Home : Community Economic Development : World Urban Forum : The Capable City
1. Introduction: The Context for the Capable City
Cities in all parts of the world face mounting challenges such as population shifts, water shortages, air pollution, inadequate or aging infrastructure, sprawl, the spread of informal settlements, and traffic congestion. They are also increasingly viewed as the best vehicles for achieving sustainability because they represent the public institutions closest to the people and the problems. As the United Nations' Centre for Human Settlements argues, cities are becoming the "test bed for the adequacy of political institutions, and the effectiveness of programs to combat social exclusion, protect and repair the environment, and promote human development." 1 Meeting these mounting challenges and negotiating the path to sustainability in the coming decades will require significant advances in urban governance.
One of the significant challenges facing local authorities is their ability to work with others in their region to tackle issues related to sustainability. Water, air, transportation and pollution are among many issues that do not respect political boundaries. Competition to attract new businesses and industries can lead neighboring jurisdictions to provide tax breaks or bid so low that they undermine one another and their own environmental or social interests. Duplication of administrative services can prevent the most efficient use of resources. These and other factors have led many provincial or state jurisdictions to force mergers of central cities and the cities, towns and villages that are immediately adjacent to them. Whether these mergers have solved the problems or simply created new ones is a matter for continuing debate.
Are there models of cooperation across jurisdictions that might provide lessons for city regions that do not require mergers? Are there models for management of global common goods – such as watersheds – that do not involve legislative powers? Are there models based on consensus and voluntary agreements across sectors that show promise for influencing decision making related to sustainability?
In this paper, we begin examining these questions by focusing on three Canadian case examples: the Greater Vancouver Regional District; the Fraser Basin Council; and the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy. In the words of Tom Carter, Urban Research Chair of the University of Winnipeg, "In developing models of regional and inter-stakeholder cooperation, which is so crucial in achieving urban sustainability, it is important to examine non-traditional forms of governance, or those that are different from traditional government institutions, community organizations and legislative frameworks. There is a considerable emphasis on consensus building in the case study models portrayed, as opposed to a more legislated or formal process of decision making. Moving forward on regional, local and even international issues associated with sustainability will require a consensus building approach, particularly as more formal, traditional and legislated approaches in the past have often failed."
All three models grew organically in response to issues or ideas and later were formalized with legal status. Each has strengths and weaknesses. All three work by a variation on a consensus model. All three have lessons that are relevant to cities and regions facing tough issues and lacking legislative mechanisms to force coordination.
The cases and the models they embody are evaluated from the perspective of criteria articulated by the UN-HABITAT. These criteria include:
- Sustainability
- Subsidiarity
- Equity
- Efficiency
- Transparency and accountability
- Civic engagement and citizenship
- Security of individuals and their living environments
The paper briefly examines a working definition of the capable city, then explores the three case studies and their strengths and weaknesses, and draws some conclusions from the lessons learned with special reference to their practical implications. The paper concludes by speculating about what kind of capacity building would be required by cities and regions that decide to try out the models in their own jurisdictions.
See Appendix A for elaboration