of the 169 targets underlying the 17 SDGs will not be reached without local and regional
governments (OECD, 2020[3]). In this context, NUP can help countries advance SDGs in urban areas,through the alignment of different sectoral policies and with the support of cities and residents.
Achieving sustainable development in cities also requires addressing myriad development challenges incities that need focusing on more than SDG 11. Hence, achieving SDG 11 and its targets has a clear effecton other SDGs and their targets, especially in urban areas. NUP has the potential to leverage the strong
nexus between the SDGs by promoting synergies and addressing trade-offs across SDGs.
In this context, this section discusses NUPs’ potential to linking the 17 SDGs and contributing to theachievement of the SDGs in an integrated manner. In urban areas, the success of the SDGs will largely
depend on how urbanisation is co-ordinated and managed, and the majority of the countries (58 out of 86)
reported that their NUPs help in achieving the SDGs. At a closer look, it is important to focus on the factthat the cross-sectoral and multi-faceted nature of NUPs would contribute to many other SDGs, beyond
SDG 11. As a place-based strategy, NUPs can not only set forth the long-term and integrated strategic
goals for urban areas, but can also link multiple policy sectors relevant in urban areas. For example, in the
NUP country survey, countries such as Costa Rica, Germany, Serbia and Zambia argued that achieving
urban sustainability requires integrated urban policies, and that effective integrated urban policies mustlink to other SDGs.
According to the responses to the NUP country survey, the top four SDGs that NUP can extensively
contribute to, aside from SDG 11, were SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation (31 countries), SDG 9 onindustry, infrastructure and innovation (30), SDG 13 on climate action (29) and SDG 8 on decent work andeconomic growth (25). When considering both extensive and moderate levels of contribution, SDG 13 had
the most NUP contributions (59 countries), followed by SDG 8 and SDG 9 (54) and SDG 3 on good healthand well-being (53) (Figures 6.5 and 6.6). The extensive focus of NUPs on SDGs 6, 9, 13 and 8 could be
attributed to the targets in these SDGs associated with the management of urbanisation. For instance,social development and economic prosperity in cities depends on the sustainable and inclusive access toand management of water and sanitation, including addressing its rising inequality (SDG 6). Access totechnologies and infrastructure are essential to accelerating productivity and addressing urban poverty
reduction (SDG 9). Well performing urban infrastructure not only transforms the quality of services, butalso promotes economic development by guaranteeing jobs and income (SDG 8). Urban policies thatearmark funding for sustainable transport can drive the low-carbon transition in cities (SDG 13).
Countries also provided examples of how their NUPs are relevant to different SDGs. In Armenia, a key
policy objective for the NUP is to provide urban settlements with fresh spring water, well-maintained
sanitation zones and sewer systems with treating plants. Bulgaria has introduced a special requirement
to include climate action measures in all the integrated territorial strategies of the regions and in the
integrated municipal development plans of the cities. In Israel, employment is a key focus area of their
Urban Strategic Plan for 2040, with the aim to promote an integrated vision for employment and industrial
areas, considering local, regional and national needs. The Planning Authority of Israel has also introduceda regulation making the Israeli Green Building Code mandatory throughout the country from March 2022
onwards.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

120 

Figure 6.5. Number of NUPs per level of contribution to other SDGs, n = 86
Extensive

Moderate

SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

31

20

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure30

24

SDG 13: Climate Action

29

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth25

SDG 10: Reduced Inequality

24

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

23

SDG 1: No Poverty

22

SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

20

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

20

SDG 5: Gender Equality

14

SDG 15: Life on Land

14

6
10

28

7

22

13
33

4

23

17
27

26

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

10

24

0

4

18

10

5

12

21

20
14
14

11

30
18

10

3

28

SDG 4: Quality Education

SDG2: Zero Hunger

4

29

11

6

6

30

SDG 16: Peace and Justice, Strong Institutions

SDG 14: Life Below Water

Low

24
20

30

40

50

60

70

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

In addition to the global overview of how countries see potential NUP contribution to SDGs other than
SDG 11, some notable regional variations for selected SDGs are observed.


SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation): According to the NUP country survey, 22 countries in Asia andthe Pacific, 20 in Africa, 20 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 6 in the Arab States reported
that their NUPs contribute to SDG 6 either extensively or moderately.



SDG 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure): The NUP’s moderate to extensive contribution toSDG 9 varied across the five regions, with countries in Europe and North America leading at 38%,
Africa, Asia and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean at 19% each. Only 5% of NUPs
in Arab States were reported as ‘moderate and extensive’.



SDG 13 (climate action): Regional differences in the contributions of 57 countries’ NUPs to theimplementation of SDG 13 climate change is quite evident, with Europe and North America at 37%
of NUPs, followed by Asia at 21% and Africa at 19%.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 121Figure 6.6. Number of NUPs contributing extensively to other SDGs

35
30
25
20

15
10
5
0

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Co-ordinating between NUP and SDGs implementation
Given the demonstrated importance of NUP in advancing SDGs in many countries, it is crucial that NUPs
and SDGs are well aligned and co-ordinated in their implementation processes. This section discusses
how to better align and co-ordinate between NUP and SDGs implementation from two perspectives:
institutions and monitoring frameworks.

Institutions leading NUP and SDGs implementation
The NUP country survey indicated that in over half of the countries (53%) the ministry or agency charged
with the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of NUPs is also responsible for the
implementation and monitoring of SDG 11 (Figure 6.7). In Eswatini, Malawi and Zambia, the ministries
responsible for economic planning and development are responsible for implementing both NUPs andSDGs. In some countries, specialised departments and agencies have the responsibility, such as theFederal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) in Germany
and National Institute for Statistics in Portugal. In these countries, there is high expectation that NUPs andSDGs implementation can be well aligned and co-ordinated. In contrast, the survey also reported that in
20% of the countries, implementation and monitoring of the SDGs is undertaken by other ministries andgovernment agencies, including Latvia, Serbia and Thailand, among others. It is noteworthy that in 27%
of countries reported that it is not clearly defined which institutions are in charge.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

122 
Whether or not the same institutions are in charge of implementing both NUPs and SDGs, what is importantis to clarify the roles of different institutions and establish clear alignment and co-ordination mechanisms.
Several countries indicated that it is a general consensus that the implementation and monitoring of
SDG 11 cuts across initiatives of other sectoral agencies, and that there is thus a need for horizontal
co-ordination with these agencies, as reported by Philippines, Romania, Saudi Arabia and Sweden.

Figure 6.7. Ministries in charge of implementing NUP and SDG 11
NUP MinistryNon-NUP Ministry

Not clearly defined

27%

53%

20%

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Integrating NUP targets and indicators with SDGs
The monitoring and evaluation of NUPs is closely related to the monitoring and evaluation of the SDGs
and the NUA. Through the monitoring and evaluation of NUPs, national governments can provide
consistent feedback on their progress to the implementation of the SDGs and the NUA, and vice versa,
monitoring and evaluation of the SDGs and NUA can inform and provide future direction of NUPs.
The NUP country survey found that several countries have integrated SDG targets and indicators in their
NUP monitoring and evaluation frameworks. The integration ranges from general, where NUP monitoring
implies achievement of the targets and indicators (Panama, Serbia), to specific, where NUP policy
objectives are aligned to achieving specific SDG targets and indicators (Cuba, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mexico,
Montenegro, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand). In Mexico, indicators have been
established to evaluate dimensions of at least 8 of the 17 SDGs, with a special contribution to SDG 11. In
Cuba, the National Action Plan for Cuba 2036 for the implementation of the New Urban Agenda aligns
with the 2030 Agenda and all SDGs, and contains a set of urban indicators to measure national progressin achieving the urban SDGs. In Montenegro, the National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2030
has introduced 281 selected national indicators for the monitoring of sustainable development, in addition
to the SDG indicators. The indicators are based on needs and specificities of national development as
identified since 2007. In Spain, strategic objectives and indicators of the Spanish Urban Agenda arealigned with the urban goals and indicators of the 2030 Agenda (Box 6.6).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 123

Box 6.6. Promoting the 2030 Agenda and the New Urban Agenda through NUP in Spain
The Spanish Urban Agenda (Agenda Urbana Española, AUE) is a non-binding strategic document
established in accordance with the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda and the Urban Agenda for
the European Union to pursue sustainability in urban development policies. It also constitutes a working
methodology and a process for all stakeholders. This integrated urban development strategy offers a
Decalogue of Strategic Objectives, 30 specific objectives and 291 lines of action, creating a diverse
menu for cities and towns interested in implementing their action plans, regardless of their size andpopulation, and under the triple prism of economic, social and environmental sustainability.
The AUE is established to facilitate management and direct urban development in Spain. In a highly
decentralised context, where competences in urban matters are distributed to various levels ofgovernment, the AUE aspires to draw a common action path on key issues for the sustainability andfuture of cities and human settlements. It establishes the fundamental lines of action to central
government in competencies that are directly assigned to it and, at the same time, generates
instruments to guide other levels of government and stakeholders in their own plans and actions
towards common urban sustainability objectives.
The implementation of the AUE has been key for Spain to advance the SDGs; since it constitutes oneof the 10 key lever policies defined in the action plan for the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Development. Experiences from its implementation include:

New approaches to address complexity: unlike the previous urban strategies defined by thenational government, the AUE is a comprehensive framework, which includes several sectors:
from the classic urban issues – housing, mobility, planning, urban services – to new, emerging
tasks such as smart cities; from economy to health; from climate change to social integration.



The process is fundamental: AUE is understood as a process, as a mechanism that facilitates
the action of the different levels of government in the urban environment. In this sense, it ispresented as a framework document, from which each of the administrations and other actors
can generate their specific action plans.



A common framework for urban monitoring: the AUE aims to adapt to the different realities ofcities and territories in Spain, from large metropolises to small towns. To do this, it has defineda set of existing indicators for each of the established objectives, which can be – partially or
totally – used by local governments, both to prepare the diagnosis of their action plans and to
jointly monitor progress.

Source: OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

In countries where NUP is not fully formulated, monitoring and evaluation frameworks have not beendeveloped (Costa Rica, Egypt and Myanmar). In such cases, or where NUPs are undergoing reviews,
consideration should be given to aligning the NUP monitoring and evaluation frameworks with SDG targets
and indicators to the extent relevant and appropriate. In Costa Rica for example, the PNDU for the country
does not have a specific evaluation and follow-up model yet, and thus has an opportunity to include
indicators to monitor and report on the fulfilment of the 2030 Agenda. It is also notable that SDG targets
and indicators are not integrated into the monitoring and evaluation framework of most countries that do
not have explicit NUPs, which presents key opportunities in the future.
It is also important to note that, technically speaking, the globally defined SDG targets and indicators are
not always possible to apply to NUPs, because they were not designed specifically for cities. There are anumber of international attempts to develop localised SDG targets and indicators, which can also be used
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

124 
to monitor NUPs. For example, the OECD programme A Territorial Approach to the SDGs is based on therecognition that cities and regions play a crucial role in achieving the SDGs (Box 6.7), and measures theperformance of OECD cities and regions in achieving them. As is presented in Chapter 5, the data from649 cities found that cities are not yet on track to achieve the SDGs (Box 5.3), which is highly contrasted
with the result of this chapter’s analysis – countries’ high recognition that NUPs can contribute to achieving
many SDGs.

Box 6.7. A Territorial Approach to the SDGs: Framework and Checklist
The 2030 Agenda was not designed specifically for cities, but they play a crucial role in achieving the
SDGs. The OECD estimates that at least 105 of the 169 targets underlying the 17 SDGs will not bereached without proper engagement and co-ordination with local and regional governments, as cities
and regions have core responsibilities that are central to sustainable development and well-being(e.g. water services, housing or transport). Cities and regions are thus an integral part of the solution
as the varying nature of sustainable development challenges calls for place-based solutions tailored toterritorial specificities and capacities. Place-based policies incorporate a set of co-ordinated actions
designed for a particular city or region and stress the need to shift from a sectoral to a multi-sectoral
approach, from one-size-fits-all to context-specific measures, and from a top-down to a bottom-up
approach.
The SDGs can help to advance the shift towards a new regional development paradigm and provide aframework to implement it because the 2030 Agenda provides a long-term vision for policies with acommon milestone in 2030, while acknowledging that targeted action is needed in different places(Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.8. A territorial approach to the SDGs supports the transition to a new regional
development paradigm

Source: OECD elaboration based on OECD (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en

A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals,

The 17 interconnected SDGs cover the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable
development in a balanced way and allow policymakers to better address them concomitantly. They
also allow the promotion of policy complementarities and the management of trade-offs across goals.
The SDGs allow better implementation of the concept of functional territories, a common frameworkthat neighbouring municipalities can use to strengthen collaborations and to co-ordinate actions.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 125
Regional policy aims to effectively address the diversity of economic, social, demographic, institutionaland geographic conditions across cities and regions. It also ensures that sectoral policies are
co-ordinated with each other and meet the specific needs of different regions, and regional policy
provides the tools that traditional structural policies often lack in order to address region-specific factorsthat cause economic and social stagnation (OECD, 2019[9]). The SDGs can help to bring various
departments of a local administration together to strengthen the collaboration in policy implementation.
A participatory policymaking and bottom-up process is one of the core elements of a territorial approachto the SDGs. Furthermore, the SDGs provide cities and regions with a tool to effectively engage in multistakeholder dialogues with actors from the private sector and civil society, as well as schools andacademia.
The OECD has developed a Checklist for Public Action directed at governments at all levels to facilitate
the implementation of a territorial approach to the SDGs (Figure 6.9). The checklist provides actionoriented recommendations around five main categories that emerged as key pillars for a territorial
approach to the SDGs: i) planning, policies and strategies; ii) multi-level governance; iii) financing andbudgeting; iv) data and information; and v) engagement. The checklist also presents some examples
and good practices on how to implement the recommendations, both from the pilots of the OECD
programme and other cities and regions.

Figure 6.9. OECD Checklist for Public Action to localise the SDGs

Source: OECD elaboration based on OECD (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en

A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals,

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

126 

Ways forward
This chapter highlighted the fact that countries have been recognising the role of NUPs in advancing andlocalising global agendas and integrating them into the NUP implementation as well as monitoring andevaluation. The two most common agendas were the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development(57 countries) followed by the New Urban Agenda (52 countries), but countries also clearly indicated that
NUPs can help achieve the Paris Climate Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction, reflecting the significant potential of cities to mitigate and adapt to climate change and to reduce
disaster risks. This indicates that many countries recognise NUP’s potential to advance the policy
objectives in these global agendas, such as ending poverty, protecting the environment, improving
partnerships, and enhancing sustainable production and consumption. In addition, this also implies thatnational governments recognise that their implementation of global agendas requires co-ordinated actions
at local, national and global levels. The analysis also shows there is some regional diversity in recognising
NUP’s contribution to drive global agendas. For example, countries in the Arab States and Asia and thePacific regions have put more emphasis on the role of NUPs in implementing the Paris Agreement due totheir increased need and responsibility for implementing climate change-related actions in their urban
areas.
The fact that NUP is now officially a part of the SDGs indicator framework (SDG 11.a.1) will accelerate thedevelopment of NUPs in the coming years. It is important for countries to ensure that their NUPs meet thethree qualifiers: “ensure balanced territorial development”, “respond to population dynamics” and “increase
local fiscal space”. The NUP country survey indicated that 41% of countries reported their NUPs or regional
development plans fulfil all the three qualifiers. However, only 26 NUPs were reported to fulfil the qualifier“increase local fiscal space”, implying the need for countries to better understand its importance insustainable urban development and how it may be integrated into NUP. Countries should develop NUPs
that leverage the strong nexus with multiple SDGs to address the myriad development challenges in cities.
Aside from SDG 11, and owing to its cross-sectoral and multi-faceted nature, NUPs were recognised as
helping to contribute extensively to many other SDGs, including Goals 6, 8, 9 and 13, which are key tomanaging urbanisation sustainably.
Finally, countries should consider aligning NUP monitoring and evaluation frameworks with urban-related
SDGs indicators. Institutionally speaking, the majority of countries reported that the ministry or agency
charged with NUP are also responsible for monitoring SDGs. However, whether or not the same institutions
are in charge of implementing both NUP and SDGs, it is important to clarify the roles of different institutions
and to establish clear alignment and co-ordination mechanisms for monitoring NUP and SDGs. Many
governments and institutions have recently developed localised SDGs indicators to monitor the progressof cities and regions. It is important to recognise that these indicators are often compatible and can beeffectively used to monitor and evaluate the performance of NUP. In this regard, lead NUP ministries
should seek for synergies with initiatives to support localising SDGs in designing their NUP evaluation andmonitoring framework. As is observed in previous chapters, many countries are yet to develop their NUP
monitoring and evaluation frameworks, which provides immediate opportunities.
Going forward, countries should enhance the contribution of NUP to global and regional agendas,
notably the SDGs, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Climate Agreement and Sendai Framework for
Disaster Risk Reduction, as well as regional agendas such as the New Leipzig Charter and the Africa
Agenda 2063. Another key step is to align NUP targets and indicators with the SDGs and other global
indicators to build a coherent monitoring and evaluation framework.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 127

Annex 6.A. Measuring how NUPs fulfil SDG
11.a.1 qualifiers and contribute to global agendas
This table provides a breakdown of the 86 country survey respondents’ answers regarding: i) whether thecountry NUP meets one or more of the three qualifiers under SDG indicator 11.a.1, a) “Respond to
population dynamics”, b) “Ensure balanced territorial development”, c) “Increase local fiscal space”;ii) whether the country NUP makes reference to, or intends to help achieve, the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development, the New Urban Agenda, the Paris Agreement, and/or the Sendai Frameworkfor Disaster Risk Reduction.

Annex Table 6.A.1. Measuring how NUPs fulfil SDG 11.a.1 qualifiers and contribute to global
agendasCountry2030
AgendaSDG 11.a.1
Population
dynamics

Territorial
development

Local fiscal
space

New Urban
AgendaParis
Agreement

SendaiFramework

Algeria

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Armenia

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Australia

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Austria

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Azerbaijan

No

No

Yes

No

Belgium

No

No

No

No

Bolivia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Brazil

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Bulgaria

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Burkina Faso

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Cabo Verde

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Canada

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Chile

No

No

No

Yes

Colombia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Costa Rica

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Croatia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Cuba

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Czech Republic

Yes

Yes

No

No

Denmark

No

No

No

No

Ecuador

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Estonia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Eswatini

No

No

No

No

Ethiopia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Finland

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

France

No

No

No

No

Germany

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

128 

Country2030
AgendaSDG 11.a.1
Population
dynamics

Territorial
development

Local fiscal
space

New Urban
AgendaParis
Agreement

SendaiFramework

Ghana

No

No

No

No

Greece

No

No

No

No

Guatemala

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Honduras

No

No

No

No

Hungary

No

No

No

No

Iceland

No

No

No

No

Iran

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ireland

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Israel

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Italy

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Japan

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Jordan

No

Yes

Yes

No

Kazakhstan

Yes

KuwaitYes

LatviaNo

LebanonYes

Lithuania

Yes

Luxembourg

No

Madagascar

Yes

Yes

Yes

Malawi

Yes

Yes

Yes

Malta

Yes

Yes

Yes

MexicoYes

Yes

Montenegro

Yes

Yes

MoroccoYes

MyanmarYes

Namibia

No

Nepal

Yes

Yes

Yes

Netherlands

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Zealand

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Nicaragua

No

No

No

No

Nigeria

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Norway

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Panama

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Paraguay

No

No

No

No

Peru

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Philippines

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Poland

No

Yes

No

No

No

Portugal

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Republic of Korea

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Romania

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Russian Federation

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 129Country2030
AgendaSDG 11.a.1
Population
dynamics

Territorial
development

Local fiscal
space
Yes

New Urban
AgendaParis
Agreement

SendaiFramework

Rwanda

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sao Tome and Principe

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Saudi Arabia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Senegal

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Serbia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Slovakia

Yes

Yes

No

No

Slovenia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Spain

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Sweden

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Switzerland

No

No

No

No

Thailand

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Tunisia

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Turkey

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Turkmenistan

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Ukraine

No

No

No

No

United Kingdom

No

No

No

No

Tanzania

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

United States of America

No

No

No

No

Zambia

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Source: (OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance, 2020[10]).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

130 

References
EC (2020), New Leipzig Charter: The Transformative Power of Cities for the Common Good,
European Commission,
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/brochures/2020/new-leipzigcharter-the-transformative-power-of-cities-for-the-common-good.

[7]

OECD (2020), A Territorial Approach to the Sustainable Development Goals: Synthesis report,
OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715en.

[3]

OECD (2019), OECD Regional Outlook 2019: Leveraging Megatrends for Cities and Rural
Areas, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264312838-en.

[9]OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

[10]

UNDP (2007), Fiscal Space for What? Analytical Issues from A Human Development
Perspective, United Nations Development Programme.

[8]

UNDRR (2015), Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-frameworkdisaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030.

[5]

UNFCCC (2015), The Paris Agreement,
https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreem
ent.pdf.

[4]

UN-Habitat (2018), Tracking Progress Towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable Cities
and Human Settlements: SDG 11 Synthesis Report - High Level Political Forum 2018, United
Nations, New York, https://dx.doi.org/10.18356/36ff830e-en.

[6]

UN-Habitat and UNFPA (2020), Metadata on SDGs Indicator 11.a.1 Indicator category: Tier III.,https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2021/01/metadata_on_sdg_indicator_11.a.1_06_2020.
pdf.

[11]

United Nations (2018), Tracking Progress Towards Inclusive, Safe, Resilient and Sustainable
Cities and Human Settlements: SDG 11 Synthesis Report,
https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2019/05/sdg_11_synthesis_report_web2_0.pdf.

[12]

United Nations (2016), Policy paper 3: National urban policy, https://habitat3.org/wpcontent/uploads/Policy-Paper-3-English.pdf.

[1]

United Nations (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org.

[2]

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 1317 Driving the zero-carbon transitionand climate resilience through NUP

This chapter analyses the extent to which national urban policy (NUP)
addresses issues related to climate adaptation and mitigation, and related
challenges and co-ordination mechanisms. Climate action features
prominently in most NUPs within traditional urban planning priorities (e.g.
the built environment) and among a growing share of NUPs exploring
innovative mechanisms, such as local greenhouse gas emission
inventories. Countries identify that urban climate interventions generate
multiple, related benefits such as more sustainable mobility and reduced
pollution. However, they also highlight knowledge gaps and a lack of coordination as challenges in integrating climate change in NUP.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

132 

Key findings


Most NUPs address both climate resilience and the low-carbon transition: 54 out of
67 responding countries (81%) report addressing climate change, of which 52 NUPs address
climate change via both mitigation and adaptation measures. This underscores the growing
recognition that applying an urban lens to climate change is important. In addition, nearly
two-thirds of the NUPs addressing climate change feature special measures to improve theresilience of vulnerable urban populations (31 out of 46 countries, 67%).



Two categories of NUP predominate: those that comprehensively address climate change, andthose that serve as a portal to other sectoral climate policies. NUPs in the former category tend
to overlap with those in the latter, but usually contain in-depth plans, strategies and discussions
on climate change and urban policy. NUPs in the latter category have a lighter focus on climatechange and urban areas, and instead link to corresponding sectoral plans. This does notsuggest that countries with the latter type do not factor comprehensive climate plans in urban
considerations, but rather that these considerations are not always fully reflected in their NUPs,
which can be a missed opportunity.

Countries incorporate climate measures under the umbrella of traditional urban planning
instruments in their NUPs for “quick wins”. Changes to the built environment for low-carbon
urban development are prominent in NUPs, with public and active transport identified in
48 NUPs (89%), compact development in 40 (74%) and more sustainable buildings in 37 (69%).
Risk reduction is also common, with NUPs prioritising vulnerability and risk assessments(34 countries, 63%), adopting risk-sensitive land use policies (32 countries, 59%), and nearly
half (25 countries, 46%) implementing biodiversity and eco-system approaches, thereby
demonstrating the potential of nature-based solutions.

Countries increasingly use NUPs to go beyond traditional urban policy by embedding lesscommon climate considerations. Eleven NUPs (20%) link to efforts to improve the evidencebase for climate action by developing local greenhouse gas emission inventories, and 10 (19%)
link to carbon pricing and fiscal instruments to achieve climate objectives. Although suchdevelopments are not present in all NUPs, they indicate how NUPs guide non-traditional climate
considerations in urban planning and pave the way for broader change.

Countries use institutional and capacity building mechanisms to co-ordinate climate action in
NUP but need improvement and attention to financing. More than half (30 countries, 55%) haveinstitutional arrangements between the leading NUP ministry/agency and environment ministry,and 26 (47%) engage in knowledge exchanges and capacity building across these ministries.
Fourteen countries (26%) provide financial incentives for investment in cities aligned with NUP
objectives and only 5 (9%) develop mechanisms to track sub-national climate finance.

Common obstacles to integrating climate in the NUP are a lack of expertise at the intersectionof climate change and urban policy (39% of respondents), and limited co-ordination
mechanisms between national and local levels on this subject (30%). Survey findings suggest
the two challenges could be tackled at the same time.

Urgent need for climate action in cities
As the impacts of climate change worsen, cities have a role to drive and implement climate action.
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13, the Paris Climate Agreement, the New Urban Agenda (NUA)
and the Sendai Framework embody global commitment to climate resilience and the low-carbon transition,

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 133but the relative lack of attention to these agendas in national urban policy (NUP) reveals a need to integratecollective action across levels of government. (As Chapter 6 illustrates, 58 of 86 countries reported
achieving the SDGs, 52 the NUA, 46 the Paris Agreement, and 29 the Sendai Framework.) This is an
improvement from the first edition of the Global Monitoring of NUPs, which in 2018 revealed that out of
108 NUPs analysed, only 11 (10%) gave extensive attention to climate resilience and 28 (26%) toenvironmental sustainability.
Cities can reduce climate risks through adaptation and mitigation measures facilitated by an enabling
framework such as NUP (Box 7.1). The well-documented risks and opportunities for transformative action
posed by climate change in all countries, regions and cities underscore the case for countries to step up
their efforts and adopt an integrated approach to climate challenges in their NUP. This chapter analyses
how NUPs around the world integrate climate change in urban areas, by promoting a low-carbon transition(“mitigation”) and strengthening climate resilience (“adaptation”).
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report, Global Warming of 1.5°C, shows
the importance of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 (Bazaz et al., 2018[1]). Achieving climate-safe
urban development will require decision-makers to factor emission reductions and climate resilience into
all aspects of urban policy and planning – a daunting task. However, climate-compatible urban
development can enable governments to achieve other development goals, such as higher economic
productivity, better public health and improved local environments, while failing to address climate change
will jeopardise prospects of sustainable, inclusive urban development. A key opportunity lies in developing
urban green growth policies, which pursue synergies instead of trade-offs between economic prosperity
and environmental sustainability in cities (OECD, 2013[2]; OECD, 2016[3]).

Box 7.1. Enhancing cities’ potential for climate action through NUP
Analysis by the Stockholm Environment Institute for the Coalition for Urban Transitions found that,without further action to tackle climate change, greenhouse gas emissions attributable to urban
buildings, transport and waste could reach 17.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO 2-e) in
2050 – 24% higher than in 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed. Urban emissions would beeven higher if industry and other sectors were included.
It is possible to reduce urban emissions from the selected sectors to 1.8 billion tCO 2-e by 2050 using
technically feasible, widely available low-carbon measures. These savings amount to 58% of the global
energy-related emission reductions needed to realise the International Energy Agency’s 2°C pathway.
However, over half of urban abatement potential is in cities with populations of less than 750 000 (as of2015), which often lack the financial and technical resources of their larger counterparts. Even for cities
with sufficient capacity, taking aggressive unilateral efforts to reduce emissions may be untenable if
their economic peers fail to act. National support and standards are most important for these cities.
The analysis in Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity found that few low-carbon measures fall
exclusively within the sphere of local government influence. National and state governments typicallyhave primary authority over two-thirds of urban abatement potential. The importance of local action andmulti-level governance becomes more apparent when excluding electricity decarbonisation from theanalysis. In this case, national and regional governments influence 35% of urban abatement potential,
while local governments are primarily accountable for 28%. For the remaining 37% of urban abatement
potential, responsibilities vary and require collaborative climate action among tiers of government. The
nature of such varies by country and policy area.
Embedding climate measures in a framework such as NUP guides climate action in cities across acountry enhances national and sub-national governments’ ambition, and unlocks cities’ actions to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their exposure to climate risks. The transition to low-carbon,

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

134 
climate-resilient cities cannot be devolved solely to municipal authorities. It requires meaningful
partnerships among tiers of government. NUPs can support this transition since NUPs cover a rangeof policy areas with a profound effect on climate policy goals and wellbeing benefits such as economic
development, land-use, housing, transport, labour and health.
Source: Coalition for Urban Transitions (2019), Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity, https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.

Traction for climate resilience and the low-carbon transition
Climate resilience and the low-carbon transition gained traction as themes embraced by NUPs. Out of
67 responding countries, 54 (81%) report that their country’s NUP addresses climate change (Figure 7.1).
Importantly, all but two of the NUPs that address climate change did so via both mitigation and adaptation
measures. Russia reports that its NUP only addresses mitigation, and Slovakia reports that its NUP only
addresses adaptation. Thirteen NUPs (19%) do not address either climate mitigation or adaptation.

Figure 7.1. Number of NUPs that explicitly address climate change, n = 67
Yes, through both mitigation and adaptation measures
Yes, through adaptation measures
No

Yes, through mitigation measures

13
19%

1
1%
1
2%

52
78%

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. The survey included three options
for “Yes”: (1) “Yes, through both mitigation and adaptation measures; (2) “Yes, through mitigation measures”; (3) “Yes, through adaptation
measures”.

Looking at five global regions, the share of NUPs addressing climate change is the highest in Asia and thePacific (12 of 13 countries, or 92%), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (10 of 11, or 91%) and
Africa (10 of 12, or 83%). The share is slightly lower in Europe and North America (20 of 26, or 77%).
However, three European countries (Austria, Estonia and Latvia) note that, although their NUPs do notaddress climate change, other national-level documents address the intersection of climate change andurban areas. Only two of five countries (40%) report that their NUPs address climate change.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 135Figure 7.2. Number of NUPs addressing climate change, by region, n = 67
Yes, through both mitigation and adaptation measures
Yes, through adaptation measures

Yes, through mitigation measures
No

30
25
6
20

1
1

15

10
5

0

2

1
18

10

Africa

12

10

3
Asia

2
Arab States

1

Europe and North America

Latin America

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020

Costa Rica’s National Urban Development Policy 2018–2030 and corresponding Action Plan 2018–2022
feature “effective and efficient urban planning” as the first core pillar, focused on the importance ofconsidering climate change and other environmental factors in a cross-sectoral way, specifically throughthree strategic areas: (1) incorporating a range of environmental considerations in urban and territorialplanning instruments; (2) improving the adaptation capacity of urban infrastructure to mitigate natural risks
and threats such as those tied to climate change; and (3) promoting the construction and operation ofurban buildings and infrastructure with a positive net effect on natural and urban environments. Amongother measures, the NUP seeks to prioritise the implementation of low-emission public transport to reduce
private vehicle use, to enhance the treatment of organic solid waste to reduce methane emissions, and topromote sustainable and bioclimatic construction that makes use of natural lighting and ventilation to
reduce both energy consumption and the need for air conditioning. In addition, an action underpinning thethird strategic area was developing a National Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Plan, adopted in
April 2018 to cover 2018-30, which seeks to bolster the resilience of human and natural systems in urban
and territorial planning priorities. In this way, Costa Rica seeks to ensure low-carbon and carbon-resilient
urban infrastructure through co-ordinated multi-sectoral planning.
Turkey’s Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning oversees for both urban development and climatechange. Turkey’s Integrated Urban Development Strategy and Action Plan 2010–2023 (KENTGES)
includes climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, such as building efficiency, sustainabletransport, and water and waste management. The survey reports that the largely sectoral approach of
KENTGES is expected to be complemented by a National Spatial Strategy Plan that should have a climate
and urban aspects, thus addressing challenges related to co-ordinating and distributing spatial planningresponsibilities. In developing its National Spatial Strategy Plan, Turkey could look to the case of theNetherlands for inspiration (Box 7.2).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

136 

Box 7.2. The Netherlands’ Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment
Dutch cities face serious risks from climate change. Over 6 million people, 77% of the country’s urban
population, live less than ten metres above sea level. However, the Netherlands has invested
strategically in water management for centuries, so residents today benefit from a sophisticatedinfrastructure of flood defences and dykes. The 2019 Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning andthe Environment (NOVI) highlights the importance of a climate-resilient, water-robust built environment,
accompanied by sufficient, open, green and blue infrastructure to mitigate heat stress and store water.
Maintaining such open space demands densification of housing and employment within existing cityboundaries. The Dutch strategy applies a spatial lens to its economic, social and environmental goals.
The strategy developed by the Netherlands pays close attention to the different needs and priorities ofurban and rural areas, as well as the demands and preferences of different groups within thosecommunities. The report explicitly states: “Not everyone shares the same ideals. Some people feel athome in a dynamic metropolis while others prefer to live in a far more rural setting. These diverging
wishes mean that we must reach consensus on the choices we make and must be very deliberate instructuring our country”, (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands, 2019,p. 18[4]). The strategy further differentiates Dutch regions by their energy intensity, economic structure
and connectivity to local and global markets. This analysis underscores different opportunities in a lowcarbon transition, particularly the scope to generate renewable power and adopt different transportmodes.
NOVI proposes that the regional level is the most relevant scale for shaping the built environment in an
integrated way. Accordingly, provinces and municipalities are empowered to make these decisions,although water management is tasked to separate water authorities. The national government is tasked
with supporting locally led efforts through funding, knowledge development and maintaining buildings
and connective infrastructure. The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has overarching
responsibility for monitoring progress towards implementation, and the relevance and effectiveness ofthe strategy.
Source: OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020; Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of theNetherlands(2019), Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and the Environment; Coalition for Urban Transition (2019), The urban
opportunity, https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.

Countries do not always address climate change in-depth in NUP and may instead have detailed sectoralplans – a nuance in the survey results regarding the extent to which NUPs account for climate change.
Certain countries state that their NUP does not address climate change because it is included in otherpolicy frameworks. For example, while the NUP of Austria does not address climate change, the issue isaddressed through the National Spatial Planning Strategy (ÖREK 2011). Colombia’s Law no. 1931
recognises the role of cities in climate action and was introduced in 2018 to manage the national response
to climate change, while the country’s NUP also addresses climate change (Box 7.3). Viet Nam puts green
growth at the core of its national development agenda, although it does not specify NUP coverage ofclimate issues. Its National Green Growth Strategy (2012) and National Green Growth Action Plan (2014)
both speak to sustainable urbanisation. However, as of 2018, these environmental goals were not captured
in the NUP (OECD, 2018[5]). The NUP could help unlock economic returns – including job creation
potential, and the public health benefits associated with decentralised renewable technologies, energy
efficiency measures and solid waste management – by providing a guiding framework.
Instead of detailing climate issues in their NUPs, certain countries describe and link to other stand-alone
sectoral plans that focus on climate and urban areas. This approach effectively leverages the NUP as a

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 137“portal” to other policies and enabling framework to facilitate co-ordination between other ministries andstrategies to scale up local action. Therefore, the fact that a country does not provide a comprehensive
overview of climate mitigation and adaptation in its NUP does not mean that the country is lagging, since
it may well have effective strategies in other policies. However, a missed opportunity emerges where NUPs
make no reference to existing sectoral plans on climate change and urban planning, since the NUP serves
to improve co-ordination between such plans by embedding them in an enabling framework.

Box 7.3. Colombia’s Law no. 1931 establishing guidelines for the management of climatechangeIn 2018, the Government of Colombia passed Law no. 1931 to establish guidelines for the managementof climate change. This law intends to consolidate and harmonise policies, processes, institutions,strategies and mechanisms that were previously used to encourage action concerning climate change.
Law 1931 recognises the importance of cities as sites for climate action, both because they generate alarge share of transport and waste emissions and because of the concentration of households at risk
from floods, droughts and rising sea levels. Law 1931 commits the National Climate Change Policy topursue low-carbon and climate-resilient urban development through eight lines of action:
Provide cities with urban infrastructure resilient to floods or rising sea levels.

Reduce the climate risk of water shortages in the city.

Provide efficient public transport alternatives.



Encourage the constant reduction in solid and liquid waste generation.

Encourage residential and non-residential energy efficiency.

Reduce flood exposure and transport emissions through controlled expansion of cities.



Promote the conservation of the main ecosystem.

Generate scientific knowledge to quantify CO2 capture.

The Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development heads the National Climate Change
Policy and draws on the Ministry of Housing, City and Territory; the Ministry of Transport; and theMinistry of Mines and Energy. Each of these is expected to develop Comprehensive Management Plans
for Sectoral Climate Change, defining specific measures needed to deliver the eight actions. Althoughgovernance is primarily sectoral, Colombian municipalities are encouraged to apply a spatial lens byidentifying areas of the city where development of human settlements is not viable and directing urban
expansion towards places that do not put either urban residents or ecosystems at risk.
Note: figures draw from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Expertise and co-ordination to integrate climate change and urban policy
The main challenge highlighted by the survey to integrating climate change in NUP is “the lack of expertiseand interdisciplinary knowledge on the intersection of climate change and urban policy” (25 of
67 responding countries, or 37%) (Figure 7.3). This indicates the need for greater support in terms oftechnical capacity and knowledge in this field. A synergistic second challenge is the “lack of co-ordination
mechanisms across national and local governments responsible for climate action and urban policy”(20 countries, 30%). In New Zealand, the National Climate Change Risk Assessment provides an
overview of the risks associated with climate change and trends in emissions, but the country has limited
insight into the intersection of climate change and cities, such as the degree to which urban systems
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

138 
generate emissions and could contribute to mitigation efforts. In Portugal, the national government does
not sponsor local governments to undertake mitigation plans, which proves an obstacle to implementing
coherent low-carbon territorial plans. The lack of expertise, data and interdisciplinary knowledge may
reflect that government officials do not systematically work together across sectoral siloes. It is thus not
surprising that 12 countries, including Brazil, Italy, Korea, Lebanon, Malawi and Mexico, also identify
the two as the highest-ranking challenges.

Figure 7.3. Challenges to integrating climate change in NUPs, n = 67
Lack of expertise and interdisciplinary knowledge on the intersection of climatechange and urban policy (e.g. uncertainty on climate change impacts onparticular urban areas in particular time period)

26

Lack of co-ordination mechanisms among national
ministries responsible for climate and for urban policy

20

Insufficient budget to properly integrate climate into a NUP

17

Lack of co-ordination mechanisms across national and local
governments responsible for climate and for urban policy

17

Insufficient human resources to properly integrate climate into a NUP

17

Others11

Benefit of integrating climate action in a NUP is notwell understood/shared among national policymakers

8

National policymakers do not perceive climate change
as a policy area to be addressed in the NUP

7
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Governance arrangements that facilitate co-production of evidence and cross-fertilisation of ideas acrossministries may help to overcome the biggest barriers to creating climate-sensitive NUP. Tanzania’s Urban
Laboratory (TULab) provides one such example. Over two years, TULab regularly convened Tanzanianurbanists from national ministries, local governments, state-owned enterprises, academia, civil society andthe private sector. These stakeholders commissioned, deliberated and published four background papers
documenting challenges and opportunities for Tanzanian cities, including low-carbon development paths
and emerging climate hazards (TULab, 2019[6]). This body of evidence now informs the development of
Tanzania’s National Urban Policy. New Zealand established a co-ordination mechanism for its NUP
through a cross-agency working group between the Ministry for Environment and the Ministry for Housing
and Urban Development. While the working group does not yet focus on the interaction between climatechange and urban matters, it marks an instance of planned co-ordination (New Zealand’s NUP is in the
diagnosis stage). In addition, if the working group focuses explicitly on the intersection of climate change
and urban policy, this could serve to bridge the climate-urban expertise and knowledge gap signalled by
New Zealand.
One of the lowest-ranking challenges, “the benefit of integrating climate action in a NUP is not wellunderstood/shared among national policymakers” (8 countries, 12%), may indicate increasing recognitionof the need for an integrated approach to climate change in NUP. Similarly, the lowest ranking challenge,

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 139“national policymakers do not perceive climate change as a policy area to be addressed in the NUP”
(7 countries, 10%) would indicate that NUPs are acknowledged at the national level as effective andrelevant policy frameworks to guide and implement climate action.
In total, 30 countries identify multiple obstacles to integrating climate change into NUP, while 11 countries
identify only one. Among these 11 countries, Bolivia and Estonia indicate that national policymakers either
do not understand or agree on the potential benefits of integrating climate action into their NUP, although
Estonia indicates that this issue was largely resolved since its NUP was drawn up in 2014. Cuba, Japanand Slovakia identify insufficient budget to integrate climate issues into their NUPs as the sole obstacle,
while Guatemala and Serbia emphasise the challenge of co-ordinating relevant national ministries.
France, Ireland and Romania report the lack of expertise and interdisciplinary knowledge at theintersection of climate change and urban policy as an issue. While pointing out the same challenge, Chileaddresses it by forming a “City and Climate Change” working group with participation by academia todevelop policy recommendations.

Recognising benefits from mainstreaming climate action
In their objectives for mainstreaming climate action in NUP, countries identify that urban climate
interventions generate multiple, related benefits (Figure 7.4). Out of 54 countries that report their NUP
addresses climate change, 36 (67%) identify “more sustainable mobility” and “reduced pollution”, and35 (65%) identify “reduced greenhouse gas emissions” as objectives for their NUP, reflecting clear
recognition that low-carbon transport measures can achieve health and well-being benefits in cities throughimproved air quality. Thirty-four countries (63%) identify “better protected lives and livelihoods fromextreme weather” and 33 (61%) identify “enhanced urban biodiversity and ecosystems” as objectives,
underscoring the potential for nature-based solutions to improve wellbeing, deliver wider ecosystemservices and protect against extreme heat or flooding. Similarly, 31 countries (57%) identified “more risksensitive land use” as an objective, reflecting the economic and spatial synergies of urban resiliencemeasures.

Figure 7.4. Key objectives of mainstreaming climate action in NUP, n = 54
More sustainable urban mobility

36

Reduced air and water pollution in cities, leading
to improved health and increased life expectancy

36

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions

35

Better protected lives and livelihoods from extreme weather (e.g. urban heatislands, urban floods), particularly those of vulnerable urban populations

34

Enhanced biodiversity, natural heritage and overall ecosystems in cities

33

More risk-sensitive land use in urban areas

31

Reinforced security of basic urban services and critical natural resources

23

Increased local energy production in cities

17

Improved economic competitiveness and job
creation in cities by taking a lead in climate action

15

Others

5
0

5

10

15

20

25

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

30

35

40

140 
Underscoring the emphasis placed on addressing adaptation and mitigation together, 34 and 35 countries
respectively identify “better protected lives and livelihoods from extreme weather” and “reducing
greenhouse gas emissions” For example, connected with Israel’s NUP is the inter-ministerial plan Israel
2050: Thriving Economy in a Sustainable Environment, which has indicators, roadmaps and policies topromote energy efficiency in buildings; increase minimum density requirements and mixed-use, transitoriented development (including urban regeneration); and deliver greater urban tree canopy coverage,
supported by a dedicated manual for planting shade trees in urban areas. A related policy to enhancewater runoff management in urban areas is promoted simultaneously. “Enhancing biodiversity, natural
heritage and ecosystem services in cities” and “more risk-sensitive land use in urban areas” also featured
as a key objective for 33 and 31 countries respectively, hinting at the potential to combine theimplementation of nature-based solutions with risk-sensitive land-use planning to enhance resilience anddeliver numerous benefits.
Only 17 respondents indicate “increased local energy production in cities” as an objective, which may
reflect the perception of limited potential to generate energy within a city’s boundaries (e.g. through rooftop
solar) or that it may be difficult to implement such measures on a wide scale. Panama identifies local
energy production as an objective, highlighting that doing so would reduce energy costs, which are high inthe country, as well as emissions. Israel, Rwanda and Senegal highlight local energy production fromrenewable sources as an opportunity, as do Colombia and Portugal who also link to wider efforts toimprove energy demand management, notably in buildings. It is striking that only 15 national governments
regard “improved economic competitiveness and job creation” as a reason to integrate climate change into
national urban policies, despite growing evidence of the potential productivity and efficiency advantages
for growth and employment associated with lower-carbon, climate-resilient urban development.
Analysis by five global regions indicates that objectives of mainstreaming climate action in NUP reflect
each region’s urgent urban challenges (Table 7.1). For example, “sustainable mobility” is particularly
relevant to countries in Europe and North America, noted by 16 out of 20 countries (80%), whereas“reduced air and water pollution in cities” ranks higher for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean(80%) and Asia and the Pacific (75%). Six of 10 countries (60%) in Africa, the highest share across theregions, consider “improved economic competitiveness and job creation in cities” as an objective.

Table 7.1. Key objectives of mainstreaming climate action in NUP, by region, n = 54
Number of respondents and relative regional share for each option

Improved economic competitiveness and job creationin cities by taking a lead in climate action
Increased local energy production in cities
Reinforced security of basic urban services andcritical natural resources
More risk-sensitive land use in urban areas
Enhanced biodiversity, natural heritage & overall
ecosystems in cities
Reduced greenhouse gas emissions
Better protected lives and livelihoods from extreme
weather, particularly those of vulnerable urban
populations

Africa (n = 10)

Asia and thePacific(n = 12)

Arab States(n = 2)Europe andNorth
America(n = 20)

Latin America
and theCaribbean(n = 10)

6
(60%)
4
(40%)
5
(50%)
4
(40%)
6
(60%)
4
(40%)
6
(60%)

1
(8%)
4
(33%)
5
(42%)
7
(58%)
7
(58%)
8
(67%)
6
(50%)

1
(50%)
0
(0%)
1
(50%)
1
(50%)
2
(100%)
2(100%)
2(100%)

4
(20%)
6
(30%)
8
(40%)
10
(50%)
13
(65%)
15
(75%)
11
(55%)

3
(30%)
2
(20%)
3
(30%)
8
(80%)
5
(50%)
5
(50%)
8
(80%)

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 141
Reduced air and water pollution in cities, leading to
improved health and increased life expectancy
More sustainable urban mobility
Others

5
(50%)
4
(40%)
2
(20%)

9
(75%)
8
(67%)
1
(8%)

1
(50%)
0
(0%)
0
(0%)

11
(55%)
16
(80%)
2
(10%)

8
(80%)
6
(60%)
0
(0%)

Note: Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. Country respondents could
select multiple options.

Delivering mitigation targets through traditional and new approaches
In terms of urban low-carbon transition/mitigation actions that addressed in countries’ NUP, changes tothe built environment are clear priorities for lower-carbon urban development (Figure 7.5). Mode shift to
public and active transport appears in the NUP of 48 countries, mixed land use and compact developmentin 40 countries, and more sustainable buildings in 37 countries. Chile, Colombia, Israel and Portugal
point to measures across cities to improve public transport (e.g. bus fleets) and bicycle infrastructure, while
countries such as France and the Netherlands also set objectives to prioritise compact cities(e.g. minimum density standards) and limit urban sprawl. Technological shifts are a common strategy, with
29 NUPs including “expansion of urban renewable energy generation or procurement of energy fromcleaner sources”. Twenty-six NUPs seek to improve the “sustainability of solid and liquid waste
management”, and 25 aim to pursue “more efficient and electric vehicles”.
NUPs are also used beyond traditional urban policy to embed innovative climate considerations that are
not yet widespread. Eleven countries (e.g. Colombia, Korea, Poland and Serbia) are looking to improvetheir evidence base by supporting the development of local greenhouse gas emission inventories.
Ten countries (e.g. Ecuador, Finland, Italy and Senegal) report addressing carbon pricing and fiscal
instruments – essential means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Box 7.4) – in their NUPs to achieve
climate objectives. While such developments are not uniform and account for a limited share of NUPs,
they indicate how NUPs guide non-traditional climate considerations and set the path for broader change.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

142 

Figure 7.5 Urban low-carbon transition/mitigation actions addressed by NUPs, n = 54
Promote public transport, cycling and walking

48

Adopt mixed-use, dense, and compact planning policies for urban development

40

Adopt policies to improve sustainable design, construction and renovation ofbuildings in cities (e.g. construction materials, energy efficiency standards andretrofits)

37

Expand renewable energy production in cities and increase energy
purchase from low-emission sources (e.g. waste-to-energy, biomass, solar)

29

Improve sustainability of municipal solid and liquid waste management

26

Promote more efficient and electric vehicles

25

Promote more efficient production and consumption patterns in cities

21

Develop a greenhouse gas emissions inventory at the local level

11

Raise awareness of low-carbon actions and choices among urban residents

10

Introduce carbon pricing and other fiscal instruments to reduce greenhousegas emissions (e.g., carbon tax, removing fossil fuel subsidies)

10

Others

2
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Ten NUPs, including those of Costa Rica, Croatia, Nigeria, Panama and the Philippines, attempt toinstigate behavioural change by raising awareness. The relatively low reported share of awareness raising
may be because governments pursue such efforts in stand-alone policies not yet embedded in their NUP,
marking a missed opportunity. The absence could also signal governments’ reluctance to call upon theirown citizens to take climate action, perhaps because this may be perceived as either too intrusive or nothaving a large enough impact to warrant such a request.
In 2014, France’s National Urban Renewal Agency (ANRU) launched the New National Programme for
Urban Renewal. The programme, which will run until 2030 with EUR 10 billion grant-equivalent, aims totransform over 450 priority urban neighbourhoods (3 million inhabitants) based on objectives such as
boosting energy efficiency in buildings and fostering access to services (alternative mobility options,education, healthcare). The programme features citizen councils involved in the design, implementationand evaluation stages of project development. As part of this programme, ANRU brings together a networkof private investors and other stakeholders involved in innovation, in a body called the Club ANRU+,
launched in 2017. Club ANRU+ invested EUR 50 million to stimulate innovation and mobilise investment
in 70 urban renewal territories. The programme directly supports local initiatives spanning urban
agriculture, digital technology, town planning, energy performance, sustainable mobility, participatory
decision-making and housing. These projects enhance the attractiveness, social diversity and functionalmix of communities, drawing major investors such as real estate operations. The programme also supports
learning across different neighbourhoods and actors, enabling scaling a range of low-carbon and othermeasures.
In Mexico, local governments are in charge of preparing Municipal Urban Development Programmes.
These craft a vision for the future of the municipality, taking into account general urban trends and a wide

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 143
range of data. The programmes often have an ecological aspect. In Piedras Negras, Coahuila, for example,
the Master Plan encourages infill development and preserves areas of particular ecological significance toenhance climate mitigation and adaptation.

Box 7.4. Carbon pricing and fiscal instruments for climate action
The High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices chaired by Joseph Stiglitz and Nicholas Stern considers
that carbon prices would need to be at least USD 40-80/tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2-e) by 2020, and
USD 50-100/tCO2-e by 2030, to be in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Yet most countries fallshort of this target: fewer than 5% of GHG emissions covered by a carbon price are within this range(World Bank, 2020[7]). Effective carbon taxes – the sum of explicit carbon taxes and fuel excise taxes –among 44 countries (36 OECD countries and 12 partner economies) currently fail to provide broadbased carbon price signals: 82% of non-road emissions are entirely untaxed, and 97%of those taxed
are at the low end of the carbon pricing threshold at less than EUR 30/ tCO 2-e (OECD, 2019[8]).
Unsurprisingly, carbon prices reduce emissions. Countries that levy higher effective carbon taxes arealso less carbon-intensive (OECD, 2019[8]). Without adequate carbon price signals, businesses andcitizens lack economic incentives to modify behaviours or may lack awareness of the carbon footprint
and societal cost associated with their activities.
National governments increasingly introduce carbon pricing and fiscal instruments – or authorise local
governments to do so – that incentivise more sustainable urban development. As of 2020, 46 countries(and 32 sub-national jurisdictions) implemented a carbon pricing initiative, including emerging
economies such as Chile, China, Colombia, Mexico and South Africa (World Bank, 2020[7]). For
example, fuel taxes and vehicle excises are commonly adopted at the national level, disincentivising
private vehicle use across the whole territory. Congestion charging, where polluting vehicles arecharged a fee to circulate in certain areas, was adopted in cities in the Czechia, Italy, Malta,
Singapore, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Even the design of instruments without a seemingly
direct impact on emissions, such as property taxes and mortgage policies, has considerable impact onwhether cities become sprawling, with large carbon footprints, or denser and spatially efficient (Moreno
Monroy et al., 2020[9]). While carbon pricing and such instruments have profound effects on the carbon
intensity of urban areas, they are not always considered in conjunction with national urban and climate
policies as evidenced by the responses to this survey.
Source: OECD (2019), Taxing Energy Use 2019: Using Taxes for Climate Action; https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/058ca239-en. World Bank
(2020),
State
andTrendsofCarbonPricing
2020,
World
Bank,
Washington,DC,https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33809; Moreno Monroy, A. et al. (2020), Housing policies for sustainable and inclusive
cities: How national governments can deliver affordable housing and compact urban development, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d63e9434-en.

Reinforced climate resilience through risk reduction
Risk-sensitive measures feature prominently among the urban climate-adaptation actions addressed incountries’ NUPs. The most common was to “conduct a comprehensive vulnerability and risk assessment
focusing on urban areas (including mapping)” (34 countries, 63%) (Figure 7.6). This may reflect many
countries’ lack of evidence on current and projected localised climate risks needed to make informed urban
policies and plans. It may also reflect the simultaneous opportunity to address other hazards and risks,such as natural disasters and service deficits. This adaptation action is followed closely by “adopting risk
sensitive land use policies” (32 countries, 59%) and “implementing ecosystem-based approaches”(25 countries, 46%). These actions are complementary and low-cost, with evidence pointing to the role of

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

144 
nature-based solutions in enhancing urban resilience while delivering social and health benefits (Bush andDoyon, 2019[10]), which might explain the appetite for these interventions.
Mexico’s NUP fosters comprehensive risk management, including land use and urban development
instruments, building regulations, and the design of financial schemes, to define projects and actions
focused on reducing vulnerability in urban areas. Algeria is adopting risk-sensitive land-use policies toensure that urban development takes place outside hazardous areas, including the development of an
eco-neighbourhood in Ghardaia, and Algiers’ pilot Master Plan for Urban Resilience, expected to be
replicated across other cities. Serbia’s Sustainable Urban Development Strategy 2030 features climatechange mitigation and adaptation as a cross-cutting topic and, recently, local government units elaborated
local climate change adaptation plans (Bečej, Vrbas, Sombor, Ub, Belgrade, Kraljevo and Zrenjanin).
Nigeria’s 2012 NUP does not reflect the need for urban climate adaptation, but this is under considerationin the ongoing NUP review process. In the Netherlands, climate adaptation is not addressed in the NUP
but in the long-standing Delta Programme, which rigorously addresses risk assessment.
The least common adaptation actions addressed in NUPs are to “develop diversified financing
mechanisms to address climate-related risks in urban areas” (5 countries) and “develop a strategy for
urban heat island” – strikingly low given the impacts of climate change on cities around the world, and theneed for financing mechanisms to allow communities and businesses to recover from extreme events.
Diversifying risk financing mechanisms before rather than after an extreme event occurs offers advantages
relative to ad hoc financial support (OECD, 2018[11]). The NUPs of Brazil, Costa Rica, Croatia, Panama,Portugal, Senegal and Spain seek to address urban heat-island-related challenges, but these accountfor only 13% of the 53 responding countries. Not all cities in the world face urban heat island challenges
to the same extent, which may account for the low overall share, but the gap is striking given the growing
prevalence and impacts of urban heat islands. In addition, as 45% of NUPs seek to implement ecosystemor nature-based solutions, proven to alleviate extreme heat (Jamei and Tapper, 2019[12]), there is an
opportunity for co-benefits from urban heat island strategies in NUPs, such as developing green/blue
infrastructure in areas impacted by high temperatures or with a high share of vulnerable residents.
Similarly, only 16 countries report “mainstreaming climate resilience into infrastructure”, despite its
importance in mitigating risk. In New Zealand, the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban
Development (the legislation providing for its NUP under development) details how Kāinga Ora–Homes
and Communities (the government’s lead developer) should recognise climate adaptation. Thailand’s
NUP development guideline calls for new infrastructure safety standards to be resilient to disasters.
The following countries indicate that their NUP addressed all or nearly all 10 climate adaptation actions(excluding “other”): Panama and Senegal (all 10 options), Tanzania (9), and Cabo Verde, Costa Rica
and the Philippines (8). This may indicate that urban areas or an important share of urban residents inthese countries are at particularly risk to a changing climate, or that these NUPs are particularly proactive
on climate adaptation. Korea, Spain and Turkey identified seven options, and Japan and Poland six
options.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 145Figure 7.6. Urban climate adaptation actions addressed by NUPs, n = 54
Conduct a comprehensive vulnerability and risk assessment
focusing on urban areas (including mapping)

34

Adopt risk-sensitive land-use policies to guideurban development away from risk-prone areas

32

Implement ecosystem-based approaches and nature-based solutionsin urban areas (e.g. green and blue infrastructure, biodiversity)
which can create co-benefits

25

Raise awareness of climate risks and resilience among urban residents

22

Utilise information and communication technologies(e.g. early warning systems)

18

Ensure flexibility and redundancy in criticalurban systems (e.g. transport, energy, water)

18

Improve climate resilience of informal settlements in cities

17

Mainstream climate resilience into infrastructure
investments (e.g. porous pavements)

16

Others9Develop a strategy for urban heat island

7

Develop diversified financing mechanisms (e.g. contingency funds, catastrophebonds, insurance) to address climate-related risks in urban areas

5
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Co-ordination mechanisms to embed climate action in NUP
Mechanisms need improvement and attention to financing
Countries use institutional and capacity building mechanisms to co-ordinate climate action in NUP but need
improvement and attention to financing. Countries lack mechanisms to co-ordinate climate action in their
NUPs: 30 of 54 countries with NUP addressing climate (55%) identified institutional arrangements between
the leading NUP ministry/agency and environment ministry as a mechanism to co-ordinate climate action(Figure 7.7). This suggests room to increase the share of countries with a clear institutional arrangement
between key ministries to co-ordinate climate action. Zambia, for instance, identifies four relevant
institutions involved in formulating its NUP: the Zambia Environmental Agency, the Ministry of National
Development Planning, the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources and the Disaster Management and
Mitigation Unit. Twenty-six of 54 countries (48%) confirm having cross-sectoral knowledge exchanges andcapacity building across ministries responsible for urban and environmental issues, which signals room for
improvement in this area. For example, in Portugal, the Environment Agency assembled several ministries
to produce and monitor the National Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Many countries enable or require sub-national climate action in cities, but use different policy instruments:
regulatory frameworks (21 countries, 39%), technical assistance (17 countries, 31%), financial incentives(14 countries, 26%). As an example of technical assistance, Cuba conducts workshops with planningspecialists every year so that civil servants from a range of sectors become familiar with spatial aspects ofreducing climate vulnerability (focusing on coastal settlements). It is worth noting that Bulgaria,
Costa Rica, Estonia and Sweden do not detail these mechanisms in their NUP but in their climate policy
frameworks, which often sit within different ministries. Co-ordination between these agencies is therefore
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

146 
critical to ensure that urban and climate plans reinforce each other rather than create conflicting incentives
or administrative burdens for sub-national governments.
The least common mechanism in NUPs was “developing mechanisms to track sub-national climate
finance” (5 countries, 9%), in line with recent OECD work that confirms the limited data to track climate
finance at the sub-national level (OECD, 2019[13]).

Figure 7.7. Mechanisms for co-ordination of climate action in NUPs, n = 54
Institutional arrangement between the leading NUP ministry/agency
and environment ministry (e.g. coordination committee) to ensurethat climate investment in the NUP are fully consistent withnational policies for addressing climate change

30

Cross-sectoral knowledge exchanges and capacity building between
national ministries responsible for urban and environmental issues

26

Regulatory framework to mandate subnational climate actionplans/strategies, and vulnerability and adaptive capacity assessments

21

Technical assistance to subnational governments for developing andimplementing subnational climate actions (e.g. local climate action plans)

17

Financial incentives (grants, subsidies, access to private financing market)
for subnational climate investment in cities in alignment with the NUP objectives

14

Others7

Developing mechanisms to track subnational climate
finance, in order for national and local governments
to make informed and co-ordinated climate action

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

Regulatory mechanisms commonly employed
The NUP survey asked respondents for examples of the mechanisms (e.g. regulatory, fiscal, information)used to implement climate action in their NUPs. Thirty-one respondents offered a range of examples, while
two indicated no examples to share yet as the work is ongoing (Brazil and Cabo Verde).
Regulatory mechanisms seem to be the preferred instruments, with regulations, guidelines and strategies
mentioned by most countries. In France, the National Urban Renewal Agency and the Environment andEnergy Management Agency implement a partnership to factor urban sustainability paramteres into urban
renewal projects for 2018–22 (Box 7.5). Israel instates regulations for all new construction to comply with
the Green Building Code (effective March 2022), develops specifications and regulation for net-zero energy
buildings where feasible, and updates the minimum density requirements laid out in the NUP. Zambia
reports that the draft NUP includes activities to build the capacity of local authorities to enforce existing
national-level environmental laws, formulate by-laws at local level, and establish fast-track courts forenvironmental offenders.
Six high- and upper-middle-income countries mention fiscal instruments: Bulgaria, France, Israel,
Netherlands, Serbia and Sweden. Instruments include both grants and subsidies directly for climate
action and infrastructure investments to enhance climate outcomes. Five countries identify technicalassistance to or capacity building of sub-national governments, while four emphasise information

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 147
instruments. Finally, Sweden highlights the importance of institutional reforms to enable co-ordination
across levels and sectors of government, with agreements between national and local governments.

Box 7.5. France’s national co-ordination to embed sustainability factors in urban renewal
projects
France’s National Urban Renewal Agency (ANRU) and the Environment and Energy Management
Agency (ADEME) implement a partnership to factor urban sustainability parameters into urban renewal
projects for 2018-22. This partnership formalises the objectives and methods of co-operation between
the two agencies – from implementation to monitoring and evaluation – in the areas of innovation andthe ecological transition.
Three themes feature in an action plan renewed yearly:

Linking neighbourhood-level environmental approaches with territorial strategy by factoring in“AEU2” (environmental approaches to urban planning), energy renovation of buildings, changes
in transport and mobility, land use planning and urban form, environmental preservation andhealth (air quality, noise, soil and ecosystem management), and the circular economy.

Within the context of the energy strategy, reducing residents’ energy use by prioritising energy
efficiency, improved energy storage and management, and on-site production and consumptionof energy, accounting for expected future 2020 environmental regulations.



Embedding innovation and experimentation through support for projects under the “futureoriented investment programmes” (programmes d'investissements d'avenir).

Source: (OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance, 2020[14]).

Improving the climate resilience of vulnerable urban populations
Thirty-one of 46 countries (67%) state that they ensure their NUP can improve the climate resilience ofvulnerable urban populations (Figure 7.8). It is worth noting that 8 of the 15 countries who report ‘no’ arefrom Europe and North America. These countries might have (or at least perceive to) a lower share ofvulnerable groups exposed to such risks, explaining why countries in the other regions pay more attention
to this factor. Certain countries might have a greater share of vulnerable groups in cities or be more
exposed to urban climate risks for a range of geographic, climatological and socio-economic factors, but
all cities and countries have populations at risk, which they can support by scaling-up resilience measuresthrough NUP frameworks. In short, all countries should aim to improve the climate resilience of vulnerable
urban populations through NUP, regardless of the country context. While examples exist among NUPs,
this remains an area where NUPs could include tailored measures for vulnerable groups, such as
establishing stronger links to existing efforts in other sectoral plans.
Some countries emphasise planning and infrastructure to reduce exposure to environmental risks. Israel’s
NUP emphasises the vulnerability of certain populations (such as children and the elderly) to air pollution,
heat waves and other climate impacts, and emphasises the need to apply social considerations in publicplanning. Rwanda’s NUP seeks to enhance access to services and infrastructure for people living in
informal settlements, upgrade their housing and services where possible, and facilitate relocation fromhazardous locations. Chile’s NUP emphasises the risks of natural hazards faced by territories. It supports
municipalities in collecting data on environmental threats and proposes to incorporate natural risks interritorial planning instruments.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

148 
Other countries focus on redressing the power imbalances that drive vulnerability, by creating space tohear low-income and other marginalised voices (Colenbrander, Dodman and Mitlin, 2017[15]). Ecuador,
Mexico and Senegal’s NUPs emphasise participatory processes to enhance inclusion and address thedrivers of vulnerability. Costa Rica’s NUP includes human rights and social inclusion components, which
require local governments to treat and meet the needs of all citizens equally. Cuba’s NUP has similar
mandates to reduce vulnerabilities. It is not clear whether these commitments are backed bycommensurate budgets and capacities.

Figure 7.8. Number and share of NUPs incorporating special measures to improve resilience ofvulnerable urban populations to climate change, n = 46
Yes

No

67%

33%

Note: Data are drawn from the OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020. No information was available foreight countries of the 54 responding countries.

Ways forward
Fifty-four of 67 countries (81%) report that their NUP addresses climate change. Except Slovakia, whose
NUP only addresses adaptation, and Russia, whose NUP only addresses mitigation, the other 52 NUPs
all address climate change via both mitigation and adaptation measures. This highlights a common
recognition of adopting integrated, non-siloed approaches to addressing climate change in NUPs, without
prioritising climate mitigation at the expense of adaptation (or vice versa).
Based on qualitative responses to the survey, two categories of NUP emerge regarding climate change:(1) NUPs that comprehensively address climate change, and (2) NUPs that serve as a “portal” to othersectoral climate policies.


NUPs in the first category typically provide in-depth plans and strategies, sometimes including
targets or indicators, on the intersection of climate change and urban policy. They also often linkto other stand-alone sectoral climate policies – fulfilling an objective of effective NUP – and thus
overlap with the second category.



NUPs in the second category focus less on climate change and instead link to corresponding standalone sectoral policies related to climate and urban policy. This approach remains effective since
it leverages the role of NUP as a “portal” to other policies, enabling co-ordination between ministries
and strategies to scale up action across many cities. In other words, just because a country does
not provide an overview of climate mitigation and adaptation in its NUP does not mean it lags
GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 149behind, since it might have strategies in other policies. However, a missed opportunity emerges
where NUP makes no reference to other sectoral plans on climate change and urban policy, since
NUPs improve co-ordination by embedding such plans in an overarching framework. NUP bridges
gaps and enhances co-ordination across specialised ministries and levels of government,
especially on complex issues such as climate change that have not always been a considerationin urban development.
All countries that include climate change in their NUP are aware of local or global benefits, ranging from
improved air and water quality, to enhanced mobility and greater economic competitiveness. This suggeststhat these benefits motivate including climate objectives in NUP. The most common obstacles tointegrating climate change into NUP are a lack of expertise and co-ordination on the urban-climate nexus.
Institutional platforms to pool evidence and identify actions that contribute to both development and climate
goals will be important to both the political appetite for low-carbon, climate-resilient development andovercoming capacity gaps that hinder action. Countries at all levels of development – including Ecuador,
Japan, Sweden, Zambia – identify institutional arrangements as critical to building knowledge and aligningurban climate actions.
Cases where NUP does not address climate change (13) may be attributable to several factors: (1) national
governments might address climate change at the urban scale in policy frameworks not linked to their
NUP; (2) national governments might not perceive added-value in integrating climate change with their
NUP; (3) national governments might not address urban considerations in climate change due to a lack of
co-ordination or knowledge of the importance of the issue; (4) national governments might be unaware ofwhether their NUP addresses climate change because it is not a prominent theme. Researching these andtheir implications in depth is urgent considering evidence on the role of NUPs in achieving the Paris
Agreement and holding global warming well below 2°C (Box 7.1).
Several countries that responded to this survey – Austria, Cuba, Portugal, Turkey – emphasise applying
a spatial lens to sectoral decision-making, enabling national governments to harness the proximity anddensity advantages associated with cities. These also pertain to the climate by reducing the per-capita
cost of infrastructure to meet people’s needs, including low-carbon options (such as mass transit anddistrict heating or cooling) and infrastructure that reduces people’s vulnerability to climate risks (such as
sewers, piped water and reliable electricity). Spatially sensitive decision-making requires robust data andco-ordination at the local level, so it is little surprise that clear guidelines, technical assistance and fiscal
support to municipal authorities are widely used to implement the climate elements of a NUP.
These insights suggest countries should leverage the role of NUP as connector of urban and climaterelated ministries, through bridging knowledge gaps and enhancing inter-ministerial co-ordination to scale
up climate action, and embed more diverse and innovative environmental policy instruments in
NUPs, such as carbon pricing to reduce emissions, taking into account their distributional effects onvulnerable groups. More specifically:Countries should address climate change in their NUP and lay the foundation for urban resilienceto prepare for and recover from crises, as with the COVID-19 pandemic. The country survey foundthat 31 of 84 NUPs (37%) do not address climate change. This indicates that greater efforts areneeded, even if specific modalities differ. Addressing climate change and strengthening urban
resilience through NUPs is even more important in the context of COVID-19, which fundamentally
altered how cities operate and will develop for years to come, namely with the push to build greener,
inclusive, and smart cities.



NUPs and their implementation frameworks should bridge expertise, knowledge and co-ordination
gaps on cities and climate change. Countries identify “the lack of expertise on the intersection ofclimate change and urban policy” and “limited co-ordination mechanisms between levels ofgovernment on this subject” as the two most common obstacles to integrating climate change intheir NUP and scaling up low-carbon and resilient cities. The NUP processes should provide

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

150 
opportunities to bridge such gaps and enhance co-ordination between lead NUP ministries andministries in charge of climate change.
Countries should redouble efforts to ensure their NUPs improve the resilience of vulnerable urban
populations to the impacts of climate change. Sixty percent of NUPs that address climate change
include measures to achieve this outcome in the NUP process, which is encouraging but not
sufficient. All countries should aim to improve the climate resilience of vulnerable urban populations
through their NUPs, regardless of country context.

Countries should embed diverse and innovative approaches to urban climate action in their NUPs,
to scale up action and bridge gaps. Given the potential of urban climate action, NUPs should
actively accelerate climate measures – not only those traditionally within the remit of urban policy(e.g. public transport), but also innovative approaches, such as carbon pricing and other fiscal
instruments to reduce emissions, which are less frequently reported.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 151

Annex 7.A. Assessing how NUPs address climate changeThis table provides qualitative information provided by countries on how their NUP addresses climate change via both mitigation and adaptation.

Annex Table 7.A.1. How NUPs address climate changeCountry

Climate change considerations in national urban policy

Algeria

The national climate plan for 2020–30 was ratified by the government and is a practical tool for the implementation of national policy combatting the negative effects of climate change. The
plan provides for 155 actions divided into mitigation, adaptation and governance across several areas.

Australia

Explicit Environment goals in the Smart Cities Plan (www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/smart-cities/plan/index.aspx) and in individual City Deals (www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/citydeals/index.aspx)

Azerbaijan

In its National Contributions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it aims to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 35% compared to 1990 as a contribution to global
climate change prevention initiatives.
State programme on the Use of Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources (2004)
Azerbaijan 2020 Future Development Concept
On Reliable Food Supply of the Population in the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2008–15
State Programme (2008–2015)
State Programme on Socio-Economic Development of Regions (2004, 2009, 2014)
State Programme on Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development in the Republic of Azerbaijan for 2008–15
Strategic Roadmap for the Production and Processing of Agricultural Products in the Republic of Azerbaijan (2016)
The National Coordinating Council for Sustainable Development (NCCSD) of Azerbaijan, established by Decree of the President of the Republic, dated 6 October 2016, to achieve
the Sustainable Development Goals.

BrazilThe National Urban Development Policy is a relevant instrument for the climate change agenda in Brazil given its role in fostering actions at the local level. Municipalities in Brazil haveconstitutional competence over territorial organisation, and land use and occupation in their entire territory. The Master Plan, a basic instrument of urban policy, approved by municipal law,must regulate the urban and rural areas of the municipality, as provided by the City Statute. For this reason, there is great potential for the contribution of municipalities to mitigation actions
alongside the adoption of more sustainable urban development standards, comprising a set of measures of territorial organisation and urban regulation, a matter also within municipal
responsibility. In terms of adaptation, measures of territorial organisation and regulation of urban land use and occupation are extremely relevant, especially in relation to extreme events invulnerable areas. One mechanism of the national policy is to promote climate change mitigation and adaptation measures through methodologies, technical recommendations andprogrammatic actions.
Currently, cities are mentioned in some official Brazilian policies, programmes and documents on climate change with an emphasis on the National Policy on Climate Change, the National

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

152 
Country

Climate change considerations in national urban policy
Adaptation Plan and the National Communications and Biennial Update Reports of Brazil to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Incorporating a climate change
approach into the National Urban Development Policy is an important step towards the implementation of decentralised actions that contribute to the national agenda and its goals. Moreover,data and information relevant to urban development may be available on the SIRENE platforms – National Emissions Registration System, and Monitoring and Observation System for the
Impacts of Climate Change (Impacta Clima) – both under the management of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI).

Bulgaria

The documents defining NUP at regional and local level (Integrated Territorial Strategies for Development of the NUTS 2 Regions, and the Integrated Municipal Development Plans) areelaborated in compliance with methodological guidelines for their preparation and implementation issued by the Minister of Regional Development and Public Works. According to theguidelines, there is a separate chapter in the strategic documents dedicated to climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.

Cabo Verde

One criteria for preventing climate change in PNOTU is to qualify informal settlements in three groups: (1) structured, (2) unstructured and (3) in a risk area. PNOTU also foresees the need fora Participatory and Sustainable Resettlement Plan for residents in areas at risk related to disasters or climate change and participatory methodologies, which use the knowledge of local
communities. PNOTU also notes that cities and human settlements must adopt and implement systems for disaster risk management and reduction to strengthen their resilience and theircapacity to respond to natural and human-made disasters, enabling mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
In Cabo Verde, there is the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (ENRRD) which is the reference for initiatives in resilience at the national level. ENRRD addresses climate change inurban areas, but it has not yet been developed as a policy. This document presents measures to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change in the country and guides all actions within
the scope of the commitments of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), reaffirming the implementation of measures and programmes to stabilise
greenhouse gas emissions. For effective integration of the adaptation measures proposed by ENRRD in the context of the preparation of the PDM, it is important to incorporate them into thelegal framework of spatial planning and urbanism.

Chile

Climate change is covered as one of the five axes of the PNDU (the Environmental Balance).

Colombia

In 2018, the government adopted Law 1931 on guidelines for climate change management, which determined that the National Climate Change System would be the policies, regulations,processes, state and private entities, resources, plans, strategies, instruments, mechanisms, and information related to climate change. The law defines the instruments to adopt climatechange adaptation and mitigation measures, both for the sectors that comprise the state, and for departmental and municipal authorities. One of the most relevant measures is that theministries will be responsible for complying with Colombia's commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
These measures and guidelines are implemented in the National Climate Change Policy combined with the Integrated Climate Change Management Plans, where ministries such as the
Ministry of Housing, City and Territory define the goals and actions to be implemented in Colombian cities based on defined lines in the policy, which emphasises low-carbon and climateresilient urban development.
These work streams comprise lines of action such as: (1) providing cities with urban infrastructure that is resilient to flooding or sea level rise; (2) reducing climate risk due to city water
shortages; (3) providing efficient public transport alternatives; (4) encouraging the continued reduction of solid and liquid waste generation; (5) encouraging residential and non-residential
energy efficiency; (6) reducing exposure to flooding and transport emissions through controlled city expansion; (7) promoting the conservation of the main ecological structure; and (8)generating scientific knowledge to quantify CO2 emissions sequestration.

Costa Rica

Axis 1 of the PNDU contains three strategic actions related to the environment and climate change:III. Effectively and efficiently incorporate the environmental variable in urban planning and territorial planning instruments, according to the instrument's competence scale.

IV. Contemplate the improvement and gradual adaptation of the infrastructures to mitigate the natural risks and threats, particularly events produced by the effect of climate change.
V. Promote that construction and operation of buildings and infrastructure have positive net impacts on the environment and the urban environment.
One specific action of this axis was to develop the National Climate Change Adaptation Policy and Plan; The National Climate Change Adaptation Policy 2018–2030 was issued in April 2018.
(http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/DocsDescargar/Normas/No%20DE-41091/Version1/Politica_ADAPTACION_24_abril.pdf)
There is a national Risk Management Policy that considers aspects related to the adaptation and mitigation of the effects that climate change produces.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 153
Country
Cuba

FranceClimate change considerations in national urban policy
One priority of the National Urban Polity is to strengthen sustainability and adaptive capacities in the territory and its inhabitants. Three strategies to achieve this are:
Improve the adaptive capacities of the territory to face the emergency of climate change and to reduce the vulnerability of society and ecosystems to its effects.
Promote the territorial policy of integral risk management, aimed at prevention, mitigation, adaptation and recovery of the territory and its inhabitants in the face of disturbing
phenomena, which increases the adaptive capacities of society.
Strengthen inter-institutional and intersectoral co-ordination, to articulate planning policies and instruments with territorial impact, under a focus on sustainability and adaptive
capacity development.
NUP in Cuba considers the risks of Disasters and Climate Change and includes the Life Task, an ambitious State Plan confronting the issue of climate change, which includes adaptation andmitigation actions in Cuba. It considers, especially, the creation and conditioning of increasingly resilient human settlements.





Ghana

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Article 1 of the Urban Programming and Cohesion Act of 24 February 2014 sets out an objective for urban policy aimed at "promoting the balanced development of territories, thesustainable city, the right to a healthy and high-quality environment, and the fight against energy poverty".
The new National Urban Renewal Programme (NPNRU) aims to reclassify priority neighbourhoods with the most significant urban dysfunctions. The general regulations of the
National Urban Renewal Agency (ANRU) include "energy efficiency and ecological transition in neighbourhoods" among the essential objectives of the projects. A global
environmental approach to urban renewal is expected to limit the consumption of resources (water, waste, etc.) and promote adaptation to climate change. The NPNRU, which
covers the period 2014-2024, concerns 480 neighbourhoods and benefits from EUR 10 billion in financial aid.
The “future-oriented investment programme” (PIA) (Axis 1 of the action "Sustainable and inclusive city, environmental excellence of urban renewal") aims to support the deploymentof urban and social innovation in neighbourhoods undergoing urban renewal, particularly regarding energy and environmental excellence. This programme has been allocated EUR
71 million in subsidies.
Intensify public information and awareness campaigns on energy conservation, climate change and mitigation strategies.
Encourage progressive reduction of hazardous substances by industry.
Promote settlement structure plans designed to achieve a high level of amenities and the prevention of effluent and refuse pollution.
Promote and strengthen co-operation of adjoining MMDAs in collaboration with traditional authorities and other relevant stakeholders in management of water bodies and othernatural resources.
Avoid coastal zone development which affects ecologically sensitive areas.
Impose and enforce more effective coastal zone and wetlands management regulations.
Strengthen the capacities of agencies charged with promoting environmental standards.
Generate public awareness on climate change and mitigation strategies through mass-media educational campaigns.

GuatemalaSpatial planning is defined as one of the main tools to address climate change.

IsraelMost efforts are currently paid to mitigation (through the “Israel 2050” project). However, adaptation is also addressed, mainly through initiatives to improve runoff management and to increase
tree canopy coverage in urban areas. Israel intends to put greater focus on reducing the heat island affect, given scenarios that predict temperature rise in the Eastern Mediterranean(considered a global hotspot).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

154 
Country

Climate change considerations in national urban policy

Madagascar

A diagnosis of the vulnerability of cities to climate change exists.
Climate change is one of the environmental challenges highlighted by the NUP (Politique Nationale de Développement Urbain – PNDU), and guideline examples were defined:In urban planning, factor in the environmental dimension as well as the improvement of the quality of life and landscapes.
Integrate disaster risk reduction and adaptation to climate change into urban planning and development projects.

Malta

The SPED Policies for Climate Change (Thematic Objective 9):
To control greenhouse gas emissions and enhance Malta's capacity to adapt to climate change by:
1. Supporting the implementation of Malta's Energy and Water Policies.
2. Supporting the implementation of the National Mitigation Strategy and National Adaptation Strategy.
3. Requiring the integration of small-scale renewable energy infrastructure into the design of buildings, particularly in public, industrial and commercial sectors.
4. Promoting renewable energy sources and zero carbon modes for transport.
5. Directing large scale solar farms to areas as identified in the proposed Solar Farm Planning Policy.
6. Promoting energy efficiency in the design of buildings.
7. Ensuring that development plans and proposals contribute to national targets for GHG reductions and mainstream climate change adaptation measures.
8. Directing development away from areas which are prone to significant risk of flooding except for interventions required to manage these areas.
9. Improving public/collective transport as a high priority adaptation measure for climate change.

MexicoIn the definition of objectives, strategies and lines of action of the Sectorial Programme for Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development (PSDATU), some mitigation and adaptation actions are
established:
Adaptation
1.2.2 Integrate policies and actions around climate change, comprehensive risk management and mobility in instruments of land use planning and urban development.

2.1.2 With state and municipal governments, promote a strategy for comprehensive disaster risk management in agrarian territories.

3.2.1 Promote the updating of construction regulations to promote risk prevention and promote mitigation and adaptation actions to climate change.

3.2.5 Contribute to the fair relocation of the population living in risk areas.

3.2.6 Promote financial and technical advice schemes for the preparation, implementation and integration of risk management in land use planning and urban development
programmes.

3.3.4 With the participation of state and municipal governments, academia and civil society, implement actions to rebuild infrastructure, services, amenities, and homes/dwellings
affected by natural, climatic and anthropic phenomena.

3.3.5 Promote subsidy and financing schemes to provide specialised technical advice to the population for adequate reconstruction of homes affected by disasters, to the culturalcharacteristics of each region.

4.3.1 Link housing actions of state and municipal governments with regulatory frameworks for comprehensive risk management and climate change by harmonising laws andregulations for land use and urban development with the General Law of Human Settlements, Territorial Planning and Urban Development.

4.3.2 Promote adaptive capacities and preparation for disturbing events in human settlements by designing strategies for adaptation to climate change and comprehensive risk
management in a co-ordinated manner with states and municipalities.

4.3.5 Promote actions, with municipal and state governments to reduce the vulnerability of the housing stock to natural and man-made phenomena through assisted housing
improvement programmes.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 155Country

Climate change considerations in national urban policy
Mitigation

3.4.1 Promote the incorporation of mobility and connectivity actions in urban and metropolitan planning with a focus on sustainability, road safety and resilience.

3.4.2 Co-ordinate multisectoral actions to guarantee sustainable mobility actions through the integration of roads, means of transport, routes and destinations, prioritising pedestrianand non-motorised mobility; obtain greater social, economic and environmental profitability, thereby benefiting most of the inhabitants and colonies (neighbourhoods) of humansettlements.

MyanmarIn Myanmar’s NUP, climate change is one of the policy’s priority themes. Myanmar endeavours to go beyond zero-sum by pursuing actions that will upgrade the environment throughenrichment of biodiversity, augmentation of biomass, enlargement of rainfall absorption capacity and hence enhancement of groundwater formation. The NUP aligns with existing policies andstrategies such as the Myanmar Climate Change Policy, Myanmar Climate Change Strategies and Action Plan (MCCSAP) and the Myanmar Environment Policy.
Urban climate resilience and the low-carbon transition can be enacted through the following policy interventions:Compact high-density urban development, advocating infill on brownfield sites should be sought over outward extensions of urban settlements to reduce transportation needs andgreenhouse gas emissions.

Institutionalise Strategic Environmental Assessments in spatial plan preparation.

Make Climate Change Resilience Audits mandatory for cities and towns, and prioritise municipal infrastructure planning with a clear view on adaption to climate change.

Nepal

Policies related to climate change are available and integrated in the draft NUP.

Netherlands

The Delta Programme is an example for for climate adaptation. Besides, climate adaptation and mitigation are mentioned as a main priority in the National Strategy on Spatial Planning andEnvironment.

New ZealandLegislation providing for the Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development specifically requires the inclusion of how the government expects Kāinga Ora–Homes andCommunities (the government’s lead developer) to recognise the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.
It will likely also be addressed in the vision/priorities section although this is not a requirement and is yet to be confirmed.

Nigeria

Chapter 20 of the current National Urban Development Policy (2012) focuses on climate change, including mitigation and adaptation strategies. This will be updated in line with current
developments on climate change during the review process.

PanamaPanama’s NUP addresses climate change through mitigation measures included in the environmental impact studies that are required by the Ministry of the Environment (MiAmbiente), and incompliance with the guidelines for the preparation and explanation for the incorporation of Integrated Disaster Risk Management and Adaptability to Climate Change in Panama's Land
Management Plans and Land Management Schemes approved by the MIVIOT.

Philippines

The Philippines NUDHF ensures the mainstreaming of climate change considerations so that urban development contributes to GHG mitigation and improves and promotes adaptation to achanged climate and climate-related disasters.

Portugal

Several strategic guidelines directly or indirectly address climate change challenges and the subsequent response.

RwandaThe national roadmap for green secondary cities was developed and aligned to the NUP. It provides strategies, guidelines and actions to be undertaken by the central and local government inpursuing green city development and climate resilient urbanisation. (https://gggi.org/report/24716/)

Saudi Arabia

Some technical analysis and research is available on climate change in urban areas, but not yet developed as urban policy.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

156 
Country

Climate change considerations in national urban policy

SerbiaAmong 20 packages of measures in the Sustainable Urban Development Strategy of the Republic of Serbia 2030 are two sets of measures concerning climate change, one on mitigation andone on adaptation. Besides those measures, which are the framework topics to be further elaborated through activities (projects, regulations, institutional arrangements), there are priority
areas, which can be settlements of parts of settlements, with environmental or climate change problems. In the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia from 2010, some locations which areurban settlements or outside of settlements are identified as environmental hot spots with potentially the biggest impact on climate change.

Slovakia

Encourage urban authorities to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, and support inclusion of adaptation measures into urban planning.

Slovenia

The Strategy (NUP) states Goal 5: Resilience of space and additivity to changes, with Priority 12: Improvement of space resilience.
In the Chapter 5, guidelines for achieving spatial development goals and carrying out the spatial development concept are guidelines for preserving and improving the recognisability ofsettlements and the landscape, and for a transition to a low-carbon society.
http://www.meteo.si/uploads/probase/www/climate/text/en/publications/OPS21_brosura_ENG.pdf

Spain

The Urban Agenda has Strategic Objective 3 aimed at “prevention and reduction of climate change impacts and improvement of resilience in towns and cities”.

SwedenThe NUP focuses on goals for sustainable cities and policies primarily for urban transport and green areas, as well as innovative and sustainable construction.

ThailandBoth mitigation and adaptation measures are developed as the part of NUP.
Mitigation measures: Thailand addresses climate change through mitigation measures in the NUP as an indicator and development guideline. (NUP Indicator: Domestic climate change
mitigation mechanisms are established to provide support in terms of finance, technology and capacity building.)
Adaptation measures: In the development guideline for NUP, climate change adaptation is included by enhancing the capacity of R&D in science, technology and innovation (ST&I). Stimulate
R&D in ST&I while applying local wisdom to offer the adaptive technology necessary for the agricultural sector. Provide supportive measures to assist vulnerable and high-risk populations witha low adaptive capacity. Plan to protect cities that might be affected by sea-level rise, extreme weather and seasonal variation. Design city or town plans based on information regarding climate
risk assessment and analysis: formulate strategies or action plans for climate change adaptation at the country, sector, and local levels, with different degrees and specific types of climate
risks. As a result, these strategies and plans will be more likely to be implemented on the ground.

TurkeyThe preparation of regional and local climate adaptation plans are programmed and preparations are ongoing in the Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation, General Directorate ofEnvironmental Inspection, where the UN Climate Summit ICLA and COP processes of UNFCCCs are headed.
KENTGES has both climate change mitigation and adaptation measures at local level and links spatial development strategies with water management, risk management and integrated
coastal areas management, bringing actions that support the climate change adaptation process. Within 10 years KENTGES increased the awareness of local administrations about energy
efficiency in buildings, sustainable modes of transport, adaptation measures related to the urban infrastructure and waste management.
Turkey’s National Spatial Strategy Plan will have a climate change axis that cuts across sectoral policies; spatial strategies will be supported by the analysis and synthesis of preparations sofar.

United Republicof Tanzania

Climate change in Tanzania is coordinated by the Vice President’s Office with the Guidance from the National Environment Policy 1997 and the Environmental Management Act, 2004. These
documents provide the Policy, Legal and Administrative Framework to address issues of climate change in the country. To narrow co-ordination of climate change issues in the country, thegovernment prepared the Nation Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA, 2007), National Climate Change Strategy, 2012, and the Guidelines for Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptationand Mitigation in Sector Policies, Plans, Programmes and Budget. This being the case, the NUP needs to adhere to the existing Policy and Regulatory framework with regards to climatechange adaptation and mitigation.

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 157
Country
ZambiaClimate change considerations in national urban policy
One of thematic pillar of the draft NUP is Resilient Human Settlements. Objectives under this pillar include:1) To strengthen responsiveness to climate change in urban settlements and surrounding areas.
2) To promote disaster risk reduction in human settlements and surrounding areas.
3) To promote effective management of the environment.
During the NUP formulation, government institutions dealing with climate change issues were consulted to ensure integration of climate change issues:
1) The Zambia Environmental Agency.
2) The Climate Change Secretariat under Ministry of National Development Planning developed guidelines and tools to screen policies and programmes for climate change resilienceand to mainstream climate change issues. The Secretariat screened the draft NUP.
3) The Department of Climate Change under Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources.
4) The Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit.

Source: (OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance, 2020[14]).

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

158 

References
Bazaz, A. et al. (2018), Summary for Urban Policymakers: What the IPCC Special Report on
Global Warming of 1.5°C Means for Cities, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/.

[1]Bush, J. and A. Doyon (2019), “Building urban resilience with nature-based solutions: How canurban planning contribute?”, Cities, Vol. 95, p. 102483,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102483.

[10]

Coalition for Urban Transition (2019), The Urban Opportunity,
https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.

[18]

Coalition for Urban Transitions (2019), Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity,
https://urbantransitions.global/urban-opportunity/.

[16]

Colenbrander, S., D. Dodman and D. Mitlin (2017), “Using climate finance to advance climate
justice: The politics and practice of channelling resources to the local level”, Climate Policy,
Vol. 18/7, pp. 902-915, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1388212.

[15]

Government of the Netherlands (2019), Draft National Strategy on Spatial Planning and theEnvironment (NOVI).

[17]

Jamei, E. and N. Tapper (2019), “WSUD and urban heat island effect mitigation”, in Approaches
to Water Sensitive Urban Design, Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-8128435.00019-8.

[12]

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations of the Netherlands (2019), “Draft National Strategy
on Spatial Planning and the Environment: A sustainable perspective for our living
environment”,
https://www.denationaleomgevingsvisie.nl/publicaties/english+versions/default.aspx#folder=1451456.

[4]

Moreno Monroy, A. et al. (2020), “Housing policies for sustainable and inclusive cities: Hownational governments can deliver affordable housing and compact urban development”,
OECD Regional Development Working Papers, No. 2020/03, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d63e9434-en.

[9]OECD (2019), “Financing climate objectives in cities and regions to deliver sustainable andinclusive growth”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 17, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/ee3ce00b-en.

[13]OECD (2019), Taxing Energy Use 2019: Using Taxes for Climate Action, OECD Publishing,Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/058ca239-en.

[8]OECD (2018), Building Resilient Cities: An Assessment of Disaster Risk Management Policies inSoutheast Asia, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264305397-en.

[11]OECD (2018), OECD Urban Policy Reviews: Viet Nam, OECD Urban Policy Reviews, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264286191-en.

[5]

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

 159OECD (2016), Urban Green Growth in Dynamic Asia, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266360-en.

[3]OECD (2013), Green Growth in Cities, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195325-en.

[2]

OECD/UN-Habitat/Cities Alliance (2020), National Urban Policy Country Survey 2020.

[14]

TULab (2019), Harnessing Urbanisation for Development: Roadmap for Tanzania’s Urban
Development Policy, Tanzania Urbanisation Laboratory,
https://urbantransitions.global/en/publication/harnessing-urbanisation-for-developmentroadmap-for-tanzanias-urban-development-policy/.

[6]World Bank (2020), State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2020, World Bank, Washington, DC,
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/33809.

[7]

GLOBAL STATE OF NATIONAL URBAN POLICY 2021 © OECD/UN-HABITAT/UNOPS 2021

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALSAND DELIVERING CLIMATE ACTION
National Urban Policy (NUP) is a key instrument to achieve sustainable urban development in a shared
responsibility across countries, regions and cities. The scale and urgency of the current urban challenges has
given prominence to NUPs. The COVID-19 crisis has amplified the potential of NUPs in shaping more resilient,
green and inclusive cities as part of countries recovery packages.
This report reviews NUPs of 162 countries across the globe. Building on the first edition launched in 2018, thereport serves as a critical source of information and analysis for policymakers and urban professionals, as it
establishes the foundation for understanding how and in what forms NUPs have been developed, implemented
and monitored globally. The overarching objective of the report is to assist national governments in advancing
their NUP processes, especially in creating a stronger link between NUPs and urban-related global agendas,
such as the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the New Urban Agenda, and in mainstreaming
climate action into NUPs. The report is a co-creation of the OECD, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance, as a key
outcome of the National Urban Policy Programme, a global partnership launched in 2016 at the Habitat III
Conference.

PAPERBACK ISBN 978-92-64-88003-0
PDF ISBN 978-92-64-77950-1

9HSTCQE*iiaada+

Global State of National Urban Policy 2021 ACHIEVING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND DELIVERING CLIMATE ACTION

Global State of National Urban Policy 2021:

Global State of National Urban
Policy 2021:

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals
and Delivering Climate Action