“Are the MDG indicators SMART?a perspective from the Urban Sector on MDG

Target 7d”

Florian Steinberg Urban Development and Water Division, South East Asia Department

including some slides of Banashree Banerjee, Consultant

1

MDG 7D - By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at

least 100 million slum dwellersDEFINING THE TARGET• Significant

• Improvement

• 100 million

• Slum dweller

ISSUES• Benchmarking: What is the

benchmark to categorize “significant”?

• Is it enough to state improvement of qualify further?

• Was it an accurate target? How were they counted? What about geographical dispersion and densities?

• Who counts as a slum dweller? Does it vary?

2Indicator 7.10: Proportion of urban population living in slums

33

Slum poverty and urban poverty in Asia

Indicator 7.10: Proportion of urban population living in slums The proportion of urban population living in slums is the percentage of the population living in a slum household that lack one or more of the following basic services: improved water, improved sanitation, durable housing, sufficient living area or security of tenure.

WHAT ARE SLUMS?As defined by the United Nations agency UN-HABITAT, a slum is a

run-down area of a city lacking one or more of the following five features:

(i) durable housing (a permanent structure providing protection from extreme climatic conditions);

(ii) sufficient living area (no more than three people sharing a room);

(iii) access in improved water (water that is sufficient, affordable and can be obtained without extreme effort);

(iv) access to improved sanitation facilities (a private toilet, or a public one shared with a reasonable number of people); and

(v) secure tenure (de facto or de jure secure tenure status and protection against forced eviction). 4

5Source: UN-Habitat. 2010. Presentation by Gora Mboup, Chief, Global Urban Observatory, City Census Workshop, Beirut, Spetember2010

66

Prospering and transforming Asian cities: and the poor?

• Greater employment opportunities : Rising incomes but growing disparity• High demand for land for development: Worsening access to land and

housing– Low growth of public housing– Densification of slums – migration (renting, smaller houses)– No place in city: Growing no. of commuters– Market driven evictions– Opposition from middle class green lobby– Greater risks from living in risk areas, growing intensity and frequency

of disasters – flooding, cyclones, – Greater risks of tenure insecurity

• Worsening access to services– Water stress in cities- poor worst affected– Insanitary environments – poor worst affected, – More income spent on survival services – water, commuting, housing,

security, transport

Income Housing

Indicator definition issues• The proportion of urban population living in slums is the

percentage of the population living in a slum household that lack one or more of the following basic services: improved water, improved sanitation, durable housing, sufficient living area or security of tenure.

• Household level perspective – leaves out homeless poor• Spatial mismatch of declared slum areas - can leave out Slum

Households outside these areas• Extent of deprivation – severity of slum conditions, and type

of shelter deprivation• Diversity of slums within a city, and in different countries• Prior to indicators and targets being established the different

levels of results must be clearly defined. ie impact, outcomes, outputs 7

8

Bangkok

Peri-urban ShanghaiKolkata

Hong Kong

Diversity of SlumsLarge variety across cities, countries

9

Fishing harborBay of Bengal

To Port

Fertilizer factory

Kakinada, India: locational advantage / environmental vulnerability

Slums

River Godavari

Container depot

Frequent cyclonesAnnual floodingIndustrial pollution

Saline waterOver-crowdingHigh density

10

Metro Manila: Flooding in peri-urban slums

Wuzhou City: steep slope, land slide

11

Over-building, unsafe structures, extreme overcrowding, narrow streets

Delhi: Inner city

Mumbai: Dharavi

12

Metro Manila: living on a garbage land fill

FACTS• Slum upgrading projects

brought 227 m. out from slum conditions globally since 2000.

• China and India alone achieved global slum target by improving the lives of 125 m. slum dwellers.

• North Africa -only sub-region -both numbers and proportion of slum dwellers have steadily declined.

INDICATOR RELEVANCE• 100 m. represented only a

fraction of total world slum population in 2000: 777 m.

• In 2001 an estimated 60% of the world’s total slum dwellers, 554 m. persons, lived in Asian cities.

• Absolute number of slum-dwellers increased from about 777 m. (2000) to 828 m. (2010) million due to rapid urbanization. Of which 506 m. in Asia alone.

13

UN-Habitat’s State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011

Source: UN-Habitat. 2010. State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011 – Bridging the Urban Divide. Earthscan. London-Washington, DC. p. 30. ;p. 33

14

Slums in Asia China 173,988,000 India 109,501,000 Indonesia 26,852,000

Source: UN-Habitat. 2010. State of the World's Cities 2010/2011

URBAN POPULATION AT MID- YEAR BY MAJOR AREA,

REGION AND COUNTRY (Thousands) PROPORTION OF URBAN POPULATION

LIVING IN SLUM AREA URBAN SLUM POPULATION AT MID- YEAR BY MAJOR AREA, REGION AND COUNTRY

(Thousands) Major area,

re gion, country or

area

1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007

ASIA China 314,845 380,553 454,362 530,659 561,251 43.6 40.5 37.3 32.9 31.0 137,272 153,985 169,600 174,587 173,988Mongolia 1,264 1,357 1,397 1,464 1,497 68.5 66.7 64.9 57.9 57.9 865.8 905.3 906.8 847.5 866.7 Bangladesh 22,396 27,398 32,893 39,351 42,191 87.3 84.7 77.8 70.8 70.8 19,552 23,206 25,574 27,860 29,871 India 219,758 253,774 289,438 325,563 341,247 54.9 48.2 41.5 34.8 32.1 120,746 122,376 120,117 113,223 109,501Nepal 1,692 2,361 3,280 4,269 4,712 70.6 67.3 64.0 60.7 59.4 1,194 1,589 2,099 2,591 2,798 Pakistan 34,548 40,676 47,884 55,135 58,487 51.0 49.8 48.7 47.5 47.0 17,620 20,271 23,304 26,189 27,508 Cambodia 1,222 1,613 2,161 2,753 3,022 78.9 964 1,273 1,705 2,172 2,385 Indonesia 55,922 70,188 88,918 108,828 116,832 50.8 42.6 34.4 26.3 23.0 28,407 29,912 30,620 28,574 26,852 Lao People's Democratic Republic

629 815 1,148 1,551 1,740 79.3 1,230

Myanmar 9,986 11,270 12,860 14,700 15,575 45.6 6,703 Philippines 29,863 37,053 44,621 53,032 56,503 54.3 50.8 47.2 43.7 42.3 16,224 18,817 21,080 23,175 23,891 Thailand 15,974 17,416 18,893 20,352 21,021 26.0 5,291 Viet Nam 13,403 16,284 19,204 22,454 23,888 60.5 54.6 48.8 41.3 38.3 8,109 8,897 9,366 9,274 9,137

Iraq 12,906 14,878 16,993 18,729 19,316 16.9 16.9 16.9 52.8 52.8 2,182 2,516 2,873 9,889 10,199 Jordan 2,350 3,366 3,755 4,341 4,642 15.8 686 Lebanon 2,472 2,961 3,244 3,473 3,560 53.1 1,844 S audi Arabia 12,449 14,358 16,614 19,120 20,138 18.0 3,442 Syrian Arab Republic

6,224 7,314 8,524 10,049 10,726 10.5 1,055

Turkey 33,949 38,974 44,126 49,097 51,101 23.4 20.7 17.9 15.5 14.1 7,947 8,055 7,911 7,610 7,202 Yemen 2,577 3,688 4,776 6,104 6,729 67.2 4,102

14

UN-Habitat: Reduction of Slums in Asia • South Asia 73 m. • East Asia 72 m. • South-East Asia 33 m.• West Asia 12 %• China 65.5 m. 25%• India 58.7 m. 32%• Indonesia 21.2 m. 33%• Viet Nam 31%• Turkey 20%

15Are there indicators which Strategic, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timebound (SMART)?

How was the target met?CHINA• 65.5 m. urban residents • Targeted old villages within

boundaries of expanding cities or temporary housing for migrant workers

• Provision of access to 20 million new and affordable housing units through government equity grants.

• Economic reforms, modernization, and pro-poor policies- increased incomes resulting in a reduction of slum dwellings.

INDIA• 59.7 m. slum dwellers assisted• Slum prevalence fell from

41.5% (2000) to 28.1% (2010)• Poverty alleviation and slum

improvement - policies(i) increased building skills and

microcredit, (ii) in-situ slum improvement projects,(iii) security of tenure in unauthorized

settlements and improved access to serviced low-cost housing and subsidized housing finance; and

(iv) encouraging the urban poor to participate in decision-making.

16Source: UN-Habitat. 2010. State of the World’s Cities 2010/2011 – Bridging the Urban Divide. Earthscan. London-Washington, DC. p. 39.Source of Verification for data cited by UN-Habitat Global Urban Observatory, Personal Communication

17

Slum before upgrading

Slum after reconstruction

Slum before upgrading Slum after upgradingKarnataka savings group

Savings group

India : Housing and Settlement UpgradingKarnataka Urban Infrastructure Development - $88 million loan; Karnataka Urban Development and Costal Environmental Management - $210million loan; Kolkota Environmental Improvement - $400million loan; Urban Water Supply & Environmental Improvement in Madhya Pradesh- $315 million – 2% to 5 % for Slums

18

Water supply Community toilets

Foot paths

Solid waste collecion

Footpaths

Water supply

High-density neighborhood (Kampung)

Neighborhood Upgrading and Shelter Sector Project ($73.7m loan)

Indonesia : Housing and Settlement Upgrading

19

Drains and sewers

Livelihood training Community center

Footpaths

Home improvement

Water supplyBefore upgrading

Electricity

Philippines - Settlement UpgradingStrategic Private Sector Partnerships for Urban Poverty Reduction in Metro Manila ($3.6 m grant)

• habitat quality – physical characteristics and resilient technologies;

• habitat density – space available per person;• access to basic infrastructure:

– water– sanitation– solid waste collection– drainage and flood control– electricity and other services– Safe and clean pedestrian access; access to public transport

• secure tenure (ownership housing or rental). • Gender dimensions• Vulnerability /resilience to climate change impacts

20

Re-define/update target and indicators

Sustainability of targets achieved• Will physical structures of habitat be maintained

(or improved) over time? • Will density levels stay what they are or come

down eventually? • Will basic infrastructure services be maintained by

combined efforts of the authorities and communities?

• And will tenure security remain unaltered, or can threats of urban renewal or redevelopment be averted?

21

Is MDG 7D SMART?

Specific • The target 7D was specific but severely understated.

Measurable • Indicator- while measurable could not capture the target accurately.

Achievable • The target was achievable due to low benchmarking.

Relevant • It is highly relevant for economic prosperity & competitiveness of cities.

Time-bound •Given the shifting nature of the target, it requires evaluation and resetting.

Does the MDG indicator lend itself to a Monitioring system that allows data to be accurately collected ,

collated and reported on ?

22

Does the MDG indicator lend itself to a Monitoring system that allows data to be accurately collected , collated and reported on ?

Recommendations: MDG 7D.Technical level• Redefine the target and

establish suitable indicators• MDG 7D needs to be reviewed

in the context of the cumulative impact of other targets since it is reliant on numerous external factors – policies, overall level of economic prosperity, rural development, healthcare, education system etc.

• Localization of MDG target essential to make it SMART

Institutional level• Improving capacity of

countries for data collection• Improve country systems to

capture, monitor and evaluate data on MDG progress

• Funding and donor support for the Global Urban Observatory

23