sustainable development

Habitat III

2016_10Oct_16

Habitat III, the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, took the city of Quito, Equador, by storm from November 17 to 20, 2016, with attendees filling the Casa de la Cultura between Quito’s old city and the Mariscal. Paul Currie, a researcher with urban Modelling and Metabolism Assessment, the Centre for Complex Systems in Transition and the School of Public Leadership at Stellenbosch University, South Africa, participated in the conference and offers some reflections here:

Quito made a perfect setting for the conference, given its location in the global South, equipped with precarious cliffside housing, urban sprawl, limited highways, buses and cars spewing exhaust, an abundance of street vendors and a spectacular mountainous location in the midst of four active volcanoes. The concept of disaster resilience is quite apt, given the 1999 eruption of Pichincha volcano covered the city in ash. The city was also in the middle of it’s fiesta de la luz, drawing thousands of Ecuadorians to see the light shows projected on ornate churches – though such a description does no justice to the spectacle. As with any of these large events, the city takes on a new electric life and we’re left unsure if this is how it normally feels to wander Quito’s streets.

2016_10Oct_172016_10Oct_18

The conference drew together over 25000 single-day attendees of a rumored 45000 registrants. These attendees were united by a fascination with the form, processes and relationships of cities, and the starting point for most discussions was a unified acknowledgement that cities face challenges and that cities are the key to addressing global socio-economic and socio-ecological issues. From there, the points of divergence are the different language we use to describe these challenges, and the varied perspectives, approaches and agendas proposed to address them.

2016_10Oct_17-2

The 20-year latency between Habitat Conferences (The previous ones took place in Istanbul in 1996 and Vancouver in 1976), means that the global context has shifted drastically, and the world is in need of a renewed focus of its development priorities. This is seen by the recent concentration of mega-events that have resulted in the Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 to name a few.

Habitat III created a forum in which we could question together how cities have been developed, both as shining beacons of human ingenuity and creativity, and as structural enforcers of inequality and exclusivity. With this in mind, many note that the New Urban Agenda, the centerpiece of the conference, will not work if we overlook global and local inequity. The New Urban Agenda acknowledges a wide range of systemically discriminated groups including ‘women and girls, children and youth, persons with disabilities, people living with HIV/AIDS, older persons, indigenous peoples and local communities, slum and informal settlement dwellers, homeless people, workers, smallholder farmers and fishers, refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons, and migrants, regardless of migration status.’

While the NUA has a very clear desire to promote sustainable urban development, as visualised by the word cloud below, it is critiqued for not establishing its own targets or a means to measure the success of it’s many suggested interventions. What’s more, while it effectively stands as the embodiment of SDG Goal 11 to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, it is very poorly connected to the goals and targets in the SDGs. This is highlighted as a missed opportunity by David Simon, of Mistra Urban Futures, in a conversation about the Habitat process. The power of cities as concentrators of people, welfare, innovation, as well as social diseconomies (crime, disease, poverty, inequality) and ecological impact, makes them the almost perfect levers for propelling global sustainability as embodied by many of the 17 SDGs. However, successful implementation of the NUA will be left to the interpretation of its broad rhetoric by local and national actors, many of whom are under-capacitated. Despite this, Simon explains that the NUA is the first UN document to ‘recognize the critical role of sub-national authorities and non-state actors’ – a major achievement for the UN system.


Screen Shot 2016-10-31 at 10.09.50 AM
word cloud of the key terms in the new urban agenda


The Sunday before the conference began, a Mayors assembly shared voices from the heads of cities, which I felt set the tone for the conference and highlighted the varied nature of urban challenges and priorities worldwide:

  • Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, challenges the Mayors to raise their voices to speak for their people.
  • Ada Colau, the Mayor of Barcelona shared enthusiasm that ‘the right to the city’ was incorporated in the NUA
  • Tri Rismaharisni, Mayor of Surabaya shared that ‘gender equity works for all,’ saying that gender parity will be the foundation of sustainable development.
  • Dennis Coderre, Mayor of Montreal argued the importance of local government, which is more engaged with people’s daily lives and needs, and called on national governments to realize the importance of cities and local authorities.
  • Miguel Angel Mancera, Mayor of Mexico City suggested that cities should receive funds directly without intermediaries.
  • Gustavo Baroja, Prefect of Pichincha, argued that we must break through the binary distinction of urban or rural as both are inter-reliant.
  • Michael Muller, Mayor of Berlin, asserts that we must turn the NUA from a piece of paper into actions, citing his challenge of bringing refugees from the periphery into the city.
  • Emil Elestianto Dardak, the Regent of Trenggalek, encourages us to adopt sustainable patterns of production and consumption.
  • Kumar Rai Bipin, of the Urban Board of Delhi, declares healthcare as a fundamental right and urges that slum areas are upgraded and not relocated.
  • Daniel Martinez, the Mayor of Montevideo, argues that we need a radical declaration of economic realities: that we will not achieve justice if we cannot address the lack of resources. Fighting for a social economy which redistributes wealth is a requirement for sustainability.
  • Mohamad Baqer Qualibaf, Mayor of Tehran says that ‘nobody can be a mayor if they are not in love with their city’ and motivates that cities should be constructed for their citizens

These desires were voiced in the buzz-words plastered around the conference, calling for cities that were sustainable, resilient, smart, participatory, inclusive, and in the multitudes of presentation and exhibitions throughout the conference.

2016_10Oct_16-4

With the adoption of the NUA, the global urban reality is unquestionable, and along with it, the manifestation of all urban challenges, intrigues, speed bumps. This is specifically important for African nations as before the Habitat III process, there was a prevailing denial among many governments on the continent that urbanization is happening, that it is caused by natural growth, or that it could deliver social and economic benefits. This denial may have been the most limiting obstacle facing urban practitioners, as urban policies would be missing vital tools, or focus primarily on anti- or de-urbanisation mechanisms. With an urban reality accepted, what now remains is for governments, through engagement with other stakeholders, to embed the ideas of the NUA in national agendas and develop local targets for developing just, sustainable cities.



Urban Metabolism of African Cities

by Paul Currie
first published on makingofcities.org

I wander through cities and hear them humming around me. They are creatures, machines, fixtures, breathers, parts and pieces, relationships, conduits, conductors, caretakers and crushers. Each city has its own sounds and its own energies that draw my attention and set the rhythm of my feet. The unique vibes in different cities is unquestionable, but cities do follow very similar processes (see Radiolab Podcast). Each city has systems for moving people around, for bringing food from afar, for delivering electricity to our light bulbs, water to our mouths, and data to our phones. These actions or processes can be understood as flows, simple or complex, interwoven, and present in the thousands. These flows of materials, energy, people and information form the metabolism of the city and are responsible for its existence. Unfortunately we do not have enough information about how these flows are conducted within cities, particularly in the global south, which means decisions about service delivery or sustainability are often made without data to prove their efficacy.

Studying urban metabolism allows us to visualise and explain the complexity of socio-technical and socio-ecological processes by which flows of materials, energy, people and information enter and shape the city, service the needs of its people, and impact the surrounding environment. More simply, it shows how the city functions, what type and quantity of resources it uses, and how heavily the city impacts its environment. To aid exploration of urban metabolism, some conceptualise cities as organisms, while others as ecosystems. I prefer the suggestion that most contemporary cities behave as organisms, while the ideal city behaves as an ecosystem: An organism ingests food and water to power its body, to keep it living and thriving. Its wastes are then excreted, out of sight, out of mind. This is a typical modern city: resources come in, are used in processes of economic production (and hopefully human welfare), before the wastes are dumped in the surrounding environment. Cities tend to be located on key resources – most are on water and on fertile agricultural land. Of course there are those which defy a bioregional attitude and are placed on desert or on mineral wealth (Dubai, Las Vegas, Johannesburg). The wastes of cities have huge consequences for a city’s hinterland, undermining natural ecosystems or poisoning people downstream. The global trade apparatus is so established that nations can even export their wastes to poorer places. Thus, a simple goal of urban metabolism analysis could be to make more efficient use of the fresh materials coming into the city, and to properly reuse or recycle waste flows. This is how the ecosystem conception is useful. Ecosystems are defined by relationships between organisms and abiotic systems. In the same way that an ecosystem makes use of detritivores to break down biological wastes into reusable nutrients, so too could the perfect city use our wastes to power its systems. Stockholm powers busses based on biogas from its sewage system. Toronto’s wastewater system contains enough chemical energy to power itself (Bristow & Kennedy 2013). A cyclical metabolism is not only possible, but necessary for growing sustainable cities with low social and environmental impact.

It should be acknowledged that sustainability has multiple approaches. The mainstream sustainability discourse preaches resource efficiency. This is fine for developed spaces of the global north, where overconsumption is the daily routine. However, for countries in the global south, most people do not have access the basic resources they need, so the priority for these spaces is resource equity. The lack of formalised infrastructure in many of these spaces provides an opportunity to create infrastructure systems that are equitable as well as efficient.

Shaping infrastructures requires assessing how flows are conducted in these cities. Resource flows can be formally coordinated and regulated by city planners or government, or follow informal patterns where government is unable or unwilling to provide resources. This can be visualised as the distinction between networked water pipes and decentralized water tankers, bottles, boreholes or sachet water provision, or by comparing supermarket tomatoes to those bought on the streetside. Both systems effectively get water or tomatoes to people, yet informal systems are typically shunned as they do not fit the desired northern (America, Europe, Asian Tigers) image of a modern city. This is problematic as informal systems predominate in cities of the global south and in Africa. Tapping into the innovation and adaptability of informal systems can be useful for city practitioners in providing services or addressing necessary city functions. The successes of waste picking systems in Brazil, India, and Egypt are easy examples.

African cities predominantly function on informal systems as much of the networked infrastructure remains within the boundaries of original colonial settlements. Informality pervades public transport systems, water and food provision, energy generation and waste removal. Analysing these flows is difficult as they are hard to track and quantify. However, finding ways to do so is an important step for empowering city planners with more knowledge about the functions of their cities.

African cities may share attributes such as informal economies, slum dwelling, high youth unemployment, migratory citizens, precarious infrastructure systems (see the Nigerian fuel strike), resource and wealth inequality (see the Dumsor Report), and industrialisation within planetary boundaries. However, it is impractical to make singular recommendations about African urbanism when city practitioners in Arusha will be dealing with very different realities from those in Abidjan. More local urban metabolism studies would be invaluable.

Global urbanisation trends suggest that African cities will house one billion new urbanites by 2050. To aid studies of sustainability or urban metabolism in African cities, it is vital to make a shift from discussing African urbanism as a collective event. The oft-quoted statistic that Africa is 40% urban (the world purportedly passed 50% urban in 2008) overlooks the fact that 17 of 54 African nations are over 50% urban, 9 of which are over 60% urban, and 4 of which are over 70% urban: the African urban future is here. Meeting it with new visions for the sounds and energies of these cities will make all the difference.


Interesting Reads:

  • Bettencourt, L.M., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kuhnert, C. & West, G.B. 2007. Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. PNAS. 104(17):7301–7306.
  • Bristow, D.N. & Kennedy, C.A. 2013. Urban Metabolism and the Energy Stored in Cities: Implications for Resilience. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 17(5):656–667.
  • Kennedy, C., Cuddihy, J. & Engel-Yan, J. 2007. The Changing Metabolism of Cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 11(2):43–59.
  • Krausmann, F., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Schandl, H. & Eisenmenger, N. 2008. The Global Sociometabolic Transition. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 12(5/6):637–656.
  • Pieterse, E. 2014. Filling the void: an agenda for tackling African urbanisation. In Africa’s Urban Revolution. S. Parnell & E. Pieterse, Eds. London: Zed Books. 200–220.
  • Turok, I. 2014. Linking urbanisation and development in Africa’s economic revival. In Africa’s Urban Revolution. S. Parnell & E. Pieterse, Eds. London: Zed Books. 60–81.