Habitat 3 Diary: The General Assembly of Partners

On October 20th, 2016, the New Urban Agenda was officially adopted at the 3rd UN Habitat Conference in Quito, Ecuador. This conference and this new text recognize the importance of cities both as places where environmental, social and economic challenges are most acute, and as the scale at which solutions to these issues are most likely to be effective.

However, the United Nations is a club of nations, and not of cities nor of the many actors that are part of their fabric. Even though many nations still enact laws and raise taxes as countries, many responsibilities have been transferred to cities from nation-states in most nations around the globe, in a process of decentralization. It seemed odd to proclaim a new global agenda for cities without having at the table city governments and the many actors who make cities what they are.

Local governments and civil society’s presence on the international scene has considerably increased over the past decade (reference) but they were still on the side of most UN conferences. Habitat III seems to have started a trend reversal. Indeed, among the 5 speakers of the opening statements of the General Assembly of Nations, following notably the President of Ecuador and of the Conference, the Secretary-General of the UN, was Ms. Shipra Narang Suri, Vice President of the General Assembly of Partners of Habitat III, representative of the major groups and other stakeholders.

This represented a huge recognition for an organization formally created only 18 months before the conference. The General Assembly of Partners (GAP) was proposed by an array of partners united by the World Urban Campaign, and represents an innovative process, building on the legacy of the Habitat II Conference held in Istanbul in 1996. The GAP benefited from the WUC existing structure and notably the strong support of the UN-Habitat Secretariat and of 88 long-term partners and networks from around the world. (see figure 1 for key dates)

The GAP came as a direct response to the need for partnerships between governments and civil society organizations, local authorities, the private sector, the research community, trade unions, parliamentarians, professional organizations, youth and women groups, to achieve sustainable urban development. (Source: GAP website)

However, the need to include the voice of civil society did not solve the problem of making such a diverse group design and support a consistent set of proposals to inform the New Urban Agenda, and eventually support its implementation on the ground. On the eve of Habitat 3, there were 16 groups represented through GAP (see figure 2).

The solution to this issue came from avoiding the representation of group interest and coming together behind key functions that civil society could perform to support the NUA [1]. In March at the 3rd plenary in Prague, GAP group members agreed that they wanted to provide:

1. A Knowledge Platform

2. An Advocacy Arm

3. An Innovation Laboratory

4. A Monitoring Mechanism

5. An Investment Advisory Committee

From there on and with the support of the UN Secretariat, the GAP weighted on the New Urban Agenda by passing on policy papers and participating in hearings with Nation States. Three hearings in the Spring brought together with Nation States regional actors, local governments and stakeholders. In the last 2 meetings, half of the room was for stakeholders, while the other half was for nation states, symbolizing the increased legitimacy of these actors, talking equal to equal with member states according the President of GAP.

The GAP was proud to see that the role of civil society was recognized in four of the functions they had set for themselves. There were 7 mentions of the need for evidence-based knowledge in the NUA. However, the proposition that civil society should play a role of monitoring or advising nation states’ investment did not make its way in the NUA.

The GAP leadership concluded from this process that there were more wins than loses both in terms of wording of the final document, and of inclusion of GAP members in the UN process. However, the next challenge was to implement the NUA and show that GAP was able to transform and play a role in this next step. GAP was specifically created for the conference and the plenary on Oct. 16 called for a vote about the future of GAP: should it continue to exist or disappear now that its first goal had been fulfilled?

The GAP members in the room voted for the continuation of GAP. However, discussions about who should lead the transformation and how this transformation should happen were heated. The number of GAP members grew significantly over the past 18 months, and there had never been so many people in the room as during the Habitat 3 conference. Methods of voting and discussing that might have worked perfectly in a smaller committee were proving less effective in that environment. The next few months will be a key turning point for GAP. Luckily, it will be able to count on the continuing support of the secretariat and members with experience in several other groups in the UN.

At this point, it is unsure how the specific organization of GAP will evolve, but its accomplishments with the New Urban Agenda certainly helped advance the inclusion of Civil Society and diverse groups of stakeholders in the UN process.

[1]http://www.worldurbancampaign.org/sites/default/files/20160503_gap_partnerships_for_the_new_urban_agenda-2-2.pdf

#Habitat3 #NewUrbanAgenda #CivilSociety #UnitedNations