Keywords

1 Introduction

In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was established by member states (UN 2015). Among the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), one was specifically designed to tackle the challenges of urbanization: SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities. Aiming to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable, the urban SDG represented a big leap from the way in which urban issues had been framed before. For instance, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) only had two targets that were directly connected to urbanization: one on drinking water and sanitation and another on slum upgrading (UN 2000).

The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development in October 2016, also known as Habitat III , was the first major UN conference after the launching of the 2030 Agenda . This explains why the Quito Declaration on Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements for All, also known as the New Urban Agenda (NUA), was so influenced by sustainable development concepts, which were clearly translated in the transformative commitments for sustainable urban development in the NUA (UN-Habitat 2016). The New Urban Agenda is the first international document in which the 193 member states of the UN General Assembly agree on principles, tools, and methodologies related to sustainable urbanization. Since Habitat III, discussions on how to localize, design, define, and implement the SDGs and the NUA at the local level have been at center stage in the United Nations and among urban development stakeholders. Many urban frameworks have been formulated and operationalized, also taking global agendas and regional, national, and subnational strategies into consideration (Local 2030). Figure 13.1 shows how all these different frameworks are interlinked, informing sustainable urban development planning in the case of Cabo Verde.

Fig. 13.1
figure 1

Timeline for sustainable urban development of Cabo Verde. (Source: authors)

Full size image

The consensus in the international community regarding the role of urbanization in sustainable development is timely. By 2030, 60% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas (UNDESA 2018). In the African continent, the urban population is currently 43.5% of the total population and will increase to 48.4% in 2030 and to 58.9% in 2050. Africa has also, by far, the highest average annual rate of change of the urban population of 3.58%, against 1.90% of the world’s rate. If only sub-Saharan Africa is considered, this number increases to 3.98% (UNDESA 2018). The urbanization challenge in Africa is characterized by fast growth and at the same time by a lack of capacity at local level in terms of data, resources, planning, and management which leads to informal urbanization, with 61.7% of the region’s urban population estimated to live in slums in 2010 (Africa Renewal 2012).

2 Planning Sustainable Urban Development

In its paragraph 15, the NUA defines the four fundamental drivers of change for sustainable urban development as (1) policy and legislation, (2) urban governance , (3) urban planning and design, and (4) municipal finance and local fiscal systems (UN-Habitat 2016).

To support local governments in localizing the NUA and 2030 Agenda in their local spatial development plans, UN-Habitat’s Regional Office for Africa and the Urban Planning and Design Lab have been piloting the Participatory Incremental Urban Planning (PIUP) toolbox in selected African cities (UN-Habitat 2020a). The focus of this toolbox is on local governments in developing countries, Small Island Development States (SIDS), least developed countries (LDC), and landlocked countries, and as such the pilot projects were conducted in Bissau (Guinea-Bissau), Hawassa and Bahir Dar (Ethiopia), Príncipe Island (São Tomé e Príncipe), Moroni (Comoros), and at policy level in Cabo Verde and Angola. This experience was not only limited to the African continent, as it also included pilots in Saudi Arabia, Haiti, and Mexico, among others. The first edition of this methodological approach was published and presented during the tenth session of the World Urban Forum in Abu Dhabi on 12 February 2020 by UN-Habitat’s team and city leaders from Bissau and Hawassa.

The approach is outlined in a publication, named Participatory Incremental Urban Planning : a toolbox to support local governments in developing countries to implement the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals —edition for fast growing small cities (UN-Habitat 2020a), which was expanded and revised for publication in October 2021, officially launched as Our City Plans (UN-Habitat 2021). The PIUP toolbox is process-based, understanding that planning practice is a “process framework rather than a design framework” (UN-Habitat 2020a, p. 7). It is fit-for-purpose, providing a “simplified roadmap for urban planning process based on best practices for contexts with limited resources and capacity” (ibid.), which is usually the case in Africa at the local level. The PIUP toolbox is “incremental and flexible, being a step-by-step methodology structured in phases, blocks and activities, supported by innovative tools to gradually develop and implement the plan” (ibid.). It is impact-oriented, through “smart mechanisms and incentives, operationalization tools, coherent policy implementation linked to land management, city finance, urban governance and legislation, also stressing the importance of action planning to put projects on the ground” (ibid.). The PIUP is also participatory and people-centered, placing local authorities, key stakeholders, and “citizens at the driver’s seat of sustainable urban development” (ibid.). Finally, it is open source and modular, “creating a dynamic feedback and continuous improvement process between national and sub-national urban policies and urban planning practices at the local level. It is designed to be constantly improved and to absorb external contributions and new tools” (ibid.).

The key block within the PIUP toolbox for the localization of the SDGs is the Strategic Plan block.Footnote 1 This block “aims at defining a participatory vision, goals, targets and indicators” (UN-Habitat 2020a, p. 55) and “should be developed following the methodology for the localization of the urban SDG targets at municipal level” (ibid.) which “has been successfully applied in over 10 countries and 20 cities, to support the alignment of national priorities and plans with the local priorities, as well as international agendas reflected by the SDGs ” (ibid.). The block comprises of four activities: Strategic Development Scenarios (recommended), Visioning Workshop (mandatory), Spatial Strategy (recommended), and Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (mandatory). The focus of this chapter will be on the two mandatory activities of this first edition (UN-Habitat 2020a), which are the activities under the Strategic Development Plan block of the second edition.

In practical terms, the Strategic Plan block is implemented on the ground through a Sustainable Urban Development Visioning Workshop, which is a 1-week activity led by local authorities to gather key local stakeholders and build the results framework for the city plan, including the vision, goals, targets, and selection of indicators to the monitoring framework. A typical calendar of activities for a City Sustainable Development Visioning Workshop comprises a series of intertwined activities which are flexible and adapted to the level of engagement of local stakeholders. The workshop can take from 3 to 5 days, depending on the intensity and commitment of participants and their knowledge of the city issues. It includes at least the following activities (Fig. 13.2):

Fig. 13.2
figure 2

City sustainable development visioning workshop program (UN-Habitat 2020a)

Full size image

The workshop starts with a training session on the methodology, the strategic planning approach of the 2030 Agenda, and selected global agendas and national and subnational strategies to be considered by the plan. The rest of the first day is dedicated to presenting and agreeing on the current diagnostic of the city , the key issues, and how a development vision can be built to integrate global agendas and national and subnational strategies. This is done through six perspectives which should always be represented throughout the workshop, which are the thematic 5 Ps for Sustainable Development: People, Prosperity, Planet, Peace, and Partnership (SDG Services n.d.), complemented by the enabling P of Planning (also grouped as Policy /Planning/Programming) (Fig. 13.3).

Fig. 13.3
figure 3

The 6Ps (or 5Ps +1) for sustainable urban development (UN-Habitat 2020a)

Full size image

The stakeholders are divided into groups representing the 6Ps, after which they have to agree on a common and shared vision in a plenary session as a way to ensure all perspectives from Sustainable Development are considered by stakeholders. Social issues will be brought up by the People group, while environmental challenges will be addressed by the Planet group, for instance, while economic concerns are mainstreamed by the Prosperity group. Leaving no issue and no sustainable development perspective behind is key to ensuring that the sustainable development vision is inclusive and that, later, all relevant SDGs for the local context are properly localized and integrated into the plan.

The vision which comes out of this exercise is usually a very long statement which can later be shortened to be more impactful and catchier for communication and marketing purposes. However, keeping it as long as it was originally formulated is important at this stage, since the success of the exercise depends more on being inclusive rather than on being focused. As an example, Bahir Dar’s vision statement was originally defined in the workshop as “By 2035, Bahir Dar will be a sustainable, inclusive, resilient and vibrant leading cluster of responsible tourism, innovative industry and tertiary services.” This vision statement was later modified by city leaders in some aspects and shortened for communication purposes to read “Bahir Dar: the first water-wise resilient forest city of Ethiopia and Africa.”

The vision statement is among the most dynamic outputs of the planning exercise and can be improved, modified, and shortened throughout the planning process. However, it is of critical importance to establish a comprehensive, yet simplified vision to match local capabilities and results frameworks for the localization of the SDGs and the NUA . It is from the vision statement, agreed by all stakeholders as the guiding aspiration for the plan, that the vision goals are extracted. In the case of Bahir Dar, for instance, it is clear that Goal 1–6 is directly extracted from the vision statement (Fig. 13.4).

Fig. 13.4
figure 4

The wheel of sustainable urban development of Bahir Dar 2035 (First version, source: authors)

Full size image

The same example can be seen from the Príncipe 2030 Regional Sustainable Development Plan (UN-Habitat São Tomé and Príncipe 2019). The vision statement “By 2030, the Island of Príncipe, an international biosphere reserve, will become a global reference of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development that is inclusive and resilient to climate change, through the integration of responsible tourism and the green and blue economy, ensuring quality of life for all” is translated in Goal 1–5 (Fig. 13.5).

Fig. 13.5
figure 5

Príncipe 2030 regional sustainable development plan (UN-Habitat São Tomé and Príncipe 2019)

Full size image

The second day of the workshop, after the Sustainable Development Vision Statement is defined, is dedicated to translating this shared vision into a framework which can guide and be integrated into local development plans. As per the examples of Bahir Dar and Príncipe Island, this is initially done by translating the vision statement into vision goals. These goals are inspired by the 2030 Agenda format and shall be short statements which quickly communicate the thematic area covered by the goal. For instance, Goal 1 of the Príncipe 2030 plan on Environmental Sustainability translates the vision of Príncipe as a global reference for biodiversity, and it is also formulated into a Goal Statement, as per the SDGs , which is “Protect, restore and promote the sustainable and responsible management and use of terrestrial and marine resources, halting and reversing ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss” (UN 2015). This Goal Statement was critically discussed by the stakeholders during the workshop and then refined and approved by the plenary. It encompasses content from SDG 14 to 15, but also from the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, a 2010 supplementary agreement to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and Príncipe’s specific commitments as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve.

In parallel to the designing of vision goals, the results framework at goal level will be also complemented by enabling goals, which usually come from the main issues pointed out in the first day of the workshop. Experience has shown that usually these issues are related to governance, finance, planning, innovation, capacity building, infrastructure, mobility, housing, and so forth. While the vision goals are usually linked to the Ps of People, Prosperity, and Planet, the enabling goals are associated with the P of Peace, Partnership and Planning, Policy , and Programming. As soon as the goals are defined, one important strategy to ensure engagement of the stakeholders is elaborating and sharing the Wheel of Sustainable Urban Development of the city (see examples above in Fig. 13.4 of Bahir, Fig. 13.5 of Dar and Príncipe, and Fig. 13.6 below of Bissau). The wheel is projected on a wall or printed and distributed to focal groups and allows all participants to see the progress made so far and already communicates the centrality of the SDGs in the city planning process. This energizes the group since quick progress can already be seen by participants, and it will be critical in the future communication strategy of the plan.

Fig. 13.6
figure 6

Bissau 2030 sustainable development plan (UN-Habitat Bissau 2019)

Full size image

The third day of the workshop is then dedicated to building a simplified operational framework for the plan, and it is when the localization of SDGs and the NUA principles happens in practical terms. Some of the critical challenges in developing countries, and particularly in Africa, for the localization of the SDGs in cities are the lack of local capacity to (1) manage and monitor data, (2) build baselines, and (3) promote effective participation of key stakeholders in the planning and governance process (Valencia et al. 2019; Croese et al. 2021). For that reason, applying an effective, simplified, and engaging methodology is key to ensuring the ownership of the plan by local government and civil society. During the implementation of the catalytic projects, it was identified that the most complex issue in the framework to operationalize the city plan is setting up the monitoring system and making it effective, especially on building and selecting indicators and setting up baselines. The steps taken to arrive at the simplified operational framework will be detailed in the next section.

3 Monitoring Sustainable Urban Development

The draft version of the NUA Monitoring Framework was launched on 17 September 2020 with 77 indicators, 28 of them also being SDG indicators, covering SDG 11, SDG 1, SDG 3, SDG 5, SDG 6, SDG 7, SDG 8, SDG 9, SDG 12, SDG 16, and SDG 17 (UN-Habitat 2020b). Some NUA indicators are quite straightforward and are immediately available for utilization, while some are still being discussed in terms of their methodological aspects. Similarly, the so-called SDG Tier III indicators lacked an internationally established methodology, which was only developed following a comprehensive review in 2020, 5 years after their adoption (UN IAEG-SDGs 2022).

Until this review, despite representing important progress on the sustainable urban development agenda , SDG 11 contained two Tier III indicators (SDG 11.a.1 and SDG 11.c.1), a majority of Tier II indicators (11 out of 15), meaning those that have an established methodology but no regular data collection, and only two Tier I indicators, those with an established methodology as well as regular data collection: SDG 11.1.1 and 11.6.2 (UN IAEG-SDGs 2022). Up until a subsequent review of the SDG tier classification in February 2022, the situation was still worrisome with SDG 11.c.1 remaining as a Tier III indicator, 9 Tier II indicators and 5 Tier I indicators, with the inclusion of SDG 11.5.1, 11.a.1 and 11.b.1 in the list. This has created enormous challenges for the effective localization and integration of the SDG 11 indicators in the monitoring framework of urban and territorial plans. A similar lack of methodological standards applies to other SDG targets with a clear urban dimension. However, this challenge should not impede SDG 11 targets to translate into urban policies and plans at local level.

Based on these challenges and on the lack of capacity to develop their own city-based indicators, the selected approach to localizing the SDGs at city level is through the selection of established indicators in existing plans and strategies, especially those already being monitored. Alternatively, it is possible to consider an important indicator which is not measured at local level and create its baseline and monitoring system based on perception surveys.

For example, in Bahir Dar, the planning team wanted to build an indicator on affordable transportation to measure the implementation of a specific target of their Goal 9 on Sustainable Mobility (UN-Habitat 2020a). The local experts were elaborating a very complex set of indicators in which data would not be easily collected and processed. After discussions with UN-Habitat experts, they opted for considering SDG indicator 11.2.1 (proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport, by sex, age, and persons with disabilities), still a Tier II indicator, and establish its baseline through perception, since data was not yet available at the city level.

The application of the PIUP methodology on the third day of workshop then starts with the mapping, listing, and selection of all relevant indicators from the selected global agendas and national and subnational strategies. For instance, for Ethiopian cities, all indicators were extracted from the National Urban Development Spatial Plan (NUDSP), the Second Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP II), the subnationals and sectoral (urban development and housing) plans linked to GTP II, the New Urban Agenda, and the 2030 Agenda. Many of these indicators already have national or regional baselines set up by the plans, and at city level, the effort was domesticating them and spatializing their implementation.

These selected indicators already provided a time frame for the city plan, and the indicators from NUDSP 2035 and the NUA 2036 functioned as frameworks for monitoring long-term targets, while indicators from the 2030 Agenda were used for monitoring mid-term targets, and the indicators appropriated from the GTP II 2025 were linked to short-term targets (see Fig. 13.7).

Fig. 13.7
figure 7

Integrating local targets with global and national development agendas (UN-Habitat 2018)

Full size image

After the selection of relevant indicators, they were connected with the drafted goals, and whenever possible, indicators were associated to provide inputs for drafting a SMART target, which should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time bound. The SMART principles are currently a mainstream method for developing strategic plans (Bjerke and Renger 2016). As an example from Hawassa Structure Plan, target 1.7 was “by 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality, sound pollution and waste generation” (UN-Habitat 2020a) and encompassed indicators from the GTP II (number of cases of noise pollution reported to Environmental Authority disaggregated by neighborhood), SDG 11.6 (annual mean levels of fine particulate matter—e.g., PM 2.5 and PM 10—population weighted), and SDG 12.5 (city recycling rate, tons of material recycled).

Even though some of these indicators are not yet being calculated by the Central Statistics Agency in Ethiopia, community perception surveys can fill the gap, while government bodies dealing with statistics advance with national data collection. In this sense, there are a number of advantages in using existing indicators from global, national, and subnational agendas and strategies. First, facilitating fundraising for city plan implementation, since subnational, national, and global stakeholders have a framework to measure the efficiency of resources they are allocating to the city ; second, avoiding the creation of more indicators in a context already characterized by a lack of data, capacity, and resources; and, finally, establishing a localization process which effectively integrates global agendas into the local development planning culture and practice .

This experience in multiple cities has shown that localizing specific indicators and linking them to goals that are tailored to local realities rather than localizing global goals provides a better platform for the effective participation of local stakeholders. At the same time, it builds a more contextualized plan which can be further integrated into local and national budgetary cycles and function as a strategic platform for spatial plans. In many experiences, SDG localization processes at city level are characterized by bringing relevant goals or targets down to the local context. Even though this is an easier and more automatic process, it is often not integrated into the way planning is done at city level, sometimes creating a plan that exists in parallel to existing plans and sometimes only producing a report that ends up forgotten on a shelf. In this Participatory Incremental Urban Planning experience, the local development planning system is respected, and rather than bringing an agenda down from top to bottom, local stakeholders are requested to build their city goals from the bottom up through the lens of the 5Ps + 1. This ensures that no agenda, no issues, and no sustainable development perspectives are left behind and that an effective discussion between experts and stakeholders from different sectoral areas takes place throughout the planning process.

The charter below, for instance (see Fig. 13.8), has been guiding many SDG localization processes, trying to fit the SDG framework as a whole into a box. However, a deeper analysis at SDG target level shows that many SDGs have targets that can be linked to different Ps. For instance, SDG target 11.1 on Housing and Slum Upgrading is clearly linked to People, while SDG target 11.2 on Sustainable Transportation can have a Planet, but also a Prosperity linkage. The same applies to SDG 11.a on Rural-Urban Linkages and the SDG 11.c on Resilient Construction. This is of course not limited to SDG 11, and it is clear that SDG 6, boxed under People, has targets linked to both Planet and Peace dimensions, and SDG 7 has a Planet dimension, while SDG 10 also has a People dimension. Also, all means-based SDG targets finishing with letters (e.g., SDG 1.b, 15.a) are usually also linked to both Partnership and Planning/Policy dimensions.

Fig. 13.8
figure 8

Scheme for the localization of SDGs with the 5Ps for sustainable development (UN-Habitat 2020a)

Full size image

Rather than part of different boxes linked to the 5Ps, the SDGs are clearly interconnected, and the urban dimension, consolidated in the SDG 11, is cross-cutting and can be mainstreamed in many other SDGs (see also UN-Habitat 2018). This integration effort was made by UN-Habitat in the conceptualization of the City Prosperity Index (CPI), as shown in Fig. 13.9.

Fig. 13.9
figure 9

Integration of SDG 11 with other SDGs (UN-Habitat 2018)

Full size image

As others have argued, there is still scope for the improvement of the CPI as an integrated conceptual and methodological framework for city-based monitoring (Wong 2015). Ideally, UN-Habitat should consolidate the City Prosperity Index, perhaps rebranded as the City Sustainable Development Index to also expressly include the People, Planet, Peace, and Partnership dimensions of sustainable development, as the common monitoring framework to support cities in localizing SDGs , by integrating the SDG 11 with relevant SDG urban targets and the NUA Monitoring Framework. This would greatly facilitate city leaders and planners to effectively integrate global agendas in their current planning system. This can also be associated with other existing initiatives, such as the Local 2030 platform, a network for the sharing of tools, experiences, solutions, and guides to support SDG localization.

4 Challenges Related to This Experience

Among the challenges and lessons learnt through this pilot experience, one critical issue relates to the Wheel of Sustainable Urban Development design and how this communicates very similarly to the original SDGs . Some criticism has been expressed regarding the fact that the locally tailored goals, based on the vision and issues, are not the SDGs themselves and the graphic similarity can create confusion with local stakeholders. The fact is that in areas with weak planning systems, scarce data, capacity, and resources, where plans are usually non-existent or not operational, participation is the critical tool to build an effective and implementable plan. Participation and ownership, however, is much more easily achieved when local authorities and key stakeholders feel their voices and ideas are reflected in the plan. Allowing local stakeholders to develop goals that reflect a locally built vision and locally identified critical issues using the SDGs as an inspiration and methodological framework may be more effective than simply asking local communities to prioritize global goals discussed in New York by Member State representatives. As such, a compromise may be reached by using the 2030 Agenda and other relevant global agendas to support the development of locally tailored and fit-for-purpose development visions. This can be done as support for the development of local planning and monitoring system, since proposing new indicators is usually beyond local capacity. By selecting and using these existing global indicators, the SDGs , NUA , and strategic national plans can be effectively integrated into local plans, even though there is no local effective monitoring capacity.

Another critical challenge derives from the fact that 5 years after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda, many SDG indicators are still not fully operational with most data not being produced by National Statistics Offices, and when available, data are usually not disaggregated to the city level. This can be a very strong argument to integrate city plans and global agendas at the goal and target level, rather than still not operational global indicators. However, the results framework of the 2030 Agenda is indivisible and that means exactly the contrary, that the indicator level is the best entry point for localization, since one goal will never be measured until all indicators are operational. Also, a target with two indicators can have a measurable and relevant indicator at the city level, while a Tier III indicator may not be relevant to the local context (see also Simon et al. 2016).

Besides that, the 2030 Agenda should be an aspiration for local plans and influence the vision of the city . Raising awareness around the global agendas is important in this regard, and for that reason, the crash course on SDGs and other relevant global agendas and national and subnational strategies is done before the identification of issues and the division of participants in six focal groups inspired by the 5Ps of Sustainable Development + the Policy /Planning/Programming group. In that sense, the advice would be that if the local stakeholders find a Tier III indicator relevant to their reality, this should be integrated into their plan and baseline, so that a monitoring database can be built through perception surveys with the local population, again promoting a stronger ownership of the plan at the local level.

Experience has shown that an alternative and viable approach to building baselines and assuring proper monitoring of locally tailored targets is relying on local knowledge and on the perception of local stakeholders on issues that the indicators want to capture. Transport affordability can be measured by hard data on transport fees, government subsidies, service provision, and local salaries, but also by explaining to local stakeholders what affordability means and how affordable their daily commuting is. Such examples were presented from Brazil during the First UN-Habitat Assembly in 2019. In a partnership between UN-Habitat and COLAB, data was collected through a mobile app on the perception of citizens of SDG 11. Citizens could not only grade but also provide comments and upload georeferenced photos to illustrate certain issues, thereby showing how innovative and interactive tools can be used to support a vibrant and engaging planning, implementation, and monitoring process of city plans (UN-Habitat n.d.).

One critical lesson learnt from this pilot experience is the need to link the SDG and NUA localization with spatial planning (Watson 2016). Identifying land to accommodate a landfill for the achievement of SDG 11.6 and SDG 12.4 and 12.5 is particularly crucial for effective implementation at city level. Spatializing the SDGs, such as in the example below of Bissau, allows local government, stakeholders, investors, and development partners to predict land conflicts and promote sustainable and inclusive city development. This is a crucial issue for African cities growing at a fast rate and with very low levels of planning capacity.

For the spatialization of goals to be more effective, targets should be translated into spatial strategies and catalytic projects. These pilot projects should be classified and prioritized and be immediately integrated into existing budgeting cycles and other funding mechanisms. The experience of Bissau, in that sense, is very positive. By being the first spatial plan developed for the city since 1996 (see Fig. 13.10), the Bissau 2030 Sustainable Development Plan was embraced by critical local partners, such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank, and some pilot projects are already in the funding pipeline of these institutions. The same happened in Príncipe Island, where private investors, which participated enthusiastically in the planning process, could immediately support the local government on critical issues related to island development.

Fig. 13.10
figure 10

Bissau 2030 sustainable development plan (UN-Habitat Bissau 2019)

Full size image

5 Way Forward

The localization of the SDGs at city level will certainly follow many methodologies, and the most important lesson from this pilot experience is that this exercise should not be detached of local planning practice already developed by cities. In this sense, the strategic phase of city plans represents a good entry point for both SDG and NUA localization at city level. This calls for a new generation of master plans, and since usually these spatial planning tools have a timeframe of 10 years, the city master or structure plans can be adequate frameworks for the operationalization of the UN Secretary-General’s Decade of Action towards 2030 at city level.

These new-generation master plans would integrate Sustainable Development and NUA principles into the strategic visioning exercise by recognizing all dimensions of sustainable development embedded in the 5Ps + 1 (People, Prosperity, Planet, Peace and Partnership + Policy /Planning/Programming) and ensuring no agendas, no issues, and no sustainable development perspective are left behind. The integration of the SDG and NUA principles into these new-generation master plans should also be done by prioritizing measurable indicators at the local level from the relevant global agendas, and by using perception tools and others forms of local data collection for indicators that are still not collected at the city level. Using citizen perceptions to build baselines for global indicators at the local level should be further explored in developing contexts where data are still scarce and expensive, through the utilization of apps and other IT tools.

At the global level, relevant institutions should discuss a global monitoring framework based on SDG 11, urban SDG targets and the NUA which can be applied to cities, including those with limited data, resources, and local capacity. UN-Habitat has been piloting the City Prosperity Index (CPI) which could be the basis for this integrated monitoring framework and could be rebranded as the City Sustainable Development Index (CSDI).Footnote 2

Lastly, it is important to promote capacity building and financing mechanisms to ensure effective implementation after the SDG and NUA localization is done at local level lest localization exercises be seen locally as another frustrating planning initiative with no actual impact. SDG project accreditation and financing mechanisms, such as UN-Habitat’s City Investment Facility, can be a global example of this type of mechanism and inspire similar regional, national, and subnational funding schemes.