International Dialogue Governing Emerging Megacities – … · 2007-02-16 · provision of...

International Dialogue

Governing Emerging Megacities – Challenges and Perspectives7–8 December 2006, Frankfurt /Main

Inte

rnat

iona

l Dia

logu

e ❘G

over

ning

Em

ergi

ng M

egac

ities

– C

halle

nges

and

Per

spec

tives

❘7–

8 De

cem

ber

2006

, Fra

nkfu

rt/ M

ain

Imprint

Published byInWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbHCapacity Building International, GermanyFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 4460-0Fax +49 228 4460-1766www.inwent.org

Stresemannstraße 9210963 Berlin, Germany

Fon +49 30 439 96-222Fax +49 30 439 96-230www.inwent.org

Compilation byIna Dettmann-Busch and Benjamin SeidelAcknowledgement: The editors reserve the right to abridge the texts.

Graphic Design byWissens-Designwww.wissens-design.de

Photos bytitle: vario images, contents: InWent gGmbH

2.01-0001-2007

Berlin, January 2007 (750)

InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildungund Entwicklung gGmbHCapacity Building International, Germany

InWEnt stands for the development ofhuman resources and organisations withinthe framework of international cooperation.InWEnt's range of services caters to skilledand managerial staff as well as decisionmakers from businesses, politics, adminis-trations and civil societies worldwide. Eachyear, some 55,000 persons participate in ourmeasures.

Programmes and measures at InWEnt aim at promoting change competencies on threelevels: They strengthen the individual's exec-utive competencies, increase the perform-ance of companies, organisations andadministrations, and at the political levelimprove decision-making skills and thecapacity to act. The methodological toolscomprise modules and can be adapted tomeet changing requirements in order to provide solutions. Apart from face-to-facesituations in measures offering training,exchange of experience and dialogue,emphasis is on e-learning-assisted network-ing. InWEnt cooperates equally with partnersfrom developing, transition and industrialisedcountries.

InWEnt's shareholders comprise the FederalRepublic of Germany, represented by theFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperationand Development (BMZ), the Carl DuisbergGesellschaft that represents the businesscommunity, and the German Foundation forInternational Development that representsthe German Federal States (Länder).

InWEnt was established in 2002 through themerger of Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft (CDG)and the German Foundation for InternationalDevelopment (DSE).

InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung undEntwicklung gGmbHCapacity Building International, GermanyFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 44 60-0Fax +49 228 44 60-17 66www.inwent.org


Governing Emerging Megacities – Challenges and Perspectives

SUMMARY REPORT

7–8 December 2006German Museum of ArchitectureFrankfurt/Main, Germany

Please visit our website:

www.inwent.org/dialogues

There you can find more informationabout the conference. We also provide for downloading all presentations givenwithin the international dialogue.

PREFACEGünther Taube, Head of Department, InWEnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

KEYNOTE ADDRESSESFrannie A. Léautier, Vice President, World Bank InstituteMegacities in a Globalizing World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Paul Taylor, Director, UN-HABITAT Liaison Office to the European UnionThe Role of Megacities in Development – Opportunities and Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONSManraj Guliani, Area Convenor, Centre for Urban Systems and Infrastructure, The Energy and Resources Institute TERI, IndiaUrban Infrastructure and its Ecological Demands and Constraints – An Indian Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Albert Speer, Architect and Urban Planner, Managing Director AS&P – Albert Speer and Partner GmbH, Frankfurt/Main, GermanyPrinciples of Urban Development in Agglomeration Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Tang Xinbing, Director, Strategy & Investment Department, Beijing Energy Investment Holding Co., Ltd., ChinaPrivate Sector Contributions to Municipal Public Service: China's Power Investment Regulation Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Zheng Shiling, General Schemer EXPO 2010 Shanghai, Director of the Institute of Architecture and Urban Space, Tongji University, ChinaThe Urbanization and Re-Urbanization in China: The Shanghai Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

THE MAYORS' FORUM ON GOVERNANCE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

ANNEXProgramme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46List of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

CONTENTS

3

The year 2007 represents a turning point in human development. For the first timeever, the majority of the world’s population will no longer live in the country, but incities. By 2030 the proportion of the urban population will have increased to overtwo thirds of all the people in the world.

Megacities assume a special importance in this development. There are already some16 megacities in the world today, each with over 10 million inhabitants. By 2015there will be 23 cities of this dimension, with 19 of them in developing and emergingcountries.

The growing importance of megacities is not only due to their increasing numberand size. They also have a growing influence in the globalization process because ofthe numerous political, economic, social and ecological activities centered withinthem. That the megacity of Mumbai generates more than one third of the totalIndian tax revenue, or that the annual per capita CO2 emission of the megacity ofBeijing is two and a half times that of the country of Belgium are just two examplesthat highlight this influence.

Enormous disparities continue to exist within megacities as regards the existencelevel of their inhabitants. One section of the city population has an extremely highstandard of living that offers more comfort and quality of life than ever before.Another substantial section of the city population is excluded from this developmentand lives in extensive slum areas with little or no access to public services. It is there-fore essential to find solutions to the development of megacities that contribute tobreaking down these disparities and building up social cohesion.

The governability of large cities and megacities represents one of the key challengesof the new millennium. Only with responsible action and the involvement of all sec-tions of the population can social and ecological catastrophes with global conse-quences be avoided. It is imperative to make use of the opportunities that arise,especially in emerging megacities. Above all, there is an opportunity for innovativeand sustainable solutions for guiding and supporting good city government.Essentially, the quality of life of people living in megacities is dependent on the provision of affordable housing and on access to drinking water, energy, educationand health services.

This was the background to the international dialogue forum “Governing EmergingMegacities: Challenges and Perspectives”, that brought representatives of megacitiesin India and China together with German and international experts to exchangeexperiences regarding the development of megacities. The special significance of

4

PREFACE

the event was in the combination of participants, with representatives from politics,business, science and civil society, who were given the opportunity to exchange viewson proven and new solutions for the development of megacities.

In a total of four sessions during the two day event, the experts discussed aspects of governance in megacities and major urbane agglomerations. At the centre of thedebate were questions on the importance of water supply, health services and hous-ing provision for the quality of life of city dwellers, as well as on new challenges inthe political fields of energy, transport and environment in the face of the rapidgrowth of urban areas.

The highlight of the second day was the “mayors' forum”, in which representatives of different city governments discussed governance issues with regard to improvingsocial cohesion. Of particular interest in this debate was that the predominantlyIndian and Chinese experiences were supplemented by the viewpoints of represen-tatives from the cities of Jakarta (Indonesia), Lagos (Nigeria) and Addis Ababa(Ethiopia).

The InWEnt conference laid the ground for a dialogue initiative of the FederalMinistry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) with politically and eco-nomically important developing countries. Intensification of the exchange of viewson common global challenges should pave the way to a common outlook on theproblems and a concerted approach to their solution.

In this respect, I hope that the exchange of views on questions of megacity develop-ment against a background of different experiences and perspectives will prove to beuseful and profitable for the future work of the participants. The numerous contactsmade during the conference will surely contribute to this, by intensifying cooperationbetween participants and thereby giving new and positive impulses to megacitydevelopment.

Günther TaubeHead of DepartmentInternational Regulatory Frameworks/Good Governance/Economic PolicyInWEnt – Capacity Building International, Germany

5

I. UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CITIES, AND MEGACITIES IN PARTICULAR, IN A GLOBALIZING WORLDThere are a number of reasons to study citiesand megacities. Cities are the birthplace ofglobalization, and they are also the testingground for governance and democracy. Inthis context, several key questions emerge:❙ Does globalization help or hurt cities?❙ What is the relationship between global-

ization and megacities?❙ What is the role of governance in city

performance? ❙ What is the impact of city performance

on globalization?

When looking at long-term patterns in citydevelopment, it is clear that the size of citiesis not a stable outcome. Cities grow andshrink, and some even die. However, in thelast 200 years, human civilization has dis-covered how to sustain very large agglomer-ations. The important role of decision makingamong large groups – in other words, demo-cratic choices amongst diverse groups – isone of the reasons why it has been possibleto sustain such large cities. But could therebe other reasons?

Consider the patterns of urbanization acrosscountries. While the size of the urban popu-lation has been growing in all regions of theworld since 1960, the pattern exhibited byChina and India is quite distinct. After 1975,China and India show a significant increasein the number of people living in cities. Whatrole has globalization played in this regard?

What about the supporting role of infra-structure and other enablers of globaliza-tion?

To answer these questions, data was collect-ed from various sources and used to testassumptions about globalization and urban-ization, and to assess policy and operationalimplications of the findings. The analysis isboth exploratory and confirmatory. Data limitations make it difficult to draw validconclusions on the impact of globalizationon city performance. The paucity of data is a key obstacle to effective policy design at the national and subnational levels. To learnmore please refer to Léautier, F. (ed). 2006.Cities in a Globalizing World: Governance,Performance & Sustainability. Washington,DC: World Bank.

The research explored four major themes:1. Globalization of city infrastructure: Local,

networked and global services2. City performance profiles: What happened

in Africa?3. Globalization, technology, and scale: How

do they interact?4. Globalization and city performance: Does

governance play a role?

The data was used to test five key hypo-theses:

Hypothesis 1: Institutions matter:Demands for city infrastructure in the context of globalization generate local and global conflicts that require new institutionsfor solutions.

Megacities in a Globalizing WorldFrannie A. Léautier, Vice President, World Bank Institute

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

6

Hypothesis 2: Globalization matters:Africa demonstrates the special dilemma ofurbanization without globalization. A globalcity performs better than a local city, for agiven quality of governance.

Hypothesis 3: Globalization interacts with technology, city type, and scale:Globalization presents a competitive pressureto perform; technology is an enabler ofvoice; and city size and type have an impacton performance.

Hypothesis 4: Governance matters:A city can be well-performing whether localor global, and driven by its good governancealone.

Hypothesis 5: Globalization and governance interact positively:There is a dynamic virtuous circle whichpushes globalized cities to be better gov-erned and which attracts further global-ization in well-governed cities.

The following sections provide detailedassessments of these hypotheses.

II. GLOBALIZATION OF CITYINFRASTRUCTURE: LOCAL, NETWORKED,AND GLOBAL SERVICESInfrastructure networks are the foundationsfor urban globalization and are critical tomegacities and their development. Infra-structure plant and service are mainly local,but demands are increasingly global.

Vulnerability and security have been found to heighten some old conflicts. For example,choices made at an airport such as Frankfurtdepend on security determinations in NewYork or London.

Globalized infrastructure requires new insti-tutions to manage the interface betweenlocal, regional, and global interests. Mega-cities are the laboratories for inter-juris-dictional cooperation and metropolitan management, and hence it is important tostudy them. New institutions, operating atthe community, local, national, regional andglobal levels, have to respond to the prefer-ences of various stakeholders and respect thehierarchy of interests.

In the megacity context, for example, thereare many examples that illustrate this point.

Participatory Budgeting: The Case of Sao Paulo, BrazilSao Paulo had to “re-district itself” in orderto define a viable participatory consultativeprocess to define its budget – the issue ofeconomics of scale as they relate to partici-pation – in other words “economies of par-ticipation” need to be considered.

Waste water treatment solutions: The Case of Chongqing, ChinaThe master plan for Chongqing requirednumerous waste water treatment plants asthey were mandated in each jurisdiction andnot by the economies of scale inherent inmetropolitan management. After several

7

years of deliberations, Chongqing reducedthe number of water treatment plants bymore than 50 percent by taking a collabora-tive multi-jurisdictional perspective.

Managing growth: The Case of Mumbai, IndiaThe new initiative defined by Bombay’s CityDevelopment Strategy of the “Bombay First”program requires a broader perspective forsolutions of public transport, road and bridgeinfrastructure, and environmental manage-ment.

These three cases illustrate how sometimesthere is a need for institutions beyond thecity itself and that sometimes the ability to aggregate preferences can lead to betterresults. The cases also show when there is a need for more dialogue and lower-levelinstitutions to achieve superior results.

The approach for assessing institutional per-formance includes an exploration of global-ization and city performance. Defining urbangovernance, city governance, and globaliza-tion as outcomes that are visible to citizens

allows empirical tests of the city as a “place”or as an “enduring performance.”

This approach also makes it possible to testhow such institutions perform at the citylevel and the particularities of megacities.

III. CITY PERFORMANCE PROFILESWhen comparing city performance acrosscities that are globalized and those that areless globalized (Figure 1) it can be seen thatglobalized cities outperform those that areless globalized by a significant margin. This is even more marked when looking at pro-ductivity (as measured by city product percapita) or wealth creation (as measured byaverage per capita income). Employmentgeneration is not as obvious, even thoughmore globalized cities seem to have moreformal employment. Exceptions include citiessuch as Dhaka in Bangladesh, where theemployment in the informal sector is a keydynamic.

These trends also seem to hold not only in a“spot comparison” but also when looking at

8

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

Figure 1City Performance Profiles: Economic Performance of Citites, 1993

Cities in countries that areIndicator More globalized Less globalizedCity product per capita (1993, US$/year/person) 3,818 1,175Average per capita income (Q3/person in US$) 2,066 377Informal employment (percent) 32 40Source: UNCHS 1998, Global Urban Indicators

long-run trends. A highly globalized city suchas London generates a higher city productper capita than Addis Ababa. However,Mumbai, which is globalizing at a fast rate,has an even higher growth in city productper capita per year than Addis Ababa, whichis not globalizing as fast.

The superior performance of globalized citiescan also be seen in other indicators. How-ever, all types of cities have a major chal-lenge with poverty reduction, where global-ization does not seem to offer superioroptions for reducing the number of house-holds living below the poverty line (Figure 2).More global cities do seem to solve transportproblems more creatively and offer morechoices between motorized and non-motor-ized modes. Globalization also forces cities to keep travel times low, since otherwisesuch cities would fail to compete and lose

competitive power. This may explain up to a5 minute difference in the mean travel timeto work for such cities.

Another area where globalization seems tohave an influence on city performance is inlocal government efficiency. More globalizedcities are capable of generating more rev-enues per capita and spend more time ontheir citizens than less global cities. Suchcities also tend to be more efficient, usingtheir revenues for expenditures other thanwages.

IV. CITY PERFORMANCE PROFILES: WHAT HAPPENED IN AFRICA?Such performance profiles are starkly differ-ent in Africa (Figure 3). While there has beentremendous growth of urbanization in devel-oping countries with differential perform-

9

Figure 2 City Performance Profiles: Residential density, growth rates and household size, 1993

Cities in countries that areIndicator More globalized Less globalizedResidential density (persons/ha) 96 252Annual population growth rates (percent) 2 3Average household size (persons) 3 5

City Performance Profiles: Equity in Cities, 1993

Cities in countries that areIndicator More globalized Less globalizedHouseholds below poverty line (percent) 26 27Income disparity (Q5/Q1) 7 12Source: UNCHS 1998, Global Urban Indicators

ance of cities, such patterns are different inAfrica. African cities perform well below theircounterparts in the developing world, yetpost the highest growth among urban popu-lations. There is a special dilemma of Africa:(i) urbanization without globalization; and (ii) high urban growth not accompanied byrapid economic growth. This presents a greatpossibility to test hypotheses in Africa (sincethere is high urbanization with low global-ization) relating to the locus of policy deci-sions with respect to cities.

Consider, for example, the average perform-ance of an African city compared to itscounterparts in other regions of the world in the area of waste management services or access to health and education services(Figure 3). African cities underperform allother regions in these areas. One key feature

of African cities, despite their poverty, is thatthey are highly productive. They are, in fact,as productive as cities in Asia.

Similar patterns are seen when looking atlocal government performance. African citiesare poor. On average, an African city has only$15 per capita per year to provide all localservices. This is more than 10 times lowerthan what is available to cities in Asia andLatin America, and more than 100 timeslower than what is available to an averagecity in the Arab States.

There are however, cities in Africa that dovery well. There is a wide range in perform-ance within and across cities. Cities inBotswana perform 100 times better thanthose in Nigeria or Senegal, which are bothmore globalized. This difference can beexplained by how local governments manage.

10

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

Figure 3City-level performance across regions

Indicator Africa Arab Asia Latin Industr. Transitionstates Pacific America countries economies

City waste management servicesRegular waste collection(from percent of city households) 36 65 67 85 99 91Waste water treated(percent of generated waste water) 15 54 26 18 87 64

Health and education in citiesChild mortality(percent of children < 5 yrs.) 12 8 5 5 0,4 0,8Children per primary classroom 62 42 40 34 23 11Source: UNCHS 1998; Foreign Policy 2003

V. GLOBALIZATION, TECHNOLOGY, ANDSCALE: HOW DO THEY INTERACT?The size of a city can be seen as a measureof long-run performance. Small size cities are best able to maintain high quality of life.However, megacities do outperform largecities, supporting the hypothesis that whencities perform well, they attract more resi-dents and maintain existing ones.

A city like Guangzhou in China has growntremendously in the last 15 years. It hasdone so while reducing residential densityand physical compactness. The average citizen would have seen an increase in well-being as measured by per capita income,which grew more than 9 percent between1990 and 2000. Such a citizen would havealso felt less crowded and enjoyed moreopen space – both quality of life measures. Mumbai has also grown tremendously in the last 10 years, from an already large mega-city. While per capita income grew by closeto 4 percent during this period, city densitydid go down. An average citizen of Mumbaiwould have seen a better quality of life, notso much in terms of residential density, butperhaps more in the “connectedness” of thecity and mobility (a measure of contiguity). Many researchers have argued that capitalcities should do better than other city typesbecause of the concentration of politicalpower – a governance effect. Yet others haveargued that port cities should outperformother city types because of their need toremain competitive – a globalization effect.Evidence is found for both hypotheses. Portcities tend to do better than other cities in

indicators linked to competitiveness such as access to the internet and overall qualityof infrastructure. Capital cities tend to out-perform other city types in indicators relatedto access to local services such as water,electricity, and telephone.

Technology also has an effect on city per-formance. Cities that post their budget dataon a website (transparency measure) orinclude information on how to start a busi-ness on the website (competitiveness/open-ness measure) do outperform those that do not post such information. Technology is hence an enabler of voice (governanceeffect) and entry (globalization effect).Technology can however have other effects.By enabling exit (such as when one caninstall their own generator for electricity)technology can reduce pressure for improvedgovernance.

China, which has urbanized very rapidly andat the same time globalized rapidly, providesa good case study for questions on city pro-ductivity. When looking at the GDP per sq kmin Chinese cities, one sees a general incliningcurve, with higher productivity at higher vol-umes of people in one agglomeration. This isan argument for the potential superior per-formance of megacities, which comes fromaggregating large numbers of diverse-cre-ative people for exponential benefits. Thefact that many cities have yet to make thisincline shows how hard it is to achieveacross city types and the need for alterna-tives.

11

The patterns of higher productivity also hold when looking at per capita GDP in the Chinese metropolis, which follows thepattern of a gentle S-curve. The significanceof the gentle S-curve is an indication of thepotential for large cities to really take offand generate higher per capita incomes.

VI. GLOBALIZATION AND CITYPERFORMANCE: DOES GOVERNANCEPLAY A ROLE?It is hypothesized that well governed citieswould outperform those that are less wellgoverned, and that globalization would pres-sure cities to perform better. It is expectedthat the interactive effect of globalizationand governance pressures should lead toeven better performance. Cities would find it easier to progress along a 45 degree line,making incremental changes in the quality ofgovernance and receiving dividends in termsof attractiveness for global activities.

The hypothesis holds for local services suchas water as well as networked services suchas electricity. The hypothesis is much morestark in the case of globalized services suchas access to cell phones. Corruption is partic-ularly difficult for cities that are local giventhe lack of competitive pressure. Effects ofcontrolling corruption are more muted forglobal cities, except when it comes to accessto cell phones. The empirical evidence indi-cates interactivity between globalization andgovernance effects in a mutually reinforcingpattern.

VII. POLICY IMPLICATIONSTwo broad sets of policy implications can bedrawn from this analysis:

1. Skills, Networks, and InstitutionsThe analysis presented shows that there is a need to build the skills that city managershave so that they can better manage theopportunities of globalization. There is also a need to work with city governments andintercity networks and partnerships to sup-port their globalization and governanceefforts. It is also important to develop newinstitutions that can operate at local, region-al, national, and multinational levels.

2. Megacity ManagementPolicies relating to managing megacitiesrequire anticipating and managing urbangrowth including megacities as vibrant met-ropolitan areas. Fostering effective metropol-itan management is a key feature of makingmegacities competitive and efficient. It isimportant to recognize the new “polycentric”city as a reality and foster effective decen-tralized governance models.

12

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

In much of the popular literature on mega-cities, there is a common negative theme ofdystopia. “Dickensian” has become a recog-nized adjective used to describe megacitieseverywhere, and its connotations are readilyunderstood. Megacities are feared. Theirseemingly relentless growth, their burgeon-ing size, their envelopment of surroundingcommunities, their massive slums, all seemto combine to present an image of an intim-idating, inhuman scale that cannot be man-aged.

And it is not just a matter of scale. The qual-itative aspects of life in the megacity areoften perceived as being at odds with anordered and civilized existence. Differentialsof wealth are more obviously contrasted inthe highly contested spaces of megacities.Threats of terrorism, ethnic violence andcriminality seem to be particularly concen-trated there. Environmental impacts due to emissions from vehicles or industries, orcontaminated water, or the presence ofuntreated sewage all add to the dysfunc-tional image. At the more extreme end ofspectrum, ungovernable and anarchic forceschallenge the very existence of orderedforms of government.

And some of this nightmare has a basis inreality. More people live in Mumbai’s slumsthan in the whole of Norway. Bangkok grewfrom 67 km2 in the late 1950s to 426 km2 bythe mid 1990s. And densities of developmenthave increased. Mexico City increased itsdensity from 16,225 per km2 to 21,074 km2

by 1970. And increased size and density hasled to a proliferation of public bodies. Asearly as the 1950s New York was found tohave over 1400 local government bodiesoften with overlapping jurisdictions. Scaleand complexity seem to combine in themegacity to make them ungovernable.

In a number of cases the response has beento create metropolitan planning and devel-opment authorities in cities such as Mumbai,Calcutta, Delhi, Madras, Manila and Karachiin an attempt to impose order on this seem-ing chaos. Sometimes they had success, butas often as not they ran into conflict withelected entities at state, provincial andmunicipal levels, not to mention sectoralagencies that wished to retain responsibili-ties and power.

But despite offering a “Blade Runner” night-mare of dystopia, megacities are also mag-nets of hope, creativity and growth. Manyare already recognized as hubs of innovationin arts, manufacture and finance and haveambitions for more. This is not true of all,with some megacities, or at least major areaswithin them, facing crises and decline. Manygreat American cities have experienced ahollowing out, with the formerly prestigiousareas suffering vertiginous declines, althoughinterestingly, some, such as New York, havemanaged to reinvent themselves. Lagosseems to be permanently dysfunctional, all though some would argue with this, not-ing that although it contains one third ofNigeria’s inhabitants, it generates 65% of its

13

The Role of Megacities in Development –Opportunities and RisksPaul Taylor, Director, UN-HABITAT Liaison Office to the European Union

wealth. Dhaka seems to be mired in compli-cations. But the irony is, the more one looksat megacities, the more one sees each ofthem having the positives outweighing thenegatives. The comprehensively dysfunctionalmegacity is difficult to find.

Yet we need not rehearse how Mumbai,Shanghai, Singapore, and Beijing and others,and their associated megacity regions, havenot only come to dominate the social, eco-nomic and cultural landscapes of not onlytheir countries, but also to assume a globalimportance. Megacity administrators andnational governments have spotted thesepossibilities and are working to enhance theircomparative advantages in order to secure a larger competitive niche in a globalizedeconomic environment. The mantra of the“World Class City” is that which provides the lodestone for strategy. The question wehave to ask is, not whether this objective is correct, because it most probably is, butwhether the measures adopted to achieve it are correct.

In order to answer this question, we perhapsought to look at those ingredients in suc-cessful megacities of the past, and ask whichof those attributes are relevant to today? Thesurprising thing is that we tend to think ofthe knowledge economy and the wired-upworld as something new, which requires anew response. Well, yes and no. Certainlymegacities have to ensure that they have the hard information infrastructure that is so essential, and if they do not have it, they will not compete. But, the bigger question is,

what do they with it once they have got it?And this is where the soft infrastructure, thehuman element becomes the key variable.Because it is the capacity to innovate, notonly technologically, economically and finan-cially, but culturally, politically and sociallythat will determine the success of cities.History tends to show us that all thesethings run together and feed off each other,although we must always be aware thatgood general explanations do not alwaysprovide a guide to individual circumstances.

And here I rely heavily on the work of PeterHall, who in his work has asked the question,“Why do some cities succeed?” His answer isto look at the sources of innovation and cre-ativity. He found that successful cities wereoften at centre of far-flung trading, not nec-essarily military, empires. They constructedthemselves so that they were open to theoutsider as diverse, tolerant and egalitarianplaces that welcomed talent, and stressedindividual self-improvement. Their pluralityof cultures, the climate of free discussionand debate and of easy participation in themprovided the yeast which sparked ideas andprovided networks for information exchangeat a scale which could make difference. Theirsize provided a range of opportunities tooutsiders of ability who could find a nichethere. Outsiders played a disproportionatelyimportant role in the successful cities, aspeople half-inside and half-outside theestablishment. This heady brew yielded citiesthat were powerhouses of information ex-change leading to technological innovationand cultural vitality.

14

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

In the information society, face-to-faceexchange through local networks that oper-ate at scale is just as important as it was. Thefacilitating environment is provided by themegacity, suffused with the creative juicesgenerated by its inclusive spirit.

How has the notion of the World Class Cityfared compared to this socio-historical nar-rative? The reality is the planned pathtowards this status has often been toemphasise the outward signs of the success-ful city, normally based on a northern model,and to see the physical vestiges of the pre-ceding messy reality as embarrassment. TheWorld Class City is a beautiful city, with cleanstreets, gleaming skyscrapers and a modernand efficient transport and communicationssystem. There is nothing seemingly wrong inthat of course.

One of the problems with the city beautifulis that the poor apparently have no place init. We see extensive programmes of slumdemolition, thus creating an atmosphere ofexclusion. Many of these programmes do nottake place in conformity with internationallaw, even when carried out in the publicinterest, to create new infrastructure forexample, they are often accompanied byforced evictions carried out without noticeand without following due process. The capi-tal invested by evicted people in their homesand possessions is often lost. The informaleconomy, so essential to their survival, isseverely ruptured. This seemingly deliberateimpoverishment of the vulnerable seems to

send a message that exclusion is a priceworth paying to attain the status of a “worldclass city”.

There are two aspects of this to be consid-ered further. First, to create the space for thecity beautiful there is a resort to punitivemeasures entered into in the name of effi-ciency and competitiveness of which massevictions are a part and are often accompa-nied by loss of public space, weakening ofpopular participation, restriction of move-ment even. The danger is that the punitive-ness undermines some of the key elementsthat give megacities their vitality. These aredrained away in the cause of a more econo-mistic vision of what makes a megacity suc-cessful.

It might be argued that the poor have asmall place in the global knowledge econo-my. But all cities need those who providedsupport services – the refuse collectors, veg-etable vendors, factory and domestic workers– which can be provided by relatively lowcost labour.

But the poor in megacities make their owninvestment in global intellectual capital aswell. It is no accident that groups of organ-ized slum dwellers in Mumbai such as theNational Slum Dwellers Federation havehelped originate an international movement,founded concerning innovative tools toaddress housing deprivation. These contribu-tions are an important part of the culturalmix that have created that city’s vitality and

15

made it a centre of reference for the globalcommunity of practitioners and thinkersabout urban issues.

Second, the model for development is anorthern one, developed for the compara-tively rich and powerful. Services are provid-ed in a form that are expensive, that cannotbe afforded by poorer members of society, as well as often having high environmentalcosts that lead to consequences not only forthe quality of life in the city but for extendedhinterlands. Extensive provision for car basedtransport leads to local and global environ-mental impacts. In Delhi, cars assume 75%of the road space, yet transport only 20% ofthe people living in the city. Pollution ofacquifers by untreated sewage (itself causedby assuming that high-cost technologies forsewage treatment are the only suitable alter-native – thus leading to under-investment)often leads to the need for abstraction at agreat distance from cities. Transmission loss-es are large, the overall capital and recurrentcosts are high, and the overall package oftenunaffordable, with the poor losing out morethan most.

For newly emerging Asian megacities to earntheir spurs as world class cities, it might beargued that the true test is innovation insustainable urban development. This willrequire them to increase economic wealth,but differently from preceding models. Aform of “leapfrogging” might be envisaged

whereby progress can be made without the blight of exclusion and environmentaldamage. Many have made major strides –Singapore for example has made majorachievements in preserving old-growth trop-ical rainforest, protecting and creating greenspaces, and promoting clean rapid transit tosuch an extent that it is the only large city in the world that acts as a carbon sink. There are many such others. The approachwould continue to draw on the traditionalvirtues of diversity and openness, but seek to enhance these by consciously extendingtheir footprints further into city governanceso that they to can benefit from the unlock-ing of the creative endeavour of its citizenrythat is already achieving so much in otherfields. At the risk of over-simplifying theargument, it is suggested that this can bestbe done by seeking out the views of all of its citizens and engaging them in decision-making, thus stimulating the ferment ofideas and increased commitment.

16

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

17

SELECTED CONTRIBUTIONS

Urbanization in India is characterized bylarge imbalances, both in terms of spatialpatterns and class-size distribution. The paceof urbanization is found to be much faster in the metropolises than in any other urbanarea. By 2001, the urban population in Indiaconstituted 28% of the total population andpresently it is estimated as about 30% of thetotal population of the country. This popula-tion, however, is not uniformly distributedthroughout the country. There are regionaldisparities both in the level and pace ofurbanization.

I. STATUS OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT – PROVISIONING OFMUNICIPAL SERVICESWater and sanitationAccording to the latest Census, 69% of theurban population has access to tapped watersupply. However, the average availability isless than four hours a day, and in some areaswater is supplied only for one hour on alter-nate days. The poor quality of transmissionand distribution networks results in higheroperating costs and physical losses rangingbetween 25% to over 50%. Low pressure andintermittent supply leads to the contamina-tion in the distribution network. Hence, avicious cycle of unsatisfactory service stan-dards caused by low tariff structures result-ing in poor resource positions of Urban LocalBodies (ULBs) and poor maintenance andservice continues.

Approximately 70% of the urban householdsin India have sanitation facilities, however,only 72 of 4400 towns in the country havepartial sewerage facilities and 17 have someform of primary treatment facilities beforedisposal.

Municipal Solid waste The growth of Municipal Solid Waste hasoutpaced population growth in recent yearsas a result of changing lifestyles, food habits,and rising living standards. About 48 milliontons of solid wastes are generated in theurban areas everyday, an eight-fold increasesince independence. Of this not more than72% is collected daily, which leads to accu-mulation and decomposition of the waste inpublic places with adverse effects on publichealth. The increase in non-degradable wasteis alarming; the production and consumptionof plastic has increased more than 70 timesbetween 1960 and 1995.

70% of Indian cities have inadequate wastetransportation facilities resulting in litteringduring collection and transport. The landfillsites too are seldom managed in an environ-mentally acceptable manner and are prone to groundwater contamination because ofleachate production. These sites are sourcesof livelihoods for the urban poor like ragpickers who often locate their residences inproximity to these sites, living in and exacer-bating unhygienic environmental conditionsand suffering from an array of physical andmental health problems. Landfill workers

Urban Infrastructure and its Ecological Demandsand Constraints – An Indian PerspectiveManraj Guliani, Area Convenor, Centre for Urban Systems and Infrastructure, The Energy and Resources Institute TERI, India

have significantly higher incidence of respi-ratory symptoms, and they suffer more oftenfrom diarrhea, fungal and other skin infec-tions, transient loss of memory, and depres-sion.

II. IMPACTS OF INITIATIVES ON PROVISIONING OF URBAN SERVICES:SOME CASESWater and Sanitation – The YamunaExampleWith awareness towards water pollutionmaking its mark in the country, Delhi gov-ernment initiated a drive in 1993 to clean upthe Yamuna River, which flows through theheart of the city. To arrest river pollution,certain measures of cleaning river have beentaken by the Ministry of Environment andForests (MoEF) of the Government of India(GOI) in 12 towns of Haryana, 8 towns ofUttar Pradesh, and Delhi under an actionplan (Yamuna Action Plan-YAP) which isbeing implemented by the National RiverConservation Directorate (NRCD) of theMinistry of Environment and Forests. Controlof pollution from industrial effluents was tobe addressed under the environmental laws.

Yamuna Action Plan includes:a) Construction of sewerage systems for

interception, diversion and treatment ofsewage in the larger towns

b) Provision of public latrines c) Provision of crematoria and improvement

of bathing ghats alongside the river

d) Some plantation and beautification workse) Education and public awareness in sus-

taining cleanness of the river.

Municipal Solid Waste – GreaterVisakhapatnam Municipal Corporation(GVMC) initiativesThe current reform process has brought inthe awareness about environmental andhealth hazards of improper waste manage-ment and sanitation in a city. This has beendemonstrated by the Greater VisakhapatnamMunicipal Corporation (GVMC), which hasimplemented a comprehensive solution tothese problems. Through Resident WelfareAssociations (RWAs) i.e. associations formedby citizens, GVMC partnered with citizens inwaste management exercise. Two programswere initiated for management of solidwaste and cleaning up of drains and roadsrespectively. In both these programs, citizensactively participated in project estimation,resource mobilization, execution, monitoring,and contributing in terms of cash and super-vision. The two programs have jointly result-ed in improving the sanitary conditions in900 localities covering about 75% of thepopulation.

III. OTHER INITIATIVESCurrent policy shifts with redefinition ofapproach at the national level represent significant conceptual change in the policyenvironment for local service delivery andhas the potential to rewrite the way urban


18

local governments will deliver services. Theexamples discussed above showcase theimprovements that can be brought aboutwith policy interventions. However, it is wellknown and accepted that changes at thepolicy level alone cannot bring about a sig-nificant improvement of our environment. It is with consistent efforts of the policymakers, NGOs and civil society of the countryalong with supportive policies, which canmake an impact.

A major lacuna in provisioning of serviceshas been due to inadequate data availabilityand its management although there isawareness about latest techniques to meas-ure quality of Urban Environment. Some ofthese techniques are described here whichhave been implemented in the country on a small scale and are being seriously consid-ered for wider applications.

Ecological Footprint ApproachAlthough much qualitative work has beendone to assess sustainability in urban areas,few quantitative measures exist. One of themore interesting quantitative techniques toemerge is Ecological Footprint, or Appro-priated Carrying Capacity Analysis. This tech-nique measures the land and resources asociety consumes in order to sustain. TheEcological Footprint of a region is the area of productive land required to provide all theenergy and material resources consumed andto absorb all of the wastes discharged by the

population of the region using current tech-nology, wherever on earth that land is locat-ed. Small or decreasing per capita EcologicalFootprints indicate that the region is movingtowards sustainability, while those that areinordinately large or rapidly growing indicatejust the opposite. Urban areas can useEcological Footprint analysis as a yardstickmeasurement against which the impact tosustainability of future developments andgrowth can be measured.

Green AccountingGreen Accounting, also referred to as naturalresource accounting or environmentalaccounting, is a system in which economicmeasurements take into account the effectsof production and consumption on the envi-ronment. It specifically takes into accountthe depreciation of natural resources and theenvironment while estimating net domesticproduct or net national product. The conceptdictates that natural resources, such as min-erals, soils and forests, have an economicvalue. This is called natural capital, to be dis-tinguished from manufactured capital suchas roads, factories, and machinery. Untilrecently, changes in natural capital were not given money values, nor included incost-benefit and other forms of economicanalysis.

While there are some preliminary effortstowards Green Accounting at the Nationaland State levels, there is virtually no frame-

19

work to incorporate it at the city level.Undoubtedly, the preparation of GreenAccounts is a vast exercise for the city leveland cannot be completed in a short time-frame. However, it is important to establish aframework and baseline data for the presentstate of environment in our cities so that onecan periodically assess how the quality ofenvironment has changed in terms of air,water, soil, biodiversity and exhaustibleresources.

IV. CONCLUSIONIndia has still a long way to go in achievingacceptable levels of service delivery andeliminating the negative impacts of servicedelivery on the environment. However, theabove discussion brings to the fore that boththe government and the intellectual commu-nity recognize the consequences of environ-mental degradation and efforts are on in thecountry for improving the current situation.Sustained efforts of the government and theintelligentsia in an enabling policy environ-ment has already started yielding positiveresults and I am positive that the day is notfar when India would be at the juncture ofboasting an environmentally friendly systemof service provision in place.


20

“It seems that complex systems, oncetheir constituting elements surpass a critical number, tend to self-organize following ever similar principles in orderto obtain stability.” Wolf Singer in: “The architecture of brains as model for complex cities structure”

Framework-conditions of today’s population-development Europe from 728 Million to 668 Million; USA from 294 Million to 420 Million; Asiafrom 3,9 Billion to 4,2 Billion

Involvement by AS&PDuring the last 40 years, our office has beeninvolved in various planning projects forlarger cities, not the least in Shanghai. Thecity development of Shanghai with itstremendous activities in the constructionsector, offers the opportunity to function asa showcase for city development strategies,future-oriented urban Development and sus-tainable building technologies in ChineseMegacities by implementing and testingsample projects. Parallel to our engagementin China we have been involved in strategiccity development planning in a larger scalein various countries and have gathered expe-rience, among others, in the Saudi Arabiancapital Riyadh, Baku in Azerbaijan, in Nigeriawith the planning for greater Abuja as wellas regional planning for the Rhine-Main-Area around Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Although these city’s framework conditionsare completely different there are some prin-ciples that seem to be almost “universally”applicable.

1. THE PRINCIPLE OF “DE-CENTRALISED CONCENTRATION” SERVES AS THE BASICTOOL TO IMPROVE URBAN DEVELOPMENTIN AGGLOMERATION AREASThe planning principle suggested to allow for a proper development control in metro-politan areas has been called de-centralisedconcentration, which means a densely inter-linked network of sub-centres or “satellites”with particular vital functions within theconcentrated urban fabric of a megacity.

2. “THE DOWN-TOWN LANDSCAPE” IS A VITAL STRUCTURAL ELEMENT TO COMPENSATE THE LAND USE FOR BUILT-UP AREAS IN MEGACITIESToday’s rapid growing megacities do signifi-cantly lack down town open space andregional green belts in a dimension to becalled “landscape”. This cannot be balancedby artificial water ways, parks and streetrelated green belts only. Megacities demanda profound ecological inner-city-landscapeplanning. The function of inner-city-land-scape is manifold, to name the most impor-tant:❙ Local climate improvement, better

exchange of fresh air, reduction of air-pollution.

Principles of Urban Development inAgglomeration AreasAlbert Speer, Architect and Urban Planner, Managing Director AS&P – Albert Speer and Partner GmbH, Germany

21

❙ Help to establish an orderly, recognisablestructure, understood as sequential mix ofopen landscape and built-up areas of theagglomeration which makes it fabric more“readable” to its inhabitants.

❙ Help to maintain the human scale withinlarge settlements

❙ Urban agriculture can support provision of food supplies with short transportationways (reduction of traffic)

❙ Locating sports and recreation facilitiesembedded within the down-town land-scape, in the immediate vicinity of residen-tial areas leads to reduction of Leisuretime mobility (which for example inGermany generates 50% of the total ofindividual transportation (km/person))

3. THE COMPATIBLE ORGANISATION OF MOBILITY IN MEGACITIES CALLS FOR A PREFERENCE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONThe organisation of passenger and freightgenerated mobility is a key issue in mega-cities both with regard to ecological andeconomic reasons. Above and beyond con-struction of a given transportation infra-structure, its operation is also crucial. Whatis necessary is a networked, integrated trafficmanagement system encompassing multiplemodes of transport.

This requires not only investment in high-tech solutions (detection, satellite navigation,centralised administration, etc.), but also anewly integrated manner of thinking on thepart of individual operators and organisa-tions.

A well functioning public transportation sys-tem is the only chance to guarantee mobilityin 21st century. Consequent means towardsthis goal will have a positive impact on theurban structural fabric as a whole. Above all,public transport, in contrast to individualtraffic, will drastically reduce air pollution aswell as energy consumption. Organising aregional planning with regard to reduction of mobility is the key to overall sustainabledevelopment and reduction of energy con-sumption.

4. NETWORKS OF INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS ARE A PREREQUISITE FOR SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENTOrganic growth and constant rejuvenationhave become one of the major objectives instrategic megacity development planning, inparticular applied to infrastructural systems,leaving more space to the self-organisationof the “City Organism”. Only the introductionof an intelligent network of infrastructuresystems within the megacities will preserveresources and reduce emissions drastically.To develop and optimise infrastructure sys-tems an interdisciplinary planning approachis necessary, which finally leads to a sustain-


22

able solution. Urban planning and planningof urban technical facilities has to be con-ducted simultaneously. The various fields ofinfrastructure (water supply, sewage, wastetreatment as well as heating and air-condi-tioning) may no longer be optimised sepa-rately and sequently, but rather jointly andparallel, they have to be considered as onesystem, to be integrated in one urban tech-nical network.

5. EFFICIENCY IN CITY MANAGEMENTAND USE OF FINANCIAL RESOURCESWILL PROFIT FROM CLOSE CO-OPERATION WITH PRIVATE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURESThe process of urban development calls foroptimising the organisational structures.The organisation and management of aPrivate Public Partnership provides for aproper use of financial resources and lastingeconomic success.

6. THE PRINCIPLE OF RESOURCES EFFICIENCY MUST BE FOLLOWEDTHROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PLANNINGPROCESS, FROM THE REGIONAL PLANNING TO THE CONCEPTION OF THE SINGLE BUILDING Any chain is only as strong as its weakestlink. The efficient use of recourses and ener-gy in particular has to be followed from theproduction through the transport and distri-

bution to the end-users. With regard tourban planning and building constructionthis means that only parallel and joint effortson all levels and in all scales of planning willprovide for an optimum of efficiency in useof resources and environmental preservation.The general planning approach towards sus-tainability thus has to encompass the level ofregional planning and urban design as wellas the architectural design for single build-ings. When it comes to the concrete urbanand architectural design, we have found away to deal with these tasks in a compre-hensive way, which might be consideredsuitable in other fields of activity as well. We call our approach "sequential, coopera-tive, transparent planning process".

23

1. POWER SHORTAGE IN CHINA’SHISTORYPower industry is a typical public service, andit is usually recognized as a natural monop-oly industry. China’s central government usedto invest and operate power industry byitself. As you know, the fiscal investment isquite limited. However, due to massiveindustrialization and extensive urbanization,power demands have increased quickly. Thus,power shortage is inevitable, and occursrepeatedly.

In 1949, the People’s Republic of China wasfounded. At that time, China had a powercapacity of 1850MW (megawatt), and produced 4.3 billion kWh (kilowatt-hours) annually. China faced severe power short-age. After more than 10 years, in 1965, thepower capacity increased six times to 12 GW(gigawatt), and the electricity productionincreased twelve times to 57 billion kWh. The electric demand and supply balanced off temporarily.

In 1966, China faced power shortage again,and since then power shortage became moreand more serious. In 1978, China started itsreform and open policy. At that time, thepower shortage gap amounted to 10 GW,and 40 billion kWh. In 1985, the shortagegap amounted to 14~15 GW, and 60~70 bil-lion kWh. In that year, China implemented animportant policy: “to develop power industryby gathering social capital”. After 12 years, at the end of 1997, the electric demand and

supply balanced off, and had lasted for 5 years. Unfortunately, there were few newpower plants approved during 1998–2000.Since 2002, China faced a new-turn powershortage. In 2005, there were 26 provinces,among 31 provinces, where we had to switchoff, or cut down the electric load. This year,however, the situation has been improved,and it is expected to balance off next year.

2. CHINA’S POWER INVESTMENT REGULATION REFORMChina’s Power investment regulation reformhas started since 1980. In this year, fiscaladministration separated between centraland local government into two tiers. Con-sequently, power construction fund wasplanned and arranged according to the sub-jection of firms. The local government canmake policies to collect social capital. It isthe premise for private sector to join powerconstruction.

In August 1984, the central governmentcleared a policy-orientation, that is, to collectsocial capital, and to insist on multi-forcesinvestment. In 1986, the State Councilapproved the policy. It encouraged to devel-op power industry by gathering social capi-tal. It also arranged a new electricity pricesystem. Thus, the independent power plant(IPP) came into being. In 1993, the "CompanyLaw" was promulgated. The power plantstarted to operate as a company. In 1996, theState Council started an initial capital policy.


Private Sector Contributions to Municipal Public Service: China's Power Investment Regulation ReformTang Xinbing, Director, Strategy & Investment Department, Beijing Energy Investment Holding Co., Ltd., China

24

And the "Electric power Law" was promul-gated in the same year. It has explicitly stipu-lated the rights of shareholders and thestakeholders, and outlined the governanceand management of power plant companies.From the year of 1984 till now, a multi-forces investment structure came into being.There are mainly 4 forces: First, the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) belonging to central government, the so-called Big-fivepower group.

Second, the state-owned enterprises (SOEs)belonging to local governments. In 1984, theState Council approved East China GridCompany to charge additional 2 cents perkWh industrial consumption. The money collected was used as power constructioninitial capital. In 1988, the experience spreadnationwide. There are 47 companies startedby this means.

Third, joint venture (JV). In 1985, Hong KongHehe Power invested the Shajiao Power Plantby means of BOT. Another Hong Kong com-pany also invested in Daya Bay nuclearpower plant. Since then on, many foreigncompanies have invested power plants inChina.

Fourth, the social capital through stock mar-ket. In April 1993, Shenergy Company Ltd.was listed in Shanghai Stock Exchange. Itwas the first power company listed. AfterShenergy, there were tens of companies listed. Datang, Huaneng, Huadian, and China

Power were also listed in Hong Kong, Londonand New York stock exchanges. In this way, alot of social capital have been collected andinvested in power industry.

3. PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHINA’S POWER INDUSTRYDEVELOPMENTSince 1984, China’s power industry hasgrown very fast. In 1987, the capacity exceeded 100 GW. In 1995, it exceeded 200 GW. In 2000, it exceeded 300 GW. In2004, it exceeded 400 GW. In 2005, it ex-ceeded 500 GW. And it is expected to reach600 GW this year.

The private sectors contributed a lot to thefast growth of China’s power industry. Asmentioned above, the private sector includesmainly two parts. One is foreign direct in-vestment (FDI), and the other is social capitalcollected by stock market. From 1985 to1992, FDI played an important role. In 1990,FDI accounted for 12.2% in total fixed assetinvestment in power industry. Since 1993,stock markets have become more important.According to statistics, there are 60 compa-nies listed in Shanghai and Shenzhen stockexchange. They collected 67 billion RMBtotally. In addition, Huaneng and other com-panies listed overseas collected more than 13 billion RMB. Assuming this 80 billionRMB, mainly private, was used as initial capi-tal, we could build 200 GW capacity, basedon the current power plant construction

25

cost. This 200 GW accounted for 39% of theChina’s power capacity at the end of 2005.Here we can see the great contributions ofstock market, mainly private sector, toChina’s power industry.

4. IMPLICATIONSFrom the practices of China’s power invest-ment regulation reform, we can draw someconclusions and implications:

First, in developing countries, due to massiveindustrialization and extensive urbanization,the demand for municipal public servicegrows quickly. Government investments can-not meet the actual demand. Private sectorscan and should play an important role inpublic service delivery.

Second, even in pure natural monopolyindustry, private sectors may play a role incertain parts. For example, in the powerindustry the distribution part is run by SOE,however, private sectors can play an impor-tant role in power plants.

Third, municipal public service usually needsa lot of money. It is a good choice to startupcompanies and collect social capitals throughstock market.

Fourth, when private sectors join in themunicipal public service, government shouldprovide more guidance and support in areassuch as standard formulation, cost restric-tion, price regulation and market supervision.

26


27

I. THE RAPID AND LARGE SCALE URBANIZATION IN CONTEMPORARYCHINAThe Chinese national government’s open pol-icy in the late 1970s gives Chinese cities agreat opportunity to modernize and develop.The urbanization in China has become thefocus of multi factors such as industrializa-tion, globalization, social and economicaltransformation etc. All of those factors aremingled together. The governance and urbandevelopment mechanism are undergoing afundamental change, too, which has broughta sophisticated geo-political context for theurbanization in China. The urbanization since1950s could be divided into three phases:The first phase is the general urbanizationuntil 1970s, the urban industrialization andreversed urbanization. The second phase isthe market oriented urbanization in 1980sand 1990s. The third phase is the rapid andlarge scale urbanization since late 1990s inorder to catch up the world trend of urban-ization.

In 2000, the urbanization in China is 36.22%,in 2005 it is 43.3%, in 2010 the urbanizationwill be 49.2%, and in 2020 it will be about60%. Since 1996, every year the urbanizationwill have 1.43 – 1.44 more percentage point,which means yearly there will be more than25 million agricultural population becomeurban population. There are some unilateraltrends in the rapid urbanization, such as theland use urbanization is ahead of economicalurbanization, the hardware infrastructure hasbeen paid more attention than software

infrastructure, the environmental pollution;the neglect of the urban culture; the unevendistribution of public resources in urban area,and finally, the lack of idealistic model forfuture city.

In these fields, Shanghai is already in theleading position in China, but the built-uparea in Shanghai is still one tenth of themetropolitan area, and the average incomeper capita is still very low. A striking contrastin living quality from area to area still hap-pens in different corners. There is a seriousuneven distribution of environmentalresources, environmental quality, educationalopportunities and infrastructure for differentcorners, especially the difference betweenthe upper part and lower part since 100years not yet eliminated. The rapid and largescale construction of Shanghai in late 1980sand 1990s has nearly changed the urbanskyline with a random image of “form fol-lows profit”. All of these situations askedShanghai to start a re-urbanization.

After the government open policy, Shanghaihas the opportunity once again to become a world class centre of finance, economy,trade and shipping. As a result, since the late1990s, a series of master plans for differentareas of the city have been worked on, cov-ering over 1000 km2, to catch up this rapidgrowth. About 20 million square meters ofbuildings are expected to be built every yearwith new housing, offices, infrastructuresand other facilities. To give a sense of scale,this equates to the half size of Shanghai in

The Urbanization and Re-Urbanization in China: The Shanghai ExperimentZheng Shiling, General Schemer EXPO 2010 Shanghai, Director of the Institute of Architecture and Urban Space, Tongji University, China

1949. The current master plan covering the period 1999–2020 is based on a multi-centric urban structure.

II. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RE-URBANIZATION IN SHANGHAI

Today Shanghai becomes a compact show-case of the world city and architecture. Theurban development has followed the modelsof classical European cities and integratedwith traditional Chinese ideology. As a centerfor modern Chinese culture, Shanghai al-ready became an important economic andcultural metropolis in 19th and 20th century.In the history, Shanghai is always famous forits chasing for advanced technology, pros-perous economy and the fashion of life.

There are three important factors that willprofoundly affect the future development ofShanghai: the first event is the developmentof the Pudong New Area, the second event is EXPO 2010; the third event is the suburbdevelopment of Shanghai. All of those threefactors have promoted the city into a periodof Re-Urbanization. The opening policy forPudong Area, i.e. the east part of theHuangpu River has led to a restructuringcourse both for the urban industry andurban form. The Huangpu River becomes thecenter of urban space, the former waterfrontalong the river is now transforming from theindustrialized area full of factories, shipyard,warehouses, docklands into a public open

space. The transformation of waterfrontspace has lead to the birth of EXPO sitealong the river.

In 1990s, Shanghai has started the re-urban-ization course due to the opening policy ofPudong Area. Re-Urbanization is a specialdebate upon the Chinese and especially theShanghai situation, which is an optimizationof the urban environment and establishmentof the creative economy, which means the improvement of the urban space andrestructure of the industry and urban struc-ture, to deal with the agricultural area of themetropolitan area and the urban area, toheal the city with the preliminary and un-balanced urbanization and to eliminate thedifferences of urban service and educationfacilities and the uneven distribution ofurban infrastructure and resources in thecity, to eliminate the big differences betweenthe Upper Corner and the Lower Corner of the city since more than 100 years, toimprove the service sector for better lifequality and to foster human creativity.

The EXPO 2010 is located on a land of5.24 km2, which spans both sides of the riverand is just 5 km away from the city center.The existing situation of the EXPO site is fullof factories, warehouses, shipyards, piers,waste land and low quality residential build-ings. After the master plan, the whole areawill be transformed into a convention center,a sub-center of the city.

28


29

The EXPO 2010 is a result of the achieve-ments Shanghai has accomplished, at the-same time it will also give the city a chal-lenge and a new opportunity for the futuredevelopment. Since 1990s, Shanghai hasbeen undergoing a significant urban trans-formation. The urbanization cannot be considered just as a statistic relationshipbetween urban population and the total population, which is related to the urbanindustry, urban space, urban environment,infrastructure and service sectors.

III. THE SUBURB DEVELOPMENT IS THEFORERUNNER FOR RE-URBANIZATION OFSHANGHAIAlready since 1958, 7 satellite cities havebeen built in suburb area of Shanghai whichhave played a very important role in thecourse of industrialization. Since 2000,Shanghai has put the emphasis of develop-ment on its suburb area. A program called“One City, Nine Towns” has been initiatedthroughout about 6,000 km2 suburb area,Shanghai planners and architects collaborat-ed with their colleagues come from Germany,Italy, U.S.A., U.K., Netherlands, France, Japan,Sweden have made a great contribution forthe new urban planning ideas. The suburbDevelopment is also the forerunner for Re-Urbanization of Shanghai. Since 2000, arestructure of the urban system has beenconducted in a large scale. In 2006, a pro-gram named 1966 Program has been initiat-ed, in order to have a balanced developmentbetween the urban area and suburb area in

Shanghai that means one metropolitan city,9 satellite cities, 60 towns and 600 centralvillages. Some projects in the suburb area arevery significant for the re-urbanization ofShanghai, such as the New Harbor City, NewPujiang Town and Qingpu New City.

Shanghai is rethinking the rational model forits future development to lay down a solidfoundation for the re-urbanization and tocreate a new cultural tradition, in order tolive in the city better than viewing it fromthe air. To insist a balanced developmentbetween the physical form and social behav-ior, it needs the cultural driver to foster theestablishment of a creative city. Shanghai isconducting the re-urbanization as a practicaldeduction of the theme of EXPO 2010, let thecity better and the life eternal.

There are many other countries besides Indiaand China facing the challenge of megacitydevelopment. For this reason InWEnt invitedrepresentatives of different city councilsfrom Africa and Asia to discuss questions of urban governance with special regard to the prerequisites for safeguarding socialcohesion.

The panel discussion was chaired by GüntherTaube (Head of Department, InWEnt). Heemphasised the importance of looking atquestions of urban megacity developmentfrom the perspective of government officialsand also stressed the opportunities thatmight arise through widening the viewpointsof Indian and Chinese urban developmentexperts as a result of contributions fromIndonesia, Ethiopia and Nigeria. The guestson stage were Changyuan Wang (DeputySecretary General of the Chinese Associationof Mayors, China), Fauzi Bowo (Vice Governorof Jakarta, Indonesia), Berhane Deressa(Mayor of Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia), MaryNeelima Kerketta (Additional Commissioner(Special) of Pune, India), Johny Joseph(Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai, India),Francisco Bolaji Abosede (HonourableCommissioner for Physical Planning andUrban Development, Lagos State, Nigeria),and Jiuling Xiong (Deputy Director GeneralPolicy, Research Bureau of the People’sGovernment of Beijing, China).

Changyuan Wang (Deputy SecretaryGeneral, Chinese Association of Mayors,China) pointed out the necessity for mayorsto not only focus on the management of

their own city, but to think in terms of cityclusters. “A mayor, the manager of the city,should not only think about the manage-ment of his city. Urban development has to be in cooperation with the surroundingareas so that industries can really develop by means of shared resources and sharedinformation.”

He also pointed out the importance of a harmonious society, which is based on fouraspects. The first is equality, which refers toequality between the cities and the country-side, between the east and west of China.The second aspect is employment: urbani-sation attracts a new population of about 10 million people every year. In the past,cities have not been capable of providing asufficient number of jobs for the new citi-zens, resulting in high unemployment. Thethird aspect of achieving a harmonious soci-ety is coping with the effect of rapid eco-nomic growth. He referred to the energy sec-tor by way of example: “The use of resourcesis not really fine-tuned. Our share of globalGDP is 4.1%. The percentage consumption ofenergy is much larger than this figure. Weknow about this problem and we are chang-ing it. Central government takes the questionof energy resources into account when judg-ing the performance of its subordinates.” Thefourth aspect is social security. This includesareas such as old-age insurance, health careand education. Changyuang Wang empha-sised the responsibilities of the cities in thisregard, “But of course they are experiencingproblems in finding ways to help the people,to help the underprivileged section of thepopulation.” He concluded with the words,

Summary of the Mayors’ Forum onGovernance and Urban Development –Prerequisites to Safeguard Social Cohesion

30

SUMMARY

31

“The construction of the harmonious societyhas a great impact on the development ofcity organization.”

Fauzi Bowo (Vice Governor of Jakarta,Indonesia) opened his speech with the essen-tial statement, “Social harmony is somethingwe are all longing for. But social disparity isa fact that we are facing everyday. In realterms social disparity reflects poverty.Poverty means scarcity of job opportunities,and this can easily be seen in the pattern ofdistribution of the gross domestic product.”

He continued by asking the question howsocial harmony can be achieved, especially in a plural society such as Indonesia where“social harmony depends on being able toharmonize the diversity of ethnics, religionsand traditions all at the same time. What isneeded is a partnership of all stakeholders, a partnership that is multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary and multi-level.” He emphasisedthat it was crucially important to include allstakeholders in this process and saw thegovernment playing a key role in the processof urban development and the achievementof social cohesion.

If there was no cooperation “each and everycluster, every government entity and everycommunity will have their own prevalence,goals and objectives. Their objectives maynot be compatible with those of the largerclusters. This is the reason why we needunderstanding, a proper mindset and why weneed a system of cooperation. We need toknow how to tackle and deal with all theseproblems. The administration also has to set

goals, objectives and a common strategy forall the different levels, set priorities, developan infrastructure and manage the resourcesat their disposal. The involvement of thestakeholders is very important in this phaseof urban management. Each and every stake-holder should have a place in the process, adifferent role at a different level.”

Berhane Deressa (Mayor of Addis-Ababa,Ethiopia) pointed out that practically allmegacities were facing the same problems,which mainly arise from the underdevelop-ment of infrastructure, resources, andexpertise.

He described the approach adopted in Addis-Ababa to improve the government’sperformance: establishing sub-cities in order“to bring the administration and manage-ment of the city closer to the people atgrassroots levels. The reason for devolvingfunctions to lower levels of the city adminis-tration is that this is both politically and eco-nomically a more effective and efficient wayof implementing public policies and pro-grammes. It is aimed at strengthening publicparticipation in decision-making processes toincrease transparency, accountability and theresponsiveness to local needs. It will enhancedemocratic decentralisation and good gover-nance within the framework of the overalldecentralisation policy of the country. Bothsub-cities and lower administration hierar-chies are assuming strategic roles in plan-ning and decision making even thoughresources may not always be adequatelyavailable.”

He continued by explaining that, “Sub-citiesnow play an important role in decision mak-ing as they are involved in the planning andmanagement of urban affairs. Sub-citieshave a great deal of freedom in preparingtheir own budgets, plans and programmesand in implementing them. Up to 90 percentof the services are provided at municipallevel.” He summed up his speech with thewords, “The role of the city government is tocreate a framework and facilitate collectiveaction with less direct intervention.”

Mary Neelima Kerketta (AdditionalCommissioner (Special) of Pune, India)focused on the positive effects of globaliza-tion for urban development and its attemptto safeguard social cohesion. “Globalizationleads to prosperity which results in strongerrevenues. This ensures more resources whichleads to greater autonomy. This increasesefficiency which finally leads to better serv-ice delivery.” She expressed the belief, “… ifthe cities in India have to follow the path ofsustainability they must wholeheartedlyaccept the positives of globalization withoutof course compromising our rich culture andtradition.”

Johny Joseph (Municipal Commissioner ofMumbai, India) agreed with the problems as outlined by the previous speakers. Heemphasised, “the negative by-products ofurbanisation from the citizen's point of view:the lack of well-defined performance stan-dards, multiple touch-points, time and loca-tion constraints, irregularities due to multiplehuman contact. This can ultimately be sum-

marised as a lack of transparency.” Hedescribed the major e-governance initiativewhich has been undertaken in Mumbai inorder to deal with this shortcoming. Withthis initiative the Municipal Corporation isattempting to increase the transparency andefficiency of its work and make itself moreaccountable to the people.

Another aspect which Johny Joseph focusedon was the situation of slum dwellers. Abouthalf of the population of Mumbai lives inslums, “because of large-scale migrationfrom the land to the city.” Because of thegreat influx of people and the rapidly grow-ing population, “it is impossible to makeincremental changes and investment over-night – for housing, but also for drainage,sewage, sanitation, water supply and so on.”

Finally he addressed the question of howsocial cooperation can be achieved and sup-ported. He saw the solution in decentralisa-tion and participatory planning, especially in the budgetary process. In Mumbai, “theentire budget – not only allocation but alsofiscal milestones – are indicated and pub-lished on the web and in the newspapers. So the progress of expenditure and also thephysical progress can be monitored by thecitizens.”

Francisco Bolaji Abosede (HonourableCommissioner for Physical Planning andUrban Development, Lagos State, Nigeria)also expressed his basic agreement with thepoints brought up by the previous speakers.He highlighted the importance of Lagos by

32

SUMMARY

33

saying, “the population of Lagos is largerthan 37 individual African countries.” Heillustrated the situation in his city: every day6000 people come to Lagos from the coun-tryside in order to find employment. Thisputs the government under serious pressureto provide public services for the rapidlygrowing number of citizens. To solve thisproblem, “the government looked at the issueof establishing public-private-partnerships toenhance its ability to provide public services.This is a new approach to provide publicinfrastructure and ancillary services througha mutually beneficial alliance between thepublic and the private sector. With thesepartnerships we were able to deliver someservices.”

Mr. Abosede addressed two additional prob-lems in Lagos. The first is the high number ofslum areas in the city; the second is the largeinformal sector and the resulting low level oftax generation. In these cases he also citedthe cooperation between the public and pri-vate sectors as a possible solution to theseproblems.

Jiuiling Xiong (Deputy Director GeneralPolicy, Research Bureau of the People'sGovernment of Beijing, China) described thechange in the Chinese management systemof local urban governance. It used to bebased on a very hierarchic, top-downapproach. But in the wake of economicreforms a social reform is taking place. InChina, they “build up a social system outsideand parallel to government and administra-tive systems. Through grassroots communitydevelopment, large numbers of social organi-

sations are built up, which have greatercapability to solve social problems and dealwith social affairs. And a plural-entity net-work for urban development is taking shape.Local urban governance is beginning tochange from vertical administration towardsa civil society-based horizontal network.”

She stressed that, “the ongoing socialreforms in Beijing consist of three closelyrelated features: autonomy in the local resi-dents committees, the development of NGOs,and citizens’ participation and volunteering.”She pointed out that some progress has beenmade in increasing the autonomy of localresidents committees. However, the financialand social situation of NGOs is weak, as iscitizens’ participation and volunteering. Sheconcluded, “The reality is that the traditionalvertical administration still exists and thatthe new civil society-based, local urban man-agement has not been built up. Practically,the current urban social reform is takingplace within the vertical dimension.”

During the discussion, in which the speakersalso answered questions from the floor, themain points brought up by the speakers werereaffirmed. Once again it was mentioned thata priority of urban development should bethe provision of public services, particularlyin the areas of housing, infrastructure, andeducation. In order to achieve this goal theactive involvement of all stakeholders wasseen as a necessary condition and there wasgeneral recognition of the opportunities ofpublic-private-partnerships.

INTRODUCTION“The governability of rapidly growing largecities and megacities in countries such asChina, India and other ‘emerging powers’represents one of the key challenges of thenew millennium. Only with responsibleaction and the involvement of all sections of the population can social and ecologicalcatastrophes with global consequences beavoided.” Thus Günther Taube, head of theInternational Regulatory Framework/ GoodGovernance/ Economic Policy Department atInWEnt, described the necessity for an inter-national political dialogue on this topic withanchor countries or ‘emerging powers.’

Against this background, the internationalconference “Governing Emerging Megacities– Challenges and Perspectives” was stagedon 7th and 8th December 2006, organized by InWEnt in cooperation with the City ofFrankfurt am Main on behalf of the FederalMinistry for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (BMZ). Among the 100 partici-pants who accepted the invitation to attendthe Frankfurt event, 15 came from India, 20 from China as well as 10 representativesfrom other countries. The German Museumof Architecture in Frankfurt am Main,designed by Oswald Mathias Ungers, offeredthe German and international experts a chal-lenging setting in which to exchange theirexperiences of the problems and opportuni-ties in the development of megacities. Thebringing together of such diverse viewpointson the topic – with representatives from

science, administration, politics, business and non-governmental organizations –added special significance to the event.

On the stage were internationally knownpersonalities, including Sheela Patel, founderand director of the Indian non-governmentalorganization SPARC, Albert Speer, architectand city planner, and Zheng Shiling, curatorof EXPO 2010 in Shanghai. They describedthe problems of urban development inmegacities from their differing perspectives:Sheela Patel from the point of view of slumdwellers, Albert Speer from the viewpoint ofan architect and city planner operating inthe international sphere and Zheng Shilingfrom the official viewpoint of the city gov-ernment of Shanghai, currently pursuingambitious plans in readiness for “Expo 2010”. In the different forums held over the twodays, discussions took place on city gover-nance in megacities and major urbanagglomerations, on the importance of watersupply, health services and housing space forthe quality of life in the cities, and on thenew challenges in the political fields of ener-gy, transport and environment in the face ofthe rapid growth of urban areas. The involve-ment of the private sector in the problem ofthe controllability of megacities and in theprovision of infrastructure and services wasconsidered to be the way ahead by severalspeakers.

The megacity dialogue forum marks thebeginning of a series of international dia-logue forums which are planned by InWEnt

Conference Report by Ulrike Herrmann, InWEnt

34

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

35

in the coming years, designed to intensifythe exchange of experiences and ideasbetween anchor countries or ‘emerging pow-ers’ and Germany. The second event in thisseries will be held as early as January. Then,within the framework of an Indian-Germandialogue, the question under examinationwill be: what contribution social security systems could make to strengthening socialcohesion in economically successful develop-ing countries?

THE OPENING SPEECHESIn her opening speech, Manuela Rottmann,city councilor of Frankfurt am Main, intro-duced the topic by drawing the participants’attention to the international city of Frankfurtas a metropolis with a diversity of challengesand perspectives. The BMZ representative forAsia and Eastern Europe, Klemens van deSand, reaffirmed the possibilities of this con-ference for the intensification of the cooper-ations with India and China and the impor-tance of the debate on topics of urban devel-opment and megacities for the Germandevelopment cooperation. Gerhard Hahn,head of the Department of Global Change,opened the event on behalf of the FederalMinistry of Education and Research (BMBF).He reminded the audience that one cannotconsider globally sustainable developmentwithout tackling the problem of urban devel-opment, particularly in megacities. Mr. Hahnmentioned current research by BMBF onmegacities and cited the integrative andinterdisciplinary approach as well as close

cooperation with partners on the ground asthe main aspects of the program. Only in thisway can long-term strategies for megacitiesbe developed. Günther Taube referred to thehuman approach of the Indian Nobel prize-winner, Amartya Sen, who does not talkabout civilization in general, but about theinteraction of individuals with different identities. In this spirit, Mr. Taube called forrecognition of and intense debate on urbanidentities. The importance of India and Chinafor future global development is undisputed,and it is yet to be resolved how Germany cancontribute to this development.

Frannie Léautier, Vice President, World BankInstitute, stressed in her opening speech theimportance of institutions for urban develop-ment as well as the positive interrelationshipbetween good city governance and globaliza-tion. She emphasized the many opportunitiesthat exist besides the problems in the mega-cities. International studies show that global-ized cities fare better than smaller cities inareas such as economic development andtransport systems. Structure and size there-fore play a significant role in the successfuldevelopment and governance of cities.However, as soon as a certain point in theexpansion and the population is exceededthe efficiency and controllability of thesecities diminish. Accordingly, Frannie Léautierregards a polycentric structure of interlinkedsmaller cities as a model that promises suc-cess, which could represent an antipole tothe megacities.

Paul Taylor from UN-Habitat, the UnitedNations settlement program, argued in hisspeech that cities will play a major role inachieving the millennium development goals,since many of the aims, such as water sup-ply, health services and education are theresponsibility of local authorities. Thereforethe involvement of government levels belowthe national level will be of even greaterimportance in the future. Like FrannieLéautier, Paul Taylor underlined the humanaspect of cities and, along with Peter Hall,asked the question, “Why are some citiessuccessful?” One must look at the sources of innovation and creativity. Also tolerance,individuality and plurality of cultures con-tributed to the ‘soft’ infrastructure of a city.Paul Taylor asks that people be more open to new models of city development, becausetoo many of the current models are based onwestern concepts.

GOVERNANCE, PARTICIPATION, POVERTY IN MEGACITIES – CHINESE AND INDIAN VIEWPOINTSPeter Herrle, head of the Habitat Unit of theTechnical University of Berlin presented thefirst panel round on the topic of governancein the megacities. Speakers on the stagewere Aniruddha Kumar from the IndianMinistry of Urban Development and Yong Hefrom the Beijing Municipal Institute of CityPlanning and Design. Aniruddha Kumar out-lined the ambitious reform program of theNational Urban Renewal Commission inIndia, which involves decentralization, urbanregeneration and infrastructure projects.Important focal points are improved partici-

pation and greater transparency. Questionsfrom the general public revealed, however,that the implementation of the participativeapproach is difficult if all stakeholders arenot actively and jointly involved. But in thisregard Aniruddha Kumar showed herselfopen to future partnerships with local non-governmental organizations. In answer to the question from Mr. Herrle, as to how thisambitious reform, as an obvious central gov-ernment project, fits into the understandingof governance in India, Aniruddha Kumarargued that central government cannotimplement plans without the support of thefederal states and cities. The role of centralgovernment is that of a catalyst in supportof developments, but it is the regions andcities that are responsible for implementa-tion. Above all, more effective public consul-tation must be guaranteed in drawing upurban development plans. Nevertheless, thereis still a need for greater understanding ofthe importance of public discussion and par-ticipation in the planning process amongmany responsible people – this is a long-term process and will take time. Sheela Patelwas of the same opinion. She stressed thegreat success of India in the participativeplanning of recent years and cited the highlyambitious climate within the city administra-tions as a sign of this. Because the planningis still inadequate in many areas, however,Sheela Patel thinks it would also be worth-while looking to China – to a more techno-cratic planning approach, which nonethelesspermits clear-cut decisions.

The presentations of Yong He and AniruddhaKumar clearly showed different perceptions

36


37

of urban development, related problems andpossible solutions. Both spoke of governanceand participation, but the meaning andinterpretation of the terms appeared to bewide apart. While deficits in the participationprocedure were confirmed and improve-ments promised by the Indian side, Yong He,when discussing the Beijing urban develop-ment process, referred to the possibility ofcitizens to inform themselves in the exhibi-tion center for urban planning or on theplanning authority’s homepage.

Mr. Herrle steered the discussion towardsdealing with problems such as poverty in thecity. He took up the hypothesis of FrannieLéautier, who had said in her openingspeech that globalization can improve thesituation of the cities in certain areas, butnot the situation of the poor in the cities.How, for example, do the people in charge inthe Beijing city administration deal with thistopic, if it even exists? Yong He affirmed thatthe city government most definitely recog-nizes the problems of the poor sectors of thepopulation. But the Beijing City Master Plan,for example, is a development plan and not apolitical directive to deal with this matter. Onthe other hand, there are now housing planswhich should ensure that areas are set asidefor the provision of affordable housing in thecity. For Yong He, these are the programs thecity administration uses to deal with currentproblems such as poverty in the city. Sheunderlined once again, that China as a wholeis in a state of transition and is opening upto many international concepts. In thisregard planning processes will also changeand she announced that she would debate

the fruitful discussions and impressions ofthe Frankfurt dialogue on her return toChina.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE INMEGACITIES – APPROACHES TO BASICPROVISIONThe second round of talks at the conferenceconcerned the provision of water, healthcareand housing, which have an enormous effecton the quality of life in megacities. How docities deal with the growing demand forthese things, and what strategies exist tosafeguard the quality of life of all inhabitantsof megacities? Many questions were raised in the lectures and discussions: how doescity planning deal with a marginalized popu-lation? What strategies exist to utilize thepotentials of city dwellers and to enablethem to share in the development of thecities?

In his speech, Baohui Zhai from the Centerfor Political Research of the Chinese Ministryof Construction identified three points thatmust be dealt with to control megacities inthe future – provision of affordable housing,provision of efficient transport systems, butone must also deal with the susceptibility ofmegacities to catastrophes and crises. BaohuiZhai sees the model of the “harmonioussociety” as an ideal in Chinese urban devel-opment, which must be strived for in thefuture.

Sheela Patel of the NGO SPARC, who isactive on behalf of slum dwellers, describedthe situation in the megacities from the per-

spective of the poor. Most migrants come tothe cities with no idea of the structures andconditions that await them. They have greatexpectations and often settle where they findwork. Sheela Patel used the image of “antson the back of an elephant” to describe thissituation. The megacities have great eco-nomic potential. Utilization of this potentialshould also improve living conditions in thecities, especially those of the poor. It is areality that “the largest cities will be locatedin the largest economies”.

Modern-day cites have two faces. But it is no longer possible to deny and ignore theother face, the face of poverty, becausemutual dependencies are increasing. This is why the poor sectors of society must beincluded in the planning process. SheelaPatel sees her most important task as being a mouthpiece for the unheard to help themmake themselves heard and become activelyinvolved. She cited various positive examplesin which the inhabitants of unofficial settle-ments were involved in the planning processafter long-standing disputes and could thuscodetermine their future and improve theirliving conditions.

It is precisely the poor in the cities that havethe potential which has not been appreciateduntil now. They have functional networks inplace, which exist not only within the citybut also extend into the rural areas. Theyform strong communities with a differentview of the problems in the city and can thuslead the way to new approaches and solu-tions. Sheela Patel called for a new approachto dealing with the poor urban population

and for the application of new methods,because, “poor people do not believe inPowerpoint presentations, they want to see it in reality.” To bring home the importanceof cities for achieving the millennium devel-opment goals, she named the month ofFebruary 2008 as the official date when halfof the world’s population will be living incities.

Albert Speer, architect and city planner,spoke from the perspective of a developer ofmajor building projects. In his experiencethere are often enormous differences in thebasic conditions of cities: shrinking and out-dated cities in Europe and rapidly growing,demographically young cities with inade-quate infrastructure in Asia and Africa. Butnevertheless general principles have emergedwhich are almost universally applicable.

Mr. Speer named decentral concentration asone of these basic principles, which functionsthrough an urban network of sub-centersand satellite cities with different thematicfocuses and improves the controllability ofthe development of metropolitan regionssuch as Beijing. A second principle, which inhis judgment had hardly been mentioned inthe discussion, is the preservation of inner-city landscapes as a vital and structuring ele-ment. According to Mr. Speer, these naturalfree spaces and green belts compensate forthe land consumption by building develop-ments and cannot be replaced by artificialparks. Green spaces have a great influenceon the quality of life in the cities, boththrough their ecological functions and asstructuring elements in the building develop-

38


39

ment, as well as by preserving human criteriain the expanding megacities. Mr. Speer pro-posed that areas within the cities used foragriculture be retained to reduce transportdistances and to support the food supply. As has been the case for many years inGermany, the leisure time traffic flow willincrease in Asian cities – in Germany thisalone accounts for 50 percent of all privatetransport. Therefore a balanced mixed use,including sports and leisure complexes,should be maintained in the inner cities, tosupport the principle of short transport dis-tances and reduce leisure time traffic.

Mr. Speer declared his support for the pro-motion of public transport systems, which hedefined as the third basic planning principle.Mobility in megacities can only be guaran-teed with efficient, attractive public trans-port systems. Sustained development inmegacities also depends on a functional net-work of systems, in which the different areasof infrastructure (water supply and wastewater disposal, waste management, energysupply, etc.) are viewed and planned in com-bination with each other. As a model for therealization of efficient city planning, Mr.Speer advocated more public-private part-nership projects, which he feels constitutethe appropriate balance between financialresources and long-term economic success.

However, in his comments and examples ofurban development projects Mr. Speer totallyavoided the negative aspects of city planningin China. Neither did he mention the difficul-ties involved in the realization of his princi-ples and the resultant demands placed onpolitical decision makers.

In the following discussion Sheela Patelobserved that inner cities have developedinto business centers where no one lives. Inthese cases, informal markets can enrich citylife, but in her experience acceptance andtolerance is in short supply in these cityareas.

On the question of land use Mr. Speer con-firmed to Paul Taylor that the realization of his urban development projects was alsopreceded by resettlement, because the devel-oped land was formally cultivated and inhab-ited by Chinese farmers. The replanning was subject to intense discussions with theresponsible planning authorities, but notwith the other stakeholders, e.g. the inhabi-tants.

ECOLOGICAL COLLAPSE – HOW IS RISINGDEMAND FOR MOBILITY AND ENERGYCOMPATIBLE WITH ENVIRONMENTALCONCERNS?Frank Weiler, Asian transport expert in theKfW Development Bank, took up Mr. Speer’spoint regarding mobility and confirmed thatthe solution to the urban mobility question is key to the sustained development ofmegacities. According to Mr. Weiler, “Trans-port is the fastest growing consumer ofenergy.” According to forecasts by the AsianDevelopment Bank, in the next 30 yearsmotorization will increase by 360 percent inChina and by as much as 660 percent inIndia, which will place a massive strain onthe urban areas. The challenge is to proac-tively and foresightedly plan effective trans-port systems now instead of reacting to thisdevelopment in the future.

The fact that Asian megacities have a highpopulation density is a great potential forthe development of public transport systems.Experience shows that precisely in denselypopulated megacities such as Shanghai anefficient network of local public transport isthe only way to guarantee mobility in thelong-term. This development must also bepromoted with regard to energy and envi-ronmental effects, because according to Mr.Weiler, “the greater the proportion of publictransport in the total traffic volume, thesmaller the energy consumption.”

Cities can exercise proactive control in theimplementation of public transport systemsby, for example, linking spatial planning moreclosely with infrastructure planning – ademand that was expressed by several par-ties during the conference. In the funding of public transport, not only the users, butalso the beneficiaries, particularly real estate,hotel and restaurant owners must be in-volved in order to make the transport systemprices affordable for all city dwellers.

Manraj Guliani from the Center for UrbanSystems and Infrastructure of the TERIInstitute in India also cited the problem ofthe rapid growth of cities combined withinadequate infrastructure. The effects areobvious: not only the inadequate supply ofdrinking water, sewage systems and sanita-tion facilities for all sectors of society at thelocal level, but also the dramatic interrelatedenvironmental effects. By way of example,Manraj Guliani outlined the efforts andresults of Indian policy makers in recentyears. A positive aspect was the attempt to

actively involve the local population in plan-ning and implementation. Nevertheless, itwas shown that precisely at the local levelcapacities and competences are insufficientto implement these programs effectively.There is a lack of information and manage-ment systems, as well as a lack of adequatemonitoring.

Sheela Patel also criticized the lack of moni-toring and assessment of project implemen-tation. She correctly observed that thereshould be a responsible institution to carryout such an evaluation of the programs.

Paul Taylor and Rusong Wang, from theResearch Center for Ecological Science, whochaired the round, both took up this obser-vation and asked Mr. Weiler whether the KfWbanking group sees capacity building as anarea of activity in the development coopera-tion with India and China. Mr. Weiler outlinedthe division of tasks within the German devel-opment cooperation and explained that along-term successful strategy can only beeffectively realized if further training and edu-cation are offered parallel to the investment.

Jens Krause, who has worked closely withthe Beijing administration for many years,contributed to the debate on regional plan-ning. In future, city planning cannot end atthe city boundaries but must include theentire metropolitan area to achieve a sus-tained city-surrounds-structure. Strategiesmust be developed at the regional level,especially where infrastructure is concerned.This is a great opportunity to manage urbandevelopment, because by establishing a sus-

40


41

tainable public railway network, long-termurbanization can take place along thesedevelopment axes. He sees the future of themetropolitan region of Beijing as a networkof different cities of different sizes thatinteract, form focal points and supplementeach other, exactly as a decentralized con-centration should.

PUBLIC TASKS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR –POSSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONSEckart Ehlers, from the GeographicalInstitute of the University of Bonn intro-duced the topic of public-private coopera-tions with the assumption that neither inIndia nor in China is the public sector capa-ble of providing all of the investmentrequired for the infrastructure of megacities.But in which form should the private sectorparticipate in primarily public tasks? Andwhich role does it assume, particularly inmegacities? The compatibility of economicwith ecological and social aspects also playsan important role, because private enter-prises are becoming increasingly importantplayers in the cities and have an obligationto society; which became the subject of further debate.

Peter D'Souza, environmental manager withTata Motors in Pune, India placed the ecolog-ical and social aspects at the foreground ofhis lecture. On the basis of a case study, heoutlined the measures and goals to whichTata Motors had committed itself on its pro-duction site in Pune. These involve bothenergy-saving systems and the utilization ofrenewable energy sources (wind energy and

solar panels) as well as water supply (sewagetreatment plants and rainwater collection)and waste management. Furthermore, theproduction site has been integrated into anarea of natural beauty in a continuingprocess of renaturation.

Erach K. Bharucha, Director of the Instituteof Environmental Education and Research atthe Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University inPune, praised the environmental work of TataMotors as a successful example of dealingwith environmental matters in industrialareas. However, environmentalists such asSamir Meta, activist with the ‘BombayEnvironmental Action Group’, called for com-panies to cooperate more closely with NGOs.Mr. D'Souza agreed and confirmed that TataMotors wishes to work more closely on envi-ronmental issues with local NGOs in thefuture.

Li Zhen Wei, vice president of HopefluentReal Properties described the development of the real estate market in China using theexample of Guangzhou city near Hong Kong.It became clear that urban development andthe performance of the private real estatesector are very closely linked with theChinese open-door policy, without whichGuangzhou would not have become such aneconomic strength. Due to its proximity toHong Kong, many of the developments in thereal estate market could be adapted. Mr. Weiattributes the success of the extensive hous-ing areas on the outskirts of Guangzhou to acombination of diverse components. It wasthe huge demand for housing combined withthe lack of financial support for housing

projects and land development by the statethat brought private real estate developersinto the game. For Mr. Wei, all parties benefitfrom the success story of the real estate sec-tor: the government, the developers and theconsumers.

Private-sector property development inChina means that the government makesland available and the developer constructsthe buildings on it; but planning sovereigntyis still in state hands. Thus, in Mr. Wei’s opin-ion, new residential areas could not be devel-oped efficiently enough in the past becausepublic planning lagged behind the privateproperty market. According to Mr. Wei, thisproblem must be solved in the future bymeans of stronger and more efficient gov-ernment planning instruments.

In turn, there were questions from the ranksof the critical civil society about tackling theenvironmental effects of the planning. SamirMeta asked whether in China a regulation orprocedure exists which is comparable to theenvironmental impact assessment requiredfor major projects in India or Germany. Mr.Wei affirmed that preliminary investigationsare made, but could not say in which formthese are obligatory.

Xingbing Tang, director of the Departmentof Strategy and Investment of the BeijingEnergy Investment Holding Co., spoke as afurther representative of the private sector.He described similar basic conditions in theenergy sector to those described by Mr. Weiin the real estate industry. The situation thatthe Chinese state could not adequately meet

the demand for energy and the opening ofthe Chinese market in 1978 led to the devel-opment of an energy business run by the pri-vate-sector, which has capital at its disposalready for reinvestment. Today, four maintypes of businesses exist: businesses ownedby the state, businesses owned by the cities,joint ventures and businesses listed on thestock exchange. Generally, Mr. Tang assessedthe privatization of a public undertakingsuch as energy supply as being a practicaldevelopment in China, but he demandedgreater support and leadership on the part of the state.

THE CHALLENGES FACING MEGACITIESOF THE FUTURE – THE PERSPECTIVE OF AFRICAN AND ASIAN CITY GOVERNMENTSThe highlight of the second day was the“mayors' forum”, presented by GüntherTaube, in which representatives of differentcity councils discussed questions of govern-ment leadership, especially regarding theimprovement of social cohesion. In thisforum, the perspectives of the Chinese andIndian experts were widened by the perspec-tives of the representatives of other mega-cities such as Jakarta, Addis Ababa and Lagos.The guests on the stage were ChangyuanWang (Deputy Secretary General of theChinese Association of Mayors, China), FauziBowo (Vice Governor of Jakarta, Indonesia),Berhane Deressa (Mayor of Addis-Ababa,Ethiopia), Mary Neelima Kerketta (Addi-tional Commissioner (Special) of Pune, India),Johny Joseph (Municipal Commissioner ofMumbai, India), Francisco Bolaji Abosede

42


43

(Honourable Commissioner for PhysicalPlanning and Urban Development, LagosState, Nigeria), and Jiuling Xiong (DeputyDirector General Policy, Research Bureau ofthe People’s Government of Beijing, China).

All the representatives in the forum present-ed the challenges and problems of theirrespective cities and it became clear thatdespite the very different basic conditions(e.g. Beijing, Pune and Addis Ababa) theywere all confronted with similar problems(Berhane Deressa). Everyone saw the neces-sity for establishing partnerships and net-works at all levels with the various partnersin business, science and civil society toachieve further development. Fauzi Bowonoted that it should be an important role ofcentral government to enable stakeholders to contribute to planning processes. In thiscontext, capacity building will be one of themajor themes for the cities in the future. The exchange of ideas between megacities at events such as this in Frankfurt was rec-ognized as being constructive and neces-sary (Mary Neelima Kerketta, Pune andChangyuan Wang, China) and should bepromoted in the future. Mr. Wang cited theChinese-African mayors’ conference plannedfor 2007 as an example of this.

Positive trends for governance in their citieswere seen, for example, through e-gover-nance programs and participative slumimprovement projects (Johny Joseph,Mumbai) or through increasing activity inthe local citizens’ movements in communitydevelopment (Jiuling Xiong, Beijing). Despitethese welcome developments, many prob-

lems remain; particularly in China where par-ticipation of civil society in urban planning isstill in its early stages, as Jiuling Xiong fromBeijing emphasized once again. During thediscussion, in which Frank Weiler of theKfW Development Bank posed the interestingquestion, what would the representatives ofthe megacities do with € 100 million addi-tional development funds, the answers of allthe speakers tended towards the same direc-tion: improving the living conditions of thepoor in the cities with education, infrastruc-ture, housing, etc. (Berhane Deressa, AddisAbaba; Jiuling Xiong, Beijing; Francisco BolajiAbosede, Lagos). But the stated priorities ofother city representatives included the activeinvolvement and further education of allstakeholders in the planning processes(Francisco Bolaji Abosede, Lagos; JohnyJoseph, Mumbai).

TASKS FOR RESEARCH AND IMPLEMEN-TATION – THE VISIONS FOR MEGACITIESFrauke Kraas of the Geographical Instituteof the University of Cologne and Chairpersonof the Megacities Task Force of the Inter-national Geographical Union (IGU) wound upthe event with a summary of the topic fromthe perspective of international megacitiesresearch. She outlined the various interna-tional and interdisciplinary research projects,networks and conferences that are currentlyin place or are planned for the coming years.These include: International Year of PlanetEarth 2008: Megacities – our global urbanfuture; BMBF research program: Megacitiesof tomorrow: Research for SustainableDevelopment, 2005 –2016; German Research

Foundation: Megacities – Megachallenge:Informal Dynamics of Global Change,2005 –2011, Pearl River Delta, Dhaka;Helmholtz Association: Risk HabitatMegacity, 2005 –2013, Santiago de Chile;11th World Business Dialogue: “PopulationDynamics: Ageing Societies & Megacities”,Cologne 2007.

Frauke Kraas expounded the urgent need togive serious thought to the interrelationshipof megacity development and global change.Megacities should never be viewed as singleentities because there is a need to study,understand and manage the effects of indi-vidual megacities on global change. Manyquestions regarding megacity research anddevelopment were again addressed by FraukeKraas: sustained development, protectionand consumption of resources, infrastruc-ture, the role of interested parties and stake-holders in the planning process, networksand the different perspectives from whichmegacity development is observed. How canthe focus of planning be shifted to the peo-ple and how can the people be more activelyinvolved, how can social coherence beachieved and the increasing fragmentationof city communities be avoided? There is aneed for research into questions of informalsystems and self organization in megacitiesand the role and response of the state inthese processes must also be examined.What possibilities and different levels of gov-ernance exist, in which form can all stake-holders be meaningfully integrated into thisprocess and how can this be managed finan-cially and politically? Frauke Kraas called fora paradigm shift, which she summarized

with the terms: problems, processes and peo-ple. In her vision of megacities she sees thepeople in charge acting instead of reacting;planning will be understood as a processthat includes the people and gives them arole in this process. For Frauke Kraas shiftingthe focus of planning to the city dwellersthemselves is a key element in sustaineddevelopment.

Zheng Shiling, architect from the TongjiUniversity in Shanghai and head curator ofEXPO 2010 in Shanghai, presented the ambi-tious projects of the city as a vision of theplanning of the future. Three major projectsin particular will have a decisive influence onthe development of Shanghai: restructuringthe Pudong district in the heart of the city,the planning projects for EXPO 2010 anddevelopment of the Shanghai suburbs. In2006 the program “1966” was initiatedwhich should ensure a well-balanced devel-opment of urban and suburban areas inShanghai. 1966 stands for 1 metropolis, 9 satellite cities, 60 towns and 600 villageswithin the metropolitan region. The reurbani-sation of Shanghai raises many questions,including the restructuring of old industrialareas, the concept of a green city, sustainedtransport systems and the conservation ofhistorical buildings.

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOKOverall, the dialogue forum clearly illustratedthat much depends on the observer's pointof view and that confrontation with theviewpoint of others helps people to breakdown prejudices and gain new insights.

44


45

Though the approaches to planning are verydifferent in India and China, the people incharge in the megacities of both countrieshave to combat similar problems in planningimplementation. However, it should not beforgotten that the urban development ofboth countries has taken place under verydifferent political regulatory frameworks andthat the respective development strategieshave different parameters. This is also thebackground against which developments ingovernance and participatory planningapproaches should be viewed and judgedaccordingly.

All participants on the stage and in the audi-ence of experts emphasized the value ofexchange of experiences between the cities – at international, national and local level.Events of this type should be continued inthe future, so that cooperation is strength-ened, new partnerships are formed andreciprocal learning can be promoted.The necessity of training and further educa-tion measures was frequently discussed dur-ing the conference. Cooperations betweenthe cities can provide interesting optionshere. But the role of the (German) develop-ment cooperation in this area also needs to be clarified and requests from the mega-cities should be taken up and implementedin coordinated programs.

That the gap between research findings, the-oretical strategies and their implementationin city planning is frequently very wide wasconfirmed during the course of the event.The known results of research must be prac-tically and extensively communicated and

disseminated, so that this knowledge can beutilized at the implementation level.

The emphasis on the human aspect in devel-opment planning was a recurrent themethroughout the event and was taken upagain and again from different perspectives.It was clearly stated in the discussions thatpeople must not just be viewed as part of aproblem but also as part of the solution.However it still has to be shown, particularlyin the megacities, whether planning realitywill allow this to be put into practice. Never-theless, there was a clear commitment tocooperation with the citizens of megacitiesto solve outstanding problems.

Megacities are not self-sustaining structures,but must be seen as an integral part of theirsurrounding areas. Accordingly, the regionshould also be incorporated in the city devel-opment strategies – in a planning processthat takes all stakeholders and sectoral inter-ests into account. The model of a decentral-ized city network was cited many times as a forward-looking approach to the control-lability and planability of megacities.Experiences with this approach should con-tinue to be discussed and exchanged atinternational level in order to find sustain-able planning models. The Frankfurt confer-ence showed that countries can learn quite alot from each other and not only act as com-petitors. The fact that Chinese and Indianexperts with very different viewpoints cametogether and worked together on a topicwith an open exchange of views and experi-ences can be seen as an important step in acommon direction.

THURSDAY, 7 DECEMBER 200608:30 – 09:00 Accreditation

09:00 – 10:30 Opening

Welcome Manuela Rottmann, Municipal Councillor, Frankfurt/ Main MunicipalityPeter Schmal, Director, German Museum of ArchitectureKlemens van de Sand, Deputy Director General, Federal Ministry forEconomic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)Gerhard Hahn, Head of Division, Federal Ministry of Education andResearch (BMBF)Günther Taube, Head of Department, InWEnt

Keynotes Frannie A. Léautier, Vice President, World Bank Institute“Megacities in a Globalising World”

Paul Taylor, Director, UN-HABITAT Liaison Office to the European Union and Belgium“The Role of Megacities for Development – Opportunities and Risks”

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee Break

11:00 – 13:00 Session 1: Megaurbanisation in China and India – Challenges for Governance

Background “Governance” has become a key term for describing the complex arrange-ments for managing change in modern societies as a whole and cities inparticular. In contrast to “government” the term “governance” denotesthat there may be more than one actor involved in taking decisions, plan-ning, service delivery or project implementation. For cities, and particular-ly megacities characterised by social and spatial fragmentation and economic pressure the issue of governance becomes even more critical,raising questions associated with legitimacy, social exclusion, access toresources and political power.

Key Questions ❙ Which are the underlying systems and principles for governing Indian and Chinese cities respectively? Which are their potentials and deficiencies?

❙ Who are the actors that should be involved in local governance and what should be their respective roles?

Programme

46

ANNEX

47

❙ Can more participative approaches to governance including the civil society lead towards more social cohesion?

❙ What is the role of local governments for “governing” megacities? Do we need “strong” local governments or good managers of multi-actor processes?

Moderation Peter Herrle, Head of Habitat Unit, Berlin University of Technology (TU),Germany

Inputs Aniruddha Kumar, Director, National Urban Renewal Mission, Ministry ofUrban Development, IndiaYong He, Vice Director, Beijing Municipal Institute of City Planning andDesign, China

Discussion Questions and contributions from the floor

13:00 – 14:00 Buffet Lunch

14:00 – 15:30 Session 2: Water, Health, and Housing – Improving Quality of Life inMegacities

Background In the emerging megacities of the developing economies, access to quali-ty public services like healthcare, drinking water and affordable housinghas great bearing on the healthy, inclusive and productive living of thecitizens. Considering the low level of services, it is believed that newapproaches of improved governance, urban design, financial strength andcitizen partici-pation can reinforce the quality of living conditions andproduce more inclusive cities. How these objectives can be realisedremains the major concern of this technical session with a special focuson India and China.

Key Questions ❙ What strategies of urban design, construction, maintenance and management are known to foster social cohesion and creating an inclusive city?

❙ How can the existing institutional mechanisms be improved with respect to transparency, accountability, and decentralisation in order to enhance efficiency, equity, and productivity of the public services?

❙ Who shall contribute to sustainable service delivery aiming at improving the quality of life of the citizens?

❙ How can adequate financial resources be secured to render the city services sustainable?

Moderation Surinder K. Aggarwal, Department of Geography, Delhi School ofEconomics, India

Inputs Baohui Zhai, Centre for Policy Research, Ministry of Construction, ChinaSheela Patel, Founder and Director, Society for the Promotion of AreaResource Centres (SPARC), IndiaAlbert Speer, Architect and Urban Planner, Albert Speer & Partner GmbH,Frankfurt/Main, Germany



16:00 – 17:30 Session 3: Dangerous Growth? Power, Transport, and Ecological Demands andConstraints

Background The fast urban sprawling, intensive energy use and traffic congestionprevalent in most emerging megacities, have exerted severe ecologicalstresses on both local human living conditions and regional life supportecosystem. Urban sustainability can only be assured with a human eco-logical understanding of the complex interactions among environmental,economic, political, and social/cultural factors and with careful planningand management grounded in ecological principles. This session is toshare approaches, experiences, and lessons in dealing with these prob-lems among different megacities in different development stages.

Key Questions ❙ What are the ecological strains and main driving forces of rapid urban growth?

❙ What is the relationship between intensive urban energy use and the environmental effects such as the urban heat island, local air pollution and global green-house gas emissions, the hydrological cycle, and changes to periurban areas?

❙ How to cultivate eco-mobility in different kinds of megacities to meet the challenge of fast urban growth?

❙ What kind of adaptive approach should be taken in land use manage-ment in fighting urban sprawling?

48

ANNEX

49

❙ How should experiences, methods, and technologies of ecological urban development be transferred between different countries and cultural contexts?

Moderation Rusong Wang, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, ChineseAcademy of Sciences, China

Inputs Frank Weiler, Senior Sector Specialist, Sector and Policy DivisionTransport and Communications Asia, KfW Banking Group, GermanyManraj Guliani, Area Convenor, Centre for Urban Systems andInfrastructure, The Energy Resources Institute TERI, India


17:30 – 18:00 Summary of the DayUlrich Nitschke, Head of Division, InWEnt

FRIDAY, 8 DECEMBER 20069:00 – 11:00 Session 4:

Part of the Solution – Private Sector Contributions to Public ServiceDelivery in Megacities

Background The World Development Report (2003), in its pursuit to foster and pro-mote sustainable urban development, has stressed the ecological, eco-nomic, and social pros and cons of megacity developments. It is a factthat public and private sectors (have to) pursue different – maybe evencontradictory – pathways in their policies towards urban sustainability.Questions in this context include:

Key Questions ❙ How and to what extent does the private sector respond to the Millennium Development Goals?

❙ How does the private sector succeed in reconciling ecological and social goals with economic considerations?

❙ What about coordination between public and private sector activities?❙ To what extent can the private sector be expected to contribute to

public service delivery, and thus to social cohesion, in the future?

Moderation Eckart Ehlers, Geographical Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany

Inputs Li Zhen Wei, Vice President, Hopefluent Real Properties, Vice Director ofGuangdong Properties' Association Committee, ChinaXinbing Tang, Director, Strategy and Investment Department, BeijingEnergy Investment Holding Co., ChinaPeter Wilfred D'Souza, Senior Manager (Environment Management),Tata Motors Limited, India



11:30 – 13:30 Panel Discussion: Mayors’ Forum on Governance and UrbanDevelopment – Prerequisites to Safeguard Social Cohesion

Background Comprehensive decentralisation and the promotion of communal self-administration are key prerequisites to an orderly process of urbanisationin developing countries in general, and in megacities in particular. Bothelements are essential for socially, economically and ecologically sustain-able development (Local Agenda 21) and, at the same time, contribute todemocratisation and an increased participation of the citizens in therespective countries.

Key Questions ❙ Where and through which instruments has it been possible to contain and enhance the governability of the risks and negative by-products/ accompaniments of worldwide urbanisation?

❙ Are there successful examples of efforts to purposely turn megacities into urban regions and thus contribute to a decentralisation of the dominant metropolis?

❙ What happened to approaches to increase the governability of mega-cities through consequently partition them in sub-districts?

❙ In the area of urban planning, are there promising approaches based on modern and efficient administrative structures that contribute through participatory development planning to the redevelopment of slum areas, the improvement of the infrastructure and the residential environment?

❙ Could communal development cooperation become an increasingly promising self-help instrument and one of cross-border collaboration in the future because of the fact that it is indisputably more closely related to the problem?

❙ What is the possible impact of globalisation on megacity governance? How can we balance local demands with global pressures?

50

ANNEX

51

Moderator Günther Taube, Head of Department, InWEnt

Panel Changyuan Wang – Deputy Secretary General, Chinese Association ofMayors, China Fauzi Bowo – Vice Governor of Jakarta, IndonesiaBerhane Deressa – Mayor of Addis-Ababa, EthiopiaMary Neelima Kerketta – Additional Commissioner (Special) of Pune,IndiaJohny Joseph – Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai, IndiaFrancisco Bolaji Abosede – Honourable Commissioner for PhysicalPlanning and Urban Development, Lagos State, NigeriaJiuling Xiong – Deputy Director General Policy, Research Bureau of thePeople's Government of Beijing, China

13:30 – 14:30 Buffet Lunch

14:30 – 15:30 Wrap-Up

Outlook Frauke Kraas, Department of Geography, University of Cologne‚Chair of the Megacities Task Force of the International GeographicalUnion (IGU), Germany“International Perspectives on Megacity Research in Germany”

Vision Shiling Zheng, General Schemer EXPO 2010 Shanghai, Director of theInstitute of Architecture and Urban Space, Tongji University, China

Conclusion Günther Taube, Head of Department, InWEnt

Francisco Bolaji AbosedeHonourable CommissionerMinistry of Physical Planning and UrbanDevelopmentBlock 15, The SecretariatAlausa, Ikeja, LagosNigeriaFon +234 1 791 [email protected]

Surinder K. AggarwalMember of IGU Megacities Task ForceDepartment of Geography, Delhi School ofEconomicsDelhi University110007 DelhiIndiaFon +91 11 725 7011Fax +91 11 766 [email protected]

Nicole BaumüllerProject ManagerDepartment of Urban Development, CityPlanning OfficeCity of StuttgartEberhardstr. 1070173 StuttgartGermanyFon +49 711 216 3731Fax +49 711 216 [email protected]

Erach K. BharuchaDirectorInstitute of Environment Education andResearchBharati Vidyapeeth Deemed UniversityKatraj - Dhankawadi411043 PuneIndiaFon +91 20 6132 [email protected]

Fauzi BowoVice Governor of JakartaGovernment of the Capital City of JakartaJl. Medan Merdeka Selatan 8-910110 JakartaIndonesiaFon +62 21 345 6388Fax +62 21 384 [email protected]

Zhenmeng ChengVice PresidentInvest Beijing International7/F, A West, Tianyin Mansion, FuxingmenSouth Str., Xicheng District100031 BeijingPR ChinaFax +86 10 6641 1022

Beate CollinProject and Event ManagerPublic Relations OfficeCity of FrankfurtRömerberg 3260311 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 2124 8688Fax +49 69 2123 [email protected]

Peter W. D'SouzaSenior ManagerEnvironment ManagementTATA Motors LimitedPimpri Pune411018 MharashtraIndiaFon +91 20 5613 2996Fax +91 20 5613 [email protected]

List of Participants

52

ANNEX

53

Patrick DaudeCoordination Office Cities for MobilityAdministrative Department of the MayorCity of StuttgartRathaus, Marktplatz 170173 StuttgartGermanyFon +49 711 216 8501Fax +49 711 216 [email protected]

Richard DelisleBonn International Centre for Conversion(BICC)An der Elisabethkirche 25 53113 BonnFon +49 228 9119654Fax +49 228 [email protected]

Berhane DeressaMayor of Addis AbabaCity of Addis AbabaPO Box 3562445 Addis AbabaEthiopiaFon +251 1 558109/[email protected]

Robert Schulze DieckhoffProject ManagerDepartment of Urban DevelopmentCity Planning OfficeCity of StuttgartEberhardstr.1070173 StuttgartGermanyFon +49 711 216 2975Fax +49 711 216 [email protected]

Eckart EhlersDepartment of GeographyUniversity of BonnMeckenheimer Allee 16653115 BonnGermanyFon +49 228 73 [email protected]

Katja EichlerRepresentativeFederal Affairs and Europe, DevelopmentCooperationFree Hanseatic City of BremenAnsgaritorstr. 2228195 BremenGermanyFon +49 421 361 2987Fax +49 421 361 [email protected]

Bekele FuleaHeadBureau of Capacity BuildingCity of Addis AbabaPO Box 3552444 Addis AbabaEthiopiaFon +251 1 550211/414

Josef GamperlAdvisorDivision 220 “Cooperation with Countriesand Regions: Planning, Policy and QualityControl”Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperationand Development (BMZ) Adenauerallee 139-14153113 BonnGermanyFon +49 1888 535 3474Fax +49 1888 535 [email protected]

Michaela GennesProject ManagerKfW Banking GroupPalmengartenstraße 5-960325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 7431 4136Fax +49 69 7431 [email protected]

Claudia GibisProject ManagerBusiness Area German Public Sector ClientsDept. 312 Section Environment, Agriculture,Consumer ProtectionGerman Technical Cooperation (GTZ)/ Federal Ministry of FinanceWilhelmstraße 9711016 BerlinGermanyFon +49 30 2242 4039Fax +49 30 2242 [email protected]

Jürgen GladitzConsultantAm langen See 5363477 MaintalGermanyFon +49 6109 64189Fax +49 6109 64383

Manraj GulianiArea ConvenorCentre for Urban Systems and Infrastructure The Energy and Resources Institute TERIDarbari Seth Block, India Habitat Centre,Lodhi Road110003 New DelhiIndiaFon +91 11 2468 2100Fax +91 11 2468 [email protected]

Gerhard HahnHead of DivisionGlobal ChangeFederal Ministry of Education and Research(BMBF)Heinemannstraße 253175 BonnGermanyFon +49 228 9957 2071Fax +49 228 9957 [email protected]

Elisabeth HaindlMunicipal CouncillorCity of Frankfurt/MainHauptamtRömerberg 2360311 Frankfurt /MainFon +49 69 212 33176Fax +49 69 212 31 [email protected]

Yong HeVice Director, Senior EngineerBeijing Municipal Institute of City Planningand DesignNo. 60 Nan Lishi Rd.100045 BeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 880 73568Fax +86 10 680 [email protected]

Eduard HechlerDeputy Director International Relations Mayor’s OfficeCity of Frankfurt/MainSandgasse 660311 Frankfurt/MainFon +49 69 212 33240Fax +49 69 212 [email protected]

54

ANNEX

55

Peter HerrleHead of the Habitat UnitDepartment VI Architecture, Environmentand SocietyTechnical University BerlinSekr. A 53 Habitat UnitStraße des 17. Juni 13510623 BerlinGermanyFon +49 30 314 21908Fax +49 30 314 [email protected]

René HohmannProject OfficerSection Governance and Democracy:Decentralization, Regional Governance,Municipal and Urban DevelopmentGerman Technical Cooperation (GTZ)Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5Postfach 518065726 EschbornGermanyFon +49 6196 79 1657Fax +49 6196 79 [email protected]

Isabel HuberSenior Project ManagerCompetence-Center: Democracy promotion,Decentralisation and Peace developmentKfW Banking GroupPalmengartenstraße 5-960325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 7431 2127Fax +49 69 7431 [email protected]

Matthias HummelPrincipal Project ManagerL1b3 - Financial and Private Sector AsiaKfW Banking GroupPalmengartenstraße 5-960325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 7431 4579Fax +49 69 7431 [email protected]

Johny JosephMunicipal Commissioner MumbaiCity of MumbaiBrihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,Mahapalika Marg400001 MumbaiIndiaFon +91 22 2620 525Fax +91 22 2265 [email protected]

Volker KarlDivision ChiefWater and Vocational Training AsiaKfW Banking GroupPalmengartenstraße 5-960325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 7431-0Fax +49 69 7431 [email protected]

Mary Neelima KerkettaAdditional Commissioner (Special)Pune Municipal CorporationShivajinagar, Maharashtra411005 PuneIndiaFon +91 20 2550 1103Fax +91 20 2550 [email protected]

Vivek KharwadkarAdditional City EngineerPune Municipal CorporationBungalow Nr. 1, Parvati Water WorksSinhagad Road411037 PuneIndiaFon +91 20 2550 1383Fax +91 20 2550 [email protected]

Albrecht KlenkHead of DepartmentDepartment of Urban Development City Planning Office StuttgartEberhardstr. 1070173 StuttgartGermanyFon +49 711 216 2707Fax +49 711 216 [email protected]

Birgit Kolb-RuthardtDepartment of Urban DevelopmentCity Planning OfficeCity of StuttgartEberhardstr. 970173 StuttgartGermanyFon +49 711 216 7776Fax +49 711 216 [email protected]

Frauke KraasChair of IGU Megacities Task ForceDepartment of GeographyUniversity of CologneAlbert-Magnus-Platz50923 KölnGermanyFon +49 221 470 7050Fax +49 228 4460 [email protected]

Thomas KrafftProject CoordinatorDepartment of GeographyUniversity of CologneAlbert-Magnus-Platz50923 KölnGermanyFon +49 221 470 [email protected]

Jens KrauseChief ExecutiveUrban System Consult AGBreisacher Straße 1914195 BerlinGermanyFon +49 30 214 909 [email protected]

Aniruddha KumarDirectorJawaharlal Nehru National Urban RenewalMission (JNNURM)Ministry of Urban DevelopmentNirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road110011 New DelhiIndiaFon +91 11 2306 2194Fax +91 11 2306 [email protected]

Shamita KumarVice PrincipalInstitute of Environment Education andResearchBharati Vidyapeeth Deemed UniversityKatraj - Dhankawadi411043 PuneIndiaFon +91 20 2437 [email protected]

56

ANNEX

57

Willi LangeDivision ChiefDepartment V/6 China and MongoleiHanns Seidel FoundationLazarettstraße 3380636 MünchenGermanyFon +49 89-1258 326Fax +49 89 1258 [email protected]

Frannie A. LéautierVice PresidentWorld Bank InstituteThe World Bank1818 H Street, N.W.20433 Washington D.C.United States of AmericaFon +1 202 473 [email protected]

Helmut LehnInstitute for Technological ImpactAssessment and System Analysis ResearchCenter Karlsruhe GmbH (ITAS) Postfach 364076021 KarlsruheFon +49 7247 82 3977Fax +49 7247 82 [email protected]

Samir MehtaMember - ActivistBombay Environmental Action Group203 Rajendra Chambers19 Nanabhai Lane400 001 MumbaiFon +91 22 2262 0402Fax +91 22 2288 [email protected]

Ruyani MiftahSecretaryJabodetabekjur Cooperation DevelopmentBoardGovernment of the Capital City of JakartaGedung Mitra Praja, Floor 3 Jl. Sunter Permai Raya No.114350 Jakarta Utara IndonesiaFon +62 21 645 3452Fax +62 21 651 [email protected]

Frank MöllerCivil Engineering and Geodesy, WorkingGroup “Planning, Designing andConstructing”Technical University DarmstadtPetersenstraße 1264287 DarmstadtGermanyFon +49 6151 163 241Fax +49 6151 163 [email protected]

Ulrich NitschkeInWEnt Capacity Building InternationalHead of Division 7.01Service-Agency Communities in One WorldFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 4460 1634Fax +49 228 4460 [email protected]

Makinde OgunleyeDirectorUrban Development DepartmentMinistry of Physical Planning and UrbanDevelopmentBlock 15, The SecretariatAlausa, Ikeja, Lagos

NigeriaFon +234 1 775 [email protected];[email protected]

Uwe OhlsHead of DivisionSouth and Central AsiaKfW Banking GroupPalmengartenstraße 5-960325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 7431 [email protected]

Sabine M. PalmreutherSpecial Assistant to the Vice PresidentWorld Bank InstituteThe World Bank 1819 H Street, N.W.20434 Washington D.C.United States of AmericaFon +49 1 202 473 [email protected]

R. R. PardeshiDeputy Medical Officer of HealthEnvironmental Health DepartmentPune Municipal CorporationDr. Naidu Hospital Compound8 Keneddy Road411001 PuneIndiaFon +91 20 2550 1214Fax +91 20 2550 1104

Sheela PatelFounder and Director Society for the Promotion of Area ResourceCenters (SPARC)2nd Floor, Khetwadi Municipal SchoolBuilding 1st Lane, Khetwadi400004 MumbaiIndiaFon +91 22 2386 5053Fax +91 22 2388 [email protected]

Michael PeterekUniversity of Applied Sciences FrankfurtSchwarzburgstraße 1160319 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 9550 9831Fax +49 69 9550 [email protected]

Ernst ReichenbachSenior ConsultantDialog NetzwerkSachsenhausener Straße 2365824 SchwalbachGermanyFon +49 6196 5619 063Fax +49 6196 9522 [email protected]

Michèle RothExecutive DirectorDevelopment and Peace Foundation (SEF)Gotenstraße 15253175 BonnGermanyFon +49 228 95925 12Fax +49 228 9592 [email protected]

58

ANNEX

59

Manuela RottmannMunicipal CouncillorEnvironment and HealthCity of FrankfurtAlte Mainzer Gasse 460311 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 212 45310Fax +49 69 212 [email protected]

Subir SahaDirectorSchool of Planning and ArchitectureIndraprastha Estate110002 New DelhiIndiaFon +91 11 2370 2395Fax +91 11 2370 [email protected]

Klemens van de SandDeputy Director GeneralAsia, South East Europe and AfghanistanFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperationand Development (BMZ)Adenauerallee 139-14153113 BonnGermanyFon +49 228 99 535 3100Fax +49 228 99 535 [email protected]

Hongtao SangExecutive Project ManagerHealthy Environment Public EducationPromotion AssociationBeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 [email protected]

Ghone SatishConsultantCommunication, Transport, Environmentand NGOs1675 Krishna Leela Chambers, Opp. S.P. College, Tilak Road411030 PuneIndiaFon +91 20 2447 [email protected]

Nora SausmikatSinologist, Visiting LecturerUniversity of Cologne/University of DuisburgZülpicherstraße 31450937 KölnGermanyFon +49 221 2825 [email protected]

Almuth SchauberPlanning Officer for Urban CommunityDevelopmentMisereorMozartstraße 952064 AachenGermanyFon +49 241 442 423Fax +49 241 442 [email protected]

Stefanie SchnitzerInWEnt Capacity Building International Senior Project ManagerPromotion of Democracy and Administrative ReformsFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 4460 1147Fax +49 228 4460 [email protected]

Ulla SchuchLandscape ArchitectSecond President School for LifeSchwarzburgstraße 1060318 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 9550 9830Fax +49 69 9550 [email protected]

Niels SchüttInWEnt Capacity Building International Regional Coordinator China and IndiaRegional CoordinationFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 4460 1768Fax +49 228 4460 [email protected]

Qinghua SongPresidentShining Stone Community ActionRoom 208, No. Jia 27, Hepingli Middle StreetDongcheng District100013 BeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 8425 2191Fax +86 10 8425 [email protected]

Heinrich SonntagDepartment of Urban DevelopmentCity Planning OfficeCity of StuttgartEberhardstr. 870173 StuttgartGermanyFon +49 711 216 2840 Fax +49 711 216 9924 [email protected]

Dietrich SoyezProfessor for GeographyDepartment of GeographyUniversity of CologneAlbert-Magnus-Platz50923 KölnGermanyFon +49 221 470 [email protected]

Albert SpeerArchitect and Urban PlannerManaging DirectorAS&P - Albert Speer and Partner GmbHHedderichstraße 108-11060596 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 6050 11 100Fax +49 69 6050 11 [email protected]

Gerhard StrauchCentre for Environmental Research UFZ,Helmholtz AssociationPermoserstraße 1504318 LeipzigGermanyFon +49 341 235 [email protected]

Benjamin StrußInWEnt Capacity Building International Senior Project ManagerDivision 3.03. HealthFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 4460 [email protected]

60

ANNEX

61

Xinbing TangDirectorStrategy & Investment DepartmentBeijing Energy Investment Holding Co., Ltd.9/F, Tainyin Mansion A, No. 2 SouthFuxingmen Street, Xicheng District100031 BeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 66419966, ext. 9501Fax +86 10 [email protected]

Günther TaubeInWEnt Capacity Building International Head of Department 2International Regulatory Framework, GoodGovernance, Economic PolicyFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 4460 [email protected]

Paul TaylorDirectorUN-HABITAT Liaison Office to the EuropeanUnion and Belgium14 Rue Montoyer1000 BrusselsBelgiumFon +32 2 503 3572Fax +32 2 503 [email protected]

Maarit ThiemSenior Programme ManagerInternational Human Dimensions Programon Global Environmental Change (IHDP)Walter-Flex-Str. 353113 BonnFon +49 228 73 96 [email protected]

Carmen VogtPlanning OfficerGovernance and Democracy:Decentralization, Regional and LocalGovernance, Urban DevelopmentGerman Technical Cooperation (GTZ)Postfach 518065726 EschbornGermanyFon +49 6196 79 1530Fax +49 6196 79 [email protected]

Changyuan WangDeputy Secretary GeneralChina Association of MayorsFucheng Plaza, No. 41, Fuwaida StreetXicheng District100037 BeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 6899 0327Fax +86 10 6899 [email protected]

Rusong WangResearch Center for Eco-EnvironmentalSciencesChinese Academy of Sciences18 Shuangqing Road, Haidian100085 BeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 6294 3807Fax +86 10 6294 [email protected]

Wuyi WangInstitute of Geographical Sciences andNatural Resources Research# A 11, Building 917Datun Rd.100101 BeijingPR China

Fon +86 10 6488 9286Fax +86 20 3878 [email protected]

Li Zhen WeiVice PresidentHopefluent Real Properties8/F., Int'l Trade Centre, 1 Linhe Xi LuTianhe District510610 GuangzhouPR ChinaFon +86 20 3878 4113 or 8331 6168Fax +86 20 3878 [email protected]

Lu WeiSecretary GeneralChongqing Wanzhou Community Associationfor Culture Promotion Room 302, No. 14, Jiu Si TangWan Zhou District404000 Chongqing CityPR ChinaFon +86 25 5828 3501Fax +86 23 5823 [email protected]

Ulrike WeilandHeadDepartment of Urban Ecology, EnvironmentalPlanning and TransportCentre for Environmental Research UFZHelmholtz AssociationPermoserstraße 1504318 LeipzigGermanyFon +49 341 235 [email protected]

Frank WeilerSenior Sector SpecialistSector and Policy Division Transport andCommunication Asia

KfW Banking GroupPalmengartenstraße 5-960325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon +49 69 7431 1684Fax +49 69 7431 [email protected]

Jürgen WilkeDivision ChiefRegion Mongolei and ChinaHanns Seidel FoundationLazarettstraße 3380636 MünchenGermanyFon +49 89 1258 326Fax +49 89 1258 [email protected]

Thomas WollenzienDirectorCentral and Southern AfricaKfW Banking GroupPalmengartenstraße 5-960325 Frankfurt am MainGermanyFon + 49 69 7431 2818Fax + 49 69 7431 [email protected]

Jiuling XiongDeputy Director GeneralPolicy Research BureauPeople's Government of BeijingNo.3,Taijichang StreetDongcheng DistrictBeijing 100743PR ChinaFon +86 10 63088556Fax +86 10 [email protected]

62

ANNEX

63

Desheng XueChairman, Dr. and Associate Prof.Center for Urban and Regional ResearchZhongshan (Sun Yat-sen) University135 Xingang Xi Lu510275 GuangzhouPR ChinaFon +86 20 840 39299Fax +86 20 840 [email protected]

Tom YangSupervisor Development Marketing Dept.Hopefluent Real Properties8/F., Int'l Trade Centre, 1 Linhe Xi LuTianhe District510610 GuangzhouPR ChinaFon +86 20 3878 4113 or 8331 6168Fax +86 20 3878 [email protected]

Ying YangVice Director Development Marketing Dept.Hopefluent Real Properties8/F., Int'l Trade Centre, 1 Linhe Xi LuTianhe District510610 GuangzhouPR ChinaFon +86 20 3878 4113Fax +86 20 3878 4568

Megha YedatyAssistant Manager for Quality AssuranceJehangir Hospital PuneJehangir Hospital, 32 Sassoon Road411001 PuneIndiaFon +91 20 2605 0550, ext [email protected]

Baohui ZhaiProfessor, HeadDepartment of Town and Country PlanningCenter for Policy ResearchMinistry of Construction of PR China1D701 Bai Ruyuan, 11 Linda BeiluHaidian District100083 BeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 6233 8487Fax +86 10 5893 [email protected]

Jun Hua ZhangDirectorInstitute for Development andTransformation in Asia GmbH (i.G.)Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB)Reichpietschufer 5010785 BerlinGermanyFon +49 30 25491 205Fax +49 30 25491 [email protected]

Rong ZhangDirectorPlanning Department of Land Use, Bureau ofTerritory Resource and HousingAdministrationGuangzhou Municipal Government23th Floor, No.193 Haoxian Road510030 GuangzhouPR ChinaFax +86 20 8336 [email protected]

Ruijie ZhangDirectorDepartment of Corporate StrategyInvest Beijing International7/F, A West, Tianyin Mansion, Fuxingmen

South Str., Xicheng District100031 BeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 6641 0900 25Fax +86 10 6641 [email protected]

Hongjun ZhengDeputy-DirectorLegal System DivisionPolicy Research Bureau of the People's Government of Beijing 3Taijichang Street, Dongcheng District100743 BeijingPR ChinaFon +86 10 6308 8556/7Fax +86 10 6308 [email protected]

Shiling ZhengGeneral Schemer EXPO 2010 ShanghaiDirectorInstitute of Architecture and Urban SpaceTongji UniversityNo. 1239 Siping Road200092 ShanghaiPR ChinaFon +86 21 6598 2934Fax +86 21 5424 [email protected]

INWENT PROJECT TEAM

InWEnt Capacity Building International Economic Policy / Good GovernanceStresemannstraße 9210963 Berlin, Germany

Ina Dettmann-BuschSenior Project ManagerFon +49 30 43996 222Fax +49 30 43996 [email protected]

Pamina HausseckerProject CoordinatorFon +49 30 43996 221Fax +49 30 43996 [email protected]

Nina N. OuanProject ManagerFon +49 228 4460 1755Fax +49 228 4460 [email protected]

Jutta HöhneProject ManagerFon +49 30 43996 330Fax +49 30 43996 [email protected]

Sigrid Schubart-MirrafatiProject ManagerFon +49 30 43996 223Fax +49 30 43996 [email protected]

Project AssistantsStefanie AverwaldClaudia BeckerUlrike HerrmannGerrit PetersBenjamin SeidelCaroline-Lucie UlbrichArthur Wallach

64

ANNEX

Imprint

Published byInWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbHCapacity Building International, GermanyFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 4460-0Fax +49 228 4460-1766www.inwent.org

Stresemannstraße 9210963 Berlin, Germany

Fon +49 30 439 96-222Fax +49 30 439 96-230www.inwent.org

Compilation byIna Dettmann-Busch and Benjamin SeidelAcknowledgement: The editors reserve the right to abridge the texts.

Graphic Design byWissens-Designwww.wissens-design.de

Photos bytitle: vario images, contents: InWent gGmbH

2.01-0001-2007

Berlin, January 2007 (750)

InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildungund Entwicklung gGmbHCapacity Building International, Germany

InWEnt stands for the development ofhuman resources and organisations withinthe framework of international cooperation.InWEnt's range of services caters to skilledand managerial staff as well as decisionmakers from businesses, politics, adminis-trations and civil societies worldwide. Eachyear, some 55,000 persons participate in ourmeasures.

Programmes and measures at InWEnt aim at promoting change competencies on threelevels: They strengthen the individual's exec-utive competencies, increase the perform-ance of companies, organisations andadministrations, and at the political levelimprove decision-making skills and thecapacity to act. The methodological toolscomprise modules and can be adapted tomeet changing requirements in order to provide solutions. Apart from face-to-facesituations in measures offering training,exchange of experience and dialogue,emphasis is on e-learning-assisted network-ing. InWEnt cooperates equally with partnersfrom developing, transition and industrialisedcountries.

InWEnt's shareholders comprise the FederalRepublic of Germany, represented by theFederal Ministry for Economic Cooperationand Development (BMZ), the Carl DuisbergGesellschaft that represents the businesscommunity, and the German Foundation forInternational Development that representsthe German Federal States (Länder).

InWEnt was established in 2002 through themerger of Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft (CDG)and the German Foundation for InternationalDevelopment (DSE).

InWEnt – Internationale Weiterbildung undEntwicklung gGmbHCapacity Building International, GermanyFriedrich-Ebert-Allee 4053113 Bonn, GermanyFon +49 228 44 60-0Fax +49 228 44 60-17 66www.inwent.org


Governing Emerging Megacities – Challenges and Perspectives7–8 December 2006, Frankfurt /Main

Inte

rnat

iona

l Dia

logu

e ❘G

over

ning

Em

ergi

ng M

egac

ities

– C

halle

nges

and

Per

spec

tives

❘7–

8 De

cem

ber

2006

, Fra

nkfu

rt/ M

ain

International Dialogue Governing Emerging Megacities – … · 2007-02-16 · provision of...

Documents

Transcript of International Dialogue Governing Emerging Megacities – … · 2007-02-16 · provision of...