Q&A: PROGRAMME FOCUS OF UN-HABITAT



[pic] |

UNITED

NATIONS | |HSP | |

| | |HSP/GC/20/INF/10 |

|[pic] | | |

|UN-Habitat |Governing Council |Distr. General |

| |of the United Nations Human |2 April 2005 |

| |Settlements Programme | |

| | |Original: English |

Twentieth session

Nairobi, 4–8 April 2005

Item 4 of the provisional agenda*

Activities of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme

(UN-Habitat): progress report of the Executive Director

Questions and answers on selected issues raised by the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme during its preparations for the twentieth session of the Governing Council

Note by the secretariat

The secretariat is pleased to circulate, in the annex to the present note, a document detailing questions and answers on selected issues raised by the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme during its preparations for the twentieth session of the Governing Council. The document has been reproduced as submitted, without formal editing.

Annex

Table of Contents

1. Q&A on Programme Focus of UN-HABITAT (draft Resolution L.1)…………3

2. Q&A on Foundation Budget of UN-HABITAT (draft Resolution L.1)……….. 6

3. Q&A on Natural and Man-made Disasters (draft Resolution L.2)………… 17

4. Q&A on Millennium Declaration Goal and the Slum Target …………………. 19

(draft Resolution L.8)

5. Q&A on Gender and Youth Activities at UN-HABITAT ……………………. 25

(draft Resolution L.9)

6. Q&A on Commission for Sustainable Development ………………………….. 28

(draft Resolution L.10)

7. Q&A on Habitat Programme Managers ………………………………………. 30

(draft Resolution L.12)

List of Annexes

1. Analysis of Impact of Limitation on Budget Reallocation ……………………... 8

2. Status of Contributions to UN-HABITAT, 2004 ………………………………9

3. Top 10 Donors to UN-HABITAT, 2000-2004 ……………………………... 10

4. Tentative Indicative Scale of Contributions ……………………………... 12

5. Dynamics of Urban Slum Problem, 1800-2050 ……………………………... 22

6. Slum Populations under Current and Modified MDG Target………………….. 23

7. Slum Population of the World, 2000-2020 …………………………….. 24

8. GA Resolutions on Patterns of Conferences…………… (attached independently)

9. List and Outputs of Habitat Programme Managers……………………………... 33

Q&A: PROGRAMME FOCUS OF UN-HABITAT

(draft resolution L.1)

Q 1: Is UN-HABITAT well-focused in its activities or is it undertaking too many activities without prioritizing?

As a United Nations programme, the role of UN-HABITAT is to promote sustainable urbanization and the reduction of urban poverty. Its mandate derives from the outcome of relevant international conferences, in particular the Habitat Agenda, the Millennium Declaration, the Declaration on Cities and other Human Settlements, the Johannesburg WSSD Summit, and from the specific mandates given to the programme by various GA and GC resolutions.

The agency deals with a multi-sectoral/multi-faceted problems area requiring a multi-pronged approach if it is to be effective. Prioritization in such a situation requires focusing on a package of key interventions simultaneously. These areas of focus have been articulated in UN-HABITAT’s strategic vision. They are: (i) urban governance; (ii) slum upgrading; (iii) urban water and sanitation; and (iv) disaster management. These involve activities at different levels (global, regional, national and local). They also involve different functions (normative, operational, knowledge/capacity-building, monitoring, advocacy, and partnership-building). Different topical areas such as shelter, land, infrastructure, urban management, environment, are then addressed. UN-HABITAT’s strength is to combine actions at various levels (e.g., global and national) and to create synergies between various functions (e.g. normative and operational).

The details of the package of interventions and their relative prioritization are clearly elucidated in the work programme. Availability of resources finally determines the actual delivery of priorities. Earmarking of resources by donors remains a constraint in terms of delivering strategic interventions according to priority, but progress is being made through multi-year framework funding agreements by a number of key donors.

Despite the above, the agency does not undertake any activity outside the agreed work programme and does not consider itself completely supply-driven without direction.

Q2: Does the organizational structure of UN-HABITAT reflect these priorities?

The organizational structure of UN-HABITAT reflects the structure of the Work-Programme which is organized in four functional sub-programmes. The topical priorities are reflected specifically in the four expected accomplishments of sub-programme 1 which constitutes the global policy component of the Work-Programme, implemented by the Global Division on shelter and sustainable human settlements development. The other sub-programmes address the same topical areas but from different functional perspectives (research and monitoring in sub-programme 2, technical cooperation in sub-programme 3, financing human settlements in sub-programme 4).

Q3: On the first area of focus, urban governance, what are the relations between the Global Campaigns and the various programmes and projects?

The Global Campaigns on Secure Tenure and Urban Governance are essentially advocacy instruments and coordinating frameworks for all activities of UN-HABITAT which address the management and sustainable development of cities and towns. The Campaigns produce a set of normative principles which should guide policy makers, city managers and all urban programmes of UN-HABITAT. These programmes focus generally on important aspects of urban development such as environmental protection (Sustainable Cities, LA 21), security and safety (Safer Cities), decentralization and subsidiarity (AGRED-GOLD), rural-urban linkages or municipal finance. Country projects implemented by UN-HABITAT Regional Offices build capacities on the same issues, applying the normative principles and tools developed by the Global Campaigns, for instance, the systematic use of city consultations with all stakeholders. Local authorities are the most important partners of UN-HABITAT in this area, at both global and local levels.

Q4: The second area of focus, slum upgrading, overlaps with urban governance and water and sanitation. Why does it appear as a separate priority?

In the early 1990s, the shelter activities of UN-HABITAT were devoted to the promotion of adequate shelter for all through enabling shelter strategies. After the Habitat II conference (1996), a new strategic vision was adopted for UN-HABITAT to better cope with the realities of rapid urbanization and urban poverty. The vision is much more concentrated on the needs of the urban poor, i.e., on ensuring security of tenure and improving the lives of slum-dwellers under an environment of participatory governance. The Global Campaign on Secure Tenure was launched in 1999 as an advocacy instrument, followed by the adoption of the slum upgrading target of the Millennium Declaration in September 2000 in response to the “Cities without Slums” Action Plan designed by UN-HABITAT and the World Bank as the first activity of the Cities Alliance. This political commitment by heads of State and Governments encouraged UN-HABITAT to adopt slum upgrading as its top priority and to take the lead in the implementation and monitoring of target 11 of the MDGs, as soon as the Centre was elevated to Programme status in December 2001.

Upgrading slums on a large-scale requires good urban governance, which engenders partnerships with CBOs and NGOs, to create an enabling environment for pro-poor investments in housing and infrastructure. The target requires that central and local governments consider the needs of the urban poor as a specific priority, requiring specific efforts. This is why slum upgrading appears as a separate and visible priority – associated with the Global Campaign for Secure Tenure – in the Work-Programme of UN-HABITAT. This is the only priority addressed by the four sub-programmes (upgrading policies in SP1, monitory target 11 and flagship reports in SP2, upgrading projects in SP3 and financing slum upgrading in SP4).

Q5: The third area of focus, water and sanitation, is not specific to UN-HABITAT? Does UN-HABITAT have the mandate to work on this topic?

Yes it does. The mandate of UN-HABITAT on water is well defined in GC resolution 19/6.

Many United Nations agencies are working on water and sanitation and UN-HABITAT is the recognized agency within the UN system for urban water and sanitation. It is a member of the Millennium Task Force No. 7 on water and sanitation and contributed to the work of the task force through its global report on water and sanitation for cities.

At the request of the Administrative Committee for Coordination’s, Sub-committee on water resources (respectively now renamed Chief Executive Board and UN-Water after WSSD), the agency coordinated the observance of World Water Day in 1996. The global observance event was held in Beijing hosted by the People’s Republic of China and organized by the agency. UN-HABITAT has over 20 years experience working with Member States in the water and sanitation sector.

The mandate and expertise of UN-HABITAT being on cities and other human settlements, it has developed regional and local programmes on Water for Cities, contributing to the achievement of target 10 of the MDGs in urban areas. In this framework, UN-HABITAT is the main agency advising governments on the management of basic water and sanitation infrastructure and services at city-level, particularly on water demand management, and the development of related institutional capacities, and value-based water education. It is also launching major initiatives for water and sanitation in small and medium sized towns in Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

In view of the variety and complementarity of international organizations active in the field of water and sanitation, UN-HABITAT has established cooperation agreements with several United Nations programmes (such as UNEP), regional institutions (such as the Asian Development Bank) and bilateral agencies. It has also set up a Water and Sanitation Trust Fund to promote concrete actions in developing countries.

Q6: On disaster management, why does UN-HABITAT give more attention to physical reconstruction than to disaster mitigation?

An elaborate explanation of this issue is given in the Q&A of resolution L2 below.

Q7: UN-HABITAT also deals with cross-cutting issues. How are these issues linked to the topical priority areas?

Cross-cutting issues refer primarily to the needs, interests and contributions of specific social groups and partners, such as women and youth, AIDS orphans, the disabled, etc., in the area of human settlements and housing. To address these issues UN-HABITAT has developed a mainstreaming approach: a small unit at headquarters strategically located in the Research and Monitoring Division is responsible for introducing the concerns of the group in question into all relevant activities of the Programme. In some cases pilot projects complement this approach (e.g., women empowerment vis-à-vis gender mainstreaming) in order to generate new tested approaches to inform better policy formulation, programme design and scaling up.

Monitoring – through statistics, indicators and the documentation of best practices – is not a cross-cutting issue but a core function of UN-HABITAT, falling under the responsibilities of the Research and Monitoring Division. Training and Capacity-Building are also functional responsibilities, coordinated by a branch within the Global Division. It must be emphasized that the mandate of UN-HABITAT, as restated in GA res. 56/206 that upgraded it into a programme, is “to coordinate the implementation of the Habitat Agenda and to act as UN-system wide focal point for all human settlements activities.” This makes monitoring a key function and priority for the agency.

Q&A: Foundation Budget

(draft resolution L.1)

What would be the impact of restricting the Executive Director’s authority to re-allocate resources between sub-programmes?

The 10 per cent restriction proposed on the basis of the UNEP approach is too restrictive and would severely curtail the Executive Director’s ability to re-allocate resources at short notice to where they are most needed to avoid disrupting the smooth implementation of the work programme. An analysis of the effect of the proposed resolution is shown in Annex 1.

The problem is the low base of core voluntary contributions amounting to about US$27.6 million per biennium for UN-HABITAT versus UNEP’s US$142 million. In practical terms, in order to make ends meet, as is often the case at UN-HABITAT, the Executive Director would need to convene CPR meetings to get approval to move resources across budget lines in line with priorities in programme implementation. For example, for the Regional Technical and Cooperation Division (RTCD), a 10% re-allocation is equivalent to US$161,000 or ½ post.

While harmonization with UNEP is desirable, it would be detrimental to adopt a harmonization policy piecemeal. Therefore, this measure would require that, like UNEP, UN-HABITAT also adopts a Voluntary Indicative Scale of Contributions in order to increase its donor base and improve the level and predictability of its core income. Presently, the agency depends on forecast income drawn from a handful of donors and most of it remains unpredictable. The ten top donors account for 94% of the total contributions in 2004. (See Annex II).

What are the differences between trust funds, earmarked contributions and facilities? Is there a proliferation of Trust Funds and the like at UN-HABITAT?

A Trust Fund is a stand-alone fund which can be identified separately in the financial statements of UN-HABITAT. Contributions can come from one donor or several donors and resources are normally pooled and separate reporting by individual donors is not normally done. The pooled funds are utilized for the objectives and purposes of the fund.

Earmarked contributions: These are not normally identified separately in the financial statements of UN-HABITAT. They tend to emanate from individual donors giving contributions for a specific activity. Reporting is done by individual donor as per the requirement of the agreement with the donors.

Facility: A facility is a special trust fund, usually of a revolving nature and would normally involve large sums of money, if funded. Funds would be earmarked for that facility and can be used to pre-finance certain activities, e.g., pre-feasibility studies, rapid response, seed capital, etc., and there is an expectation that the facility would be replenished from projects when they materialize or by donors on a regular basis.

UN-HABITAT has 2 Trust Funds at the end of 2004: the Water and Sanitation Trust Fund, and the Palestinian Trust Fund. There is also the Slum Upgrading Facility (SUF) and the Recovery Facility.

As to whether there is proliferation of trust funds at UN-HABITAT, a comparison with other agencies, given below, speaks for itself, and might explain the inability of the agency to mobilize adequate funds to effectively deliver its mandate so far. This is supported by the relatively better mobilization of resources for the 2 Trust Funds and the Slum Upgrading Facility established by UN-HABITAT compared to its other fund raising efforts. The establishment of the Recovery facility, and other key trust funds, such as the regional and technical cooperation trust funds is being proposed from this positive experience. There is no risk for the agency to have several trust funds.

Comparison with other Agencies:

|AGENCY |No. of |

| |Trust Funds |

|UNDP |620 |

|UNEP |102 |

|UNFPA |68 |

The Executive Director has delegated authority from the UN Controller to establish Trust Funds in situations where they would facilitate mobilization of resources. This authority is exercised with great caution.

Q3. Why are there so many vacancies at UN-HABITAT yet to be filled? Why has the Deputy

Executive Director not yet been appointed?

The staffing table in the budget with 144 posts was approved in its entirety by the Governing Council at its 18th session, in the context of the revitalization of UN-HABITAT. The Executive Director was requested to mobilize financial resources for its full realization. In order to avoid past financial difficulties, whereby there was a mismatch between recruited staff and predictable financial resources to pay their salaries over time, it was decided to take a cautious approach in filling the established posts. Posts are being filled slowly but surely, in line with increases in predictable medium and long-term core income. Progress in resource mobilization has been made (see Annex III) paving the way to fill most of the vacancies during the 2006/2007 biennium. Note that no new posts have been requested under the Foundation budget.

As regards the appointment of the Deputy Executive Director (DED), this matter is under consideration by the Secretary-General. He has already instructed the Executive Director to identify suitable candidates for his consideration. Member states with suitable candidates are invited to assist in this process. The duties and responsibilities of the DED are narrated in the STB establishing UN-HABITAT and define the profile of the candidate. As the key administrator of the Foundation the candidate must have, among other qualities, a strong background in finance and proven fund-raising abilities and confidence of donors.

ANNEX I

ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO LIMIT THE REALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

BETWEEN SUB-PROGRAMMES

(in thousands of US$)

| | | UN-HABITAT (United Nations Habitat and Human Settlements Foundation) | |

|UNEP (Environment Fund) | | | |

| | | | |

| | |

|as at 31 December 2004 (United States Dollars) * | |

| |General Purpose |Special Purpose |Total Distributions |

|Country | | | |

|Algeria | 10,000 |  | 10,000 |

|Austria | 86,075 | 12,100 | 98,175 |

|Barbados | 3,000 |  | 3,000 |

|Belgium |  | 1,492,110 | 1,492,110 |

|Botswana | 15,660 |  | 15,660 |

|Brazil | 20,000 |  | 20,000 |

|Canada | 62,672 | 3,014,176 | 3,076,848 |

|Chile | 5,000 |  | 5,000 |

|China P.R. |  | 129,940 | 129,940 |

|Czech Republic | 116,768 |  | 116,768 |

|Ethiopia | 14,771 |  | 14,771 |

|European Commission |  | 135,907 | 135,907 |

|Fiji | 3,558 |  | 3,558 |

|Finland | 537,623 | 419,510 | 957,133 |

|France | 158,028 | 143,309 | 301,337 |

|Germany | 371,310 | 346,488 | 717,798 |

|Ghana | 10,000 |  | 10,000 |

|Greece | 30,000 |  | 30,000 |

|India | 84,776 |  | 84,776 |

|Indonesia | 10,000 |  | 10,000 |

|Israel | 10,000 |  | 10,000 |

|Italy | 789,715 | 768,109 | 1,557,824 |

|Japan | 214,000 | 449,616 | 663,616 |

|Kenya | 50,000 |  | 50,000 |

|Netherlands | 1,490,830 | 5,217,171 | 6,708,001 |

|Norway | 2,448,350 | 1,829,968 | 4,278,317 |

|Pakistan | 6,005 |  |6,005  |

|Philippines | 562|  | 562|

|Poland | 10,000 |  | 10,000 |

|Republic of South Korea | 10,000 |  | 10,000 |

|Russian Federation |  | 200,000 | 200,000 |

|Rwanda |  | 5,000 | 5,000 |

|Spain | | 108,640 | 108,640 |

|Sri Lanka | 15,000 |  | 15,000 |

|Sultanate of Oman |  | 100,000 | 100,000 |

|Sweden | 1,331,735 | 2,514,840 | 3,846,575 |

|Switzerland |  | 304,231 | 304,231 |

|Tanzania | 3,588 |  | 3,588 |

|Thailand | | 10,000 | 10,000 |

|Trinidad and Tobago | | 1,500 | 2,500 |

| |1000 | | |

|Tunisia |829 | |829 |

|Uganda | 1,941 |  | 1,941 |

|United Kingdom | 1,837,000 | 1,052,718 | 2,889,718 |

|USA | 745,575 | 248,452 | 994,027 |

| |  | 3,670,847 | 3,670,847 |

|Other Public Donors | | | |

|Total | | 22,174,629 | 32,679,999 |

| |10,505,370 | | |

| |94% |77% |81% |

|% of contributions from Top Ten Donors| | | |

|*Excludes all contributions towards Technical Cooperation Activities |

ANNEX III

| |Top Ten Donors of UN-HABITAT 2000-2004 | | | |

|  |US$16,487,803 |  |  |US$19,743,154 |

|  |  |  |  |  |

| 1 |Afghanistan | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 2 |Albania | 0.00185| | |

| | | |1,500 |750 |

| 3 |Algeria | 0.03077| | |

| | | |25,500 |12,750 |

| 4 |Andorra | 0.01200| | |

| | | |9,900 |4,950 |

| 5 |Angola | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 6 |Antigua & Barbuda | 0.00185| | |

| | | |1,500 |750 |

| 7 |Argentina | 0.03846| | |

| | | |31,800 |15,900 |

| 8 |Armenia | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 9 |Australia | 1.00000| | |

| | | |828,000 |414,000 |

| 10 |Austria | 0.80000| | |

| | | |662,400 |331,200 |

| 11 |Azerbaijan | 0.00277| | |

| | | |2,300 |1,150 |

| 12 |Bahamas | 0.00308| | |

| | | |2,600 |1,300 |

| 13 |Bahrain | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 14 |Bangladesh | 0.00385| | |

| | | |3,200 |1,600 |

| 15 |Barbados |0.00769 |6,400 |3,200 |

| 16 |Belarus | 0.01723| | |

| | | |14,300 |7,150 |

| 17 |Belgium | 1.12769| | |

| | | |933,700 |466,850 |

| 18 |Belize | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 19 |Benin | 0.00754| | |

| | | |6,200 |3,100 |

| 20 |Bhutan | 0.00200| | |

| | | |1,700 |850 |

| 21 |Bolivia | 0.00308| | |

| | | |2,600 |1,300 |

| 22 |Bosnia & Herzegovina | 0.00277| | |

| | | |2,300 |1,150 |

| 23 |Botswana | 0.00923| | |

| | | |7,600 |3,800 |

| 24 |Brazil | 0.50000| | |

| | | |414,000 |207,000 |

| 25 |Brunei Darussalam | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 26 |Bulgaria | 0.00923| | |

| | | |7,600 |3,800 |

| 27 |Burkina Faso | 0.00185| | |

| | | |1,500 |750 |

| 28 |Burundi | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 29 |Cambodia | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 30 |Cameroon | 0.01077| | |

| | | |8,900 |4,450 |

| 31 |Canada | 2.61538| | 1,082,750|

| | | |2,165,500 | |

| 32 |Cape Verde |0.00092 |800 |400 |

| 33 |Central African Rep. | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 34 |Chad | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 35 |Chile | 0.10000| | |

| | | |82,800 |41,400 |

| 36 |China | 0.35385| | |

| | | |293,000 |146,500 |

| 37 |Colombia | 0.06000| | |

| | | |49,700 |24,850 |

| 38 |Comoros | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 39 |Congo | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 40 |Costa Rica | 0.01000| | |

| | | |8,300 |4,150 |

| 41 |Cote d'Ivoire | 0.00554| | |

| | | |4,600 |2,300 |

| 42 |Croatia | 0.02769| | |

| | | |22,900 |11,450 |

| 43 |Cuba | 0.00923| | |

| | | |7,600 |3,800 |

| 44 |Cyprus | 0.02308| | |

| | | |19,100 |9,550 |

| 45 |Czech Rep. | 0.20308| | |

| | | |168,200 |84,100 |

| 46 |Dem. People's Rep. Korea | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 47 |Democratic Rep. of Congo | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 48 |Denmark | 3.16154| | 1,308,900|

| | | |2,617,800 | |

| 49 |Djibouti |0.00092 |800 |400 |

| 50 |Dominica | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 51 |Dominican Rep. | 0.00308| | |

| | | |2,600 |1,300 |

| 52 |Ecuador | 0.00462| | |

| | | |3,800 |1,900 |

| 53 |Egypt | 0.01385| | |

| | | |11,500 |5,750 |

| 54 |El Salvador | 0.00369| | |

| | | |3,100 |1,550 |

| 55 |Equatorial Guinea | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 56 |Eritrea | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 57 |Estonia | 0.00769| | |

| | | |6,400 |3,200 |

| 58 |Ethiopia | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 59 |Fiji | 0.00708| | |

| | | |5,900 |2,950 |

| 60 |Finland | 4.73846| | 1,961,700|

| | | |3,923,400 | |

| 61 |France | 6.15385| | 2,547,700|

| | | |5,095,400 | |

| 62 |Gabon | 0.00308| | |

| | | |2,600 |1,300 |

| 63 |Gambia | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 64 |Georgia | 0.00308| | |

| | | |2,600 |1,300 |

| 65 |Germany | 9.60000| | 3,974,400|

| | | |7,948,800 | |

| 66 |Ghana |0.00231 |1,900 |950 |

| 67 |Greece | 0.34615| | |

| | | |286,600 |143,300 |

| 68 |Grenada | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 69 |Guatemala | 0.00554| | |

| | | |4,600 |2,300 |

| 70 |Guinea | 0.00277| | |

| | | |2,300 |1,150 |

| 71 |Guinea - Bissau | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 72 |Guyana | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 73 |Haiti | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 74 |Holy See ** | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 75 |Honduras | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 76 |Hungary | 0.10769| | |

| | | |89,200 |44,600 |

| 77 |Iceland | 0.03077| | |

| | | |25,500 |12,750 |

| 78 |India | 0.15385| | |

| | | |127,400 |63,700 |

| 79 |Indonesia | 0.04000| | |

| | | |33,100 |16,550 |

| 80 |Iran | 0.09231| | |

| | | |76,400 |38,200 |

| 81 |Iraq | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 82 |Ireland | 0.41692| | |

| | | |345,200 |172,600 |

| 83 |Israel |0.10000 |82,800 |41,400 |

| 84 |Italy | 4.61538| | 1,910,750|

| | | |3,821,500 | |

| 85 |Jamaica | 0.00646| | |

| | | |5,300 |2,650 |

| 86 |Japan | 10.33923 | | 4,280,450|

| | | |8,560,900 | |

| 87 |Jordan | 0.00231| | |

| | | |1,900 |950 |

| 88 |Kazakhstan | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 89 |Kenya | 0.04615| | |

| | | |38,200 |19,100 |

| 90 |Kiribati | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 91 |Kuwait | 0.30769| | |

| | | |254,800 |127,400 |

| 92 |Kyrgyzstan | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 93 |Lao | 0.00308| | |

| | | |2,600 |1,300 |

| 94 |Latvia | 0.00923| | |

| | | |7,600 |3,800 |

| 95 |Lebanon | 0.00738| | |

| | | |6,100 |3,050 |

| 96 |Lesotho | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 97 |Liberia | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 98 |Libya | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 99 |Liechtenstein | 0.00600| | |

| | | |5,000 |2,500 |

| 100 |Lithuania |0.01108 |9,200 |4,600 |

| 101 |Luxembourg | 0.23077| | |

| | | |191,100 |95,550 |

| 102 |Madagascar | 0.00723| | |

| | | |6,000 |3,000 |

| 103 |Malawi | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 104 |Malaysia | 0.06923| | |

| | | |57,300 |28,650 |

| 105 |Maldives | 0.00231| | |

| | | |1,900 |950 |

| 106 |Mali | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 107 |Malta | 0.01385| | |

| | | |11,500 |5,750 |

| 108 |Marshall Islands | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 109 |Mauritania | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 110 |Mauritius | 0.00738| | |

| | | |6,100 |3,050 |

| 111 |Mexico | 0.23077| | |

| | | |191,100 |95,550 |

| 112 |Micronesia | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 113 |Monaco | 0.01846| | |

| | | |15,300 |7,650 |

| 114 |Mongolia | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 115 |Morocco | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 116 |Mozambique | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 117 |Myanmar |0.00277 |2,300 |1,150 |

| 118 |Namibia | 0.00231| | |

| | | |1,900 |950 |

| 119 |Nauru | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 120 |Nepal | 0.00277| | |

| | | |2,300 |1,150 |

| 121 |Netherlands | 7.20000| | 2,980,800|

| | | |5,961,600 | |

| 122 |New Zealand | 0.23846| | |

| | | |197,400 |98,700 |

| 123 |Nicaragua | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 124 |Niger | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 125 |Nigeria | 0.03077| | |

| | | |25,500 |12,750 |

| 126 |Norway | 3.29231| | 1,363,000|

| | | |2,726,000 | |

| 127 |Pakistan | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 128 |Palau | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 129 |Panama | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 130 |Papua New Guinea | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 131 |Paraguay | 0.00400| | |

| | | |3,300 |1,650 |

| 132 |Peru | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 133 |Philippines | 0.02308| | |

| | | |19,100 |9,550 |

| 134 |Poland |0.23077 |191,100 |95,550 |

| 135 |Portugal | 0.30769| | |

| | | |254,800 |127,400 |

| 136 |Qatar | 0.01000| | |

| | | |8,300 |4,150 |

| 137 |Republic of Korea | 1.38462| | |

| | | |1,146,500 |573,250 |

| 138 |Republic of Moldova | 0.00185| | |

| | | |1,500 |750 |

| 139 |Romania | 0.03077| | |

| | | |25,500 |12,750 |

| 140 |Russian Federation | 0.92308| | |

| | | |764,300 |382,150 |

| 141 |Rwanda | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 142 |Saint Kitts & Nevis | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 143 |Saint Lucia | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 144 |Saint Vincent & Grenadines | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 145 |Samoa | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 146 |San Marino | 0.00200| | |

| | | |1,700 |850 |

| 147 |Sao Tome & Principe | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 148 |Saudi Arabia | 0.38462| | |

| | | |318,500 |159,250 |

| 149 |Senegal | 0.00277| | |

| | | |2,300 |1,150 |

| 150 |Serbia and Montenegro | 0.01385| | |

| | | |11,500 |5,750 |

| 151 |Seychelles |0.00185 |1,500 |750 |

| 152 |Sierra Leone | 0.00385| | |

| | | |3,200 |1,600 |

| 153 |Singapore | 0.10000| | |

| | | |82,800 |41,400 |

| 154 |Slovakia | 0.03077| | |

| | | |25,500 |12,750 |

| 155 |Slovenia | 0.07477| | |

| | | |61,900 |30,950 |

| 156 |Solomon Islands | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 157 |Somalia | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 158 |South Africa | 0.08308| | |

| | | |68,800 |34,400 |

| 159 |Spain | 2.10769| | |

| | | |1,745,200 |872,600 |

| 160 |Sri Lanka | 0.00769| | |

| | | |6,400 |3,200 |

| 161 |Sultanate of Oman | 0.01692| | |

| | | |14,000 |7,000 |

| 162 |Sudan | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 163 |Suriname | 0.00185| | |

| | | |1,500 |750 |

| 164 |Swaziland | 0.00923| | |

| | | |7,600 |3,800 |

| 165 |Sweden | 3.84615| | 1,592,300|

| | | |3,184,600 | |

| 166 |Switzerland | 3.96923| | 1,643,250|

| | | |3,286,500 | |

| 167 |Syria | 0.01538| | |

| | | |12,700 |6,350 |

| 168 |Tajikistan |0.01677 |13,900 |6,950 |

| 169 |Thailand | 0.07692| | |

| | | |63,700 |31,850 |

| 170 |The FYR Macedonia | 0.00369| | |

| | | |3,100 |1,550 |

| 171 |Togo | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 172 |Tonga | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 173 |Trinidad & Tobago | 0.00769| | |

| | | |6,400 |3,200 |

| 174 |Tunisia | 0.01000| | |

| | | |8,300 |4,150 |

| 175 |Turkey | 0.23077| | |

| | | |191,100 |95,550 |

| 176 |Turkmenistan | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 177 |Tuvalu | 0.00092| | |

| | | |800 |400 |

| 178 |Uganda | 0.00569| | |

| | | |4,700 |2,350 |

| 179 |Ukraine | 0.04154| | |

| | | |34,400 |17,200 |

| 180 |United Arab Emirates | 0.07692| | |

| | | |63,700 |31,850 |

| 181 |United Kingdom | 10.46154 | | 4,331,100|

| | | |8,662,200 | |

| 182 |United Rep. Tanzania | 0.00185| | |

| | | |1,500 |750 |

| 183 |Uruguay | 0.02000| | |

| | | |16,600 |8,300 |

| 184 |Uzbekistan | 0.00692| | |

| | | |5,700 |2,850 |

| 185 |Vanuatu |0.00092 |800 |400 |

| 186 |Venezuela | 0.03077| | |

| | | |25,500 |12,750 |

| 187 |Viet Nam | 0.00769| | |

| | | |6,400 |3,200 |

| 188 |Yemen | 0.00831| | |

| | | |6,900 |3,450 |

| 189 |Zambia | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

| 190 |Zimbabwe | 0.00154| | |

| | | |1,300 |650 |

|  |  |  |  |  |

| |Total | | | 34,570,050 |

| | |83.500 |69,140,100 | |

| | | | | |

| Note: Totals do not include voluntary contribution by the United States of America. | |

Q&A: Natural and human-made disasters assessment and reconstruction

(draft resolution L.2)

Q1. What is the mandate of UN-HABITAT for humanitarian interventions in human settlements in crisis?

• UN-HABITAT is mandated through the Habitat Agenda to take the lead in disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness, and post-disaster rehabilitation capabilities in human settlements (ref: the Habitat Agenda, paragraphs 40. (l); 43. (z); 170. – 176. ; 208. (d), (e); 228. (c)). The Habitat Agenda clearly outlines the link between human settlements development and vulnerability to disasters.

• Furthermore, GA resolution 59/484 on implementation of the outcome of the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) and strengthening of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), adopted by the General Assembly on 22 December 2004, requests that UN-HABITAT continue to support the efforts of countries affected by natural and complex emergencies to develop prevention, rehabilitation and reconstruction programmes for the transition from relief to development, as well as work closely with other United Nations agencies.

Q2. What is UN-HABITAT’s role and added value in the humanitarian sector?

• UN-HABITAT has been assisting human settlements in crisis in the following countries: Sudan, Liberia, Somalia, Mozambique, Angola, Ghana, Kosovo, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Haiti, China, Central America (Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Dominican Republic), Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Maldives, Thailand, East Timor and Russian Federation.

• UN-HABITAT has been operating in these situations, supporting national governments, local authorities and civil society in strengthening their capacity to manage and recover from human-made and natural disasters affecting human settlements.

• Understanding the discontinuity within the international aid community between the short term imperative of humanitarianism, and longer term reconstruction and development priorities, UN-HABITAT has engaged and offered its normative and operational expertise on bridging this divide by linking humanitarian response with medium-long term programmes.

Q3. What are the institutional relationships between UN-HABITAT and other humanitarian actors?

In recognition of its extensive experience in reconstruction activities, in April 2004 UN-HABITAT was invited by the Secretary-General to join and bring to the Executive Committee for Humanitarian Affairs (ECHA) its perspectives and support to humanitarian and emergency relief agencies within the context of shelter and human settlements through shaping strategic and substantive response to states in crisis. This imposes certain responsibilities on the Agency in terms of creating capacity for rapid response to emergency situations to ensure an operational presence in support of sister agencies delivering humanitarian support.

UN-HABITAT continues to facilitate partnerships on disaster reduction and management and supporting the establishment of dialogue between UN agencies, the donor community, NGOs and the private sector. Memoranda of Understanding were signed with the secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) in May 2003, and UNHCR in December 2003, and more recently with the United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), through the secondment of a senior Human Settlements Adviser to its Interagency Internal Displacement Division (IDD) at the request of the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs.

Q4. What are the funding mechanisms for UN-HABITAT’s humanitarian interventions?

• Historically, UN-HABITAT’s early response has been constrained as a result of its reliance solely on extra-budgetary contributions, both for post-disaster/conflict recovery interventions and vulnerability reduction activities. The key limitation is the lack of a reserve of earmarked funding and, consequently, the time taken to secure sufficient resources for substantive responses.

• Recent bilateral funding support for reconstruction projects has been provided by: Australia, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, US(AID), Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Canada, European Commission (inc. ECHO), World Bank; and for the recent Tsunami, Japan, China, Mexico, New Zealand, UAE, and private donors.

• In support of the role for UN-HABITAT as a credible partner in disaster mitigation and response, it is proposed to create a ‘Human Settlements Recovery Facility’ (HSRF) as a trust fund into which dedicated resources for rapid response operations can be placed and drawn upon as needed to ensure a credible presence in response to natural and man-made disasters.

• The main objective of the Human Settlement Recovery Facility will be to strengthen UN-HABITAT’s capacity to respond to natural and complex emergencies, by providing replenishable financial resources for functional; pre- and post-emergency interventions, scrutiny and evaluation of current and past international emergency aid practice, development of new approaches to relief activities, and disaster vulnerability reduction.

Q & A: Millennium Declaration Goal on improving the lives of slum dwellers

(draft Resolution L.8)

Q1. What is the MDG goal on slum dwellers?

The goals is stated as “to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of 100 million slum dwellers, by 2020”.

Q2. How did this goal become Target 11, of the Millennium Development Goals?

The Millennium Declaration was adopted by Heads of State and Government on 8 September 2000 (resolution 55/2). The Secretary-General of the United Nations was requested by the GA to prepare a Road Map for the implementation of the Millennium Declaration. The Road Map (A/56/326), specified and defined 8 goals, 18 Targets and 48 indicators in reference to the goals of the Millennium Declaration. Goal 7 on environmental sustainability has 3 targets, including 9 – biodiversity, 10 – Water and Sanitation, 11 – slum upgrading.

Q3. Was the MDG Road Map endorsed by the General Assembly?

The General Assembly ‘took note’ of the Road Map (in resolution 56/95), and requested the Secretary-General to prepare an annual report and a comprehensive report every five years, on progress achieved by the United Nations System and the member states towards implementing the Millennium Declaration, drawing upon the ‘road map’.

Q4. Is the target on slums adequate?

Not at all. Presently there are 1 billion slum dwellers which means the target is too modest as it covers only 10% of the current slum populations. The slum population in Nigeria, Brazil and Indonesia is close to 100 million. Africa has 160 million, etc. Annex 5 shows urbanization trends up to 2050 and the projected number of slum dwellers. Slum dwellers are projected to increase to 1.6 billion by 2020 and 2 billion by 2030 and 3 billion by 2050. India and China alone cover more than 100 million slum dwellers.

Q5. What does UN-HABITAT, as the focal point for human settlements issues and the agency in charge of monitoring and implementing the Target 11, propose to address this problem?

UN-HABITAT recommends that the formulation of Target 11 be modified, as follows:

“halve, between 1990 and 2020, the proportion of slum dwellers in the urban population”.

Q6. What is the proposal of the Millennium Project’s Task Force 8?

Task Force 8’s proposal is also to change the target, into:

“to improve the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, while providing positive alternatives to

new slum formation”.

Q7. What are the weaknesses of Task Force 8’s proposal?

1. It suffers from the lack of benchmarks. The question of ‘how many’ or ‘what proportion of new slum dwellers remains unanswered’.

2. The problem with the first part, 100 million slum dwellers remain unsolved.

3. The new concepts of ‘positive alternatives’, ‘new slum formation’ are subjective and, therefore, difficult, to define. It is impossible to measure what cannot be defined.

Q8. Why is it important to restate Target 11 in this form?

Unlike other MDG targets the Slum Target is the only one given as an absolute number and not a proportion. It means there is no benchmark for the target at regional or country level. When provided with a proportion (%) governments are able to relate to a global reference and could choose to adopt it or adjust it to their own country specific targets at higher levels. Country specific benchmarks are necessary to monitor progress in each member state. As it stands now, the absolute target of 100 million slum dwellers could well be delivered by one or a few countries while others lag behind. Annex 6 shows trends in slum population by region in the event of

a) continuing the current trend of no or modest action or

b) adopting a modified and more ambitious target recommended by UN-HABITAT above.

Annex 7 restates slum population trends for the world for clarity.

Q9. Who can update the target?

The General Assembly at its forthcoming Special Session on the Millennium Development Summit +5 in September in New York to discuss on Secretary-General’s report A/59/2005. The Governing Council and the CSD can make recommendations towards this end.

Q10. Are developing countries on track?

Yes, there are many countries that are on track. Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco, China, Indonesia, Thailand and Brazil are among them. The common denominator among these countries is the favorable national policy environment, which helped in scaling up on city and sub-city level efforts of the local authorities and the civil society. An example is the pro-favela legislative framework of Brazil.

Despite such examples of success, a vast majority of countries are lagging behind, as indicated in the Millennium Project Report. Three quarters of Sub-Saharan Africa’s urban population live in slums, deprived of access to durable housing, water and sanitation, security of tenure, while suffering from overcrowding. In South Asia, the rapid increase of the urban and slum population poses a challenge of great magnitude.

Q11. Is it realistic to adopt a more ambitious target?

Yes, the proposed target to halve the proportion of slum dwellers is realistic, if the existing dynamism of slum dwellers themselves and the potential of local stakeholders are encouraged by political commitment from top national leadership. Adopting and implementing national policies on land and basic services development, and pro-poor housing credit facilities are few among the many realistic national interventions.

It is also the obligation of the international development community to accept the reality of slums and not lose more time by assuming that urbanization could be curbed. Whether we like it or not, very soon we will be living in an urban planet where one-third of the cities would be inhabited by slum dwellers. If we do not gear our programmes and actions on more ambitious targets, the slums will not only be a human settlements challenge, but also be compounded by social, economic, security and political problems.

ANNEX V

[pic]

ANNEX VI

[pic]

ANNEX VII

[pic]

Q & A on Gender and Youth

(draft resolution L.9)

Q1. What are the gender mandates of UN-HABITAT and why should gender remain a critical area of UN-HABITAT work?

UN-HABITAT mandates for gender equality and the advancement of women in human settlements development are enshrined in the Habitat Agenda, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Millennium Declaration; General Assembly resolution A/59/168 of 20 December 2004, Economic and Social Council agreed conclusions 1997/2 and resolution 2004/4 of 7 July 2004, Security Council Resolution 13/25 of 2000; and UN-HABITAT specific resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Settlements and the Governing Council of UN-HABITAT respectively, especially 13/13 of 8 May 1991, 14/4 of 5 May 1993, 15/3 of 1 May 1995, 16/16 of 7 May 1997, 17/11 of 14 May 1999, and 19/16 of 9 May 2003.

Gender inequalities still exist with respect to women’s access to land, property, housing, inheritance; access to water, sanitation, and infrastructure; and access to credit, employment, education and health facilities, among others. The Gender Evaluation carried out in 2003 recommended strengthening gender mainstreaming within UN-HABITAT policies and programmes.

Q2. Why do we need to develop specific projects in addition to gender mainstreaming?

UN-HABITAT gender policy has two objectives: (1) gender mainstreaming in all UN-HABITAT programmes and activities, and (2) promoting women’s empowerment policies and where deemed necessary designing and field-testing innovative approaches towards that end. It is important to mainstream gender in all UN-HABITAT activities, particularly through gender analysis to identify the differential impact of policies, programmes and activities on men and women. It is also critical that women specific programmes are undertaken as a means of addressing gender inequalities as in many respects women are more disadvantaged than men.

The Forward Looking Evaluation of Gender Mainstreaming in UN-HABITAT of June 2003 recommended a need for both gender mainstreaming in UN-HABITAT and the implementation of specific activities, which can bring about change in the lives and work of women. The project on empowering urban women entrepreneurs through housing development and land rights in East Africa which aims at assisting women to acquire real estate has demonstrated this. It is supported by earmarked resources from donors. The Slum Upgrading Facility has now provided an opportunity to build on the work initiated by the Gender Mainstreaming unit because this programme bears the hallmarks of SUF.

It is, therefore, useful for the Gender Mainstreaming Unit, which spearheads the implementation of a gender policy, the achievement of gender equality and the advancement of women to pursue a two- pronged approach: (i) to facilitate gender mainstreaming in all activities by providing technical advice and tools to Divisions, Units and Branches, and (ii) to carry out specific women’s projects on a pilot basis in support of other Divisions/Branches/Units.

Women specific projects are implemented to illustrate to line branches, units and other partners what can be done to address the gender imbalances and to promote gender equity in a given area.

Q3. Why do we need another gender resolution at GC/20 in 2005?

Resolutions at GC sessions provide opportunities for Member States to make new decisions or declare formal positions on new issues that might have emerged since they last met in their legislative capacity. They also serve as mechanisms for member states to restate their positions on previous commitments that, more often than not, might not have been fulfilled and therefore still require their attention.

Another resolution on gender at GC/20 is therefore very important. Specifically, it will focus on the outcome of the 49th Session of the Commission on the Status of Women which reviewed the implementation of the Beijing Plan of Action over the past decade.

It is important that the Governing Council of UN-HABITAT also reaffirms its commitment to gender equality and the advancement of women in human settlements as governments, the UN System, NGOs and regional organizations have been called upon to accelerate implementation of gender equality commitments.

The draft resolution under discussion offers an opportunity for governments and UN-HABITAT to reaffirm their commitment and provide increased substantive support to gender equality in human settlements development, bearing in mind that much more remains to be done as indicated during the review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. Women still lack access to land, property, inheritance, credit, adequate water and sanitation, transport and infrastructure, and decision-making at both national and local level.

The draft resolution also responds and reacts to new areas identified during the assessment of gender mainstreaming in UN-HABITAT’s work, outcomes of the World Urban Forum, the Second World Conference on Safer Cities for Women, the preliminary finding of the urban sector survey in Africa, and consultations with the gender focal points of UN-HABITAT.

Youth and UN-HABITAT

Q1. Does UN-HABITAt have a mandate on youth activities?

In addition to the Habitat Agenda and the outcomes of the Special Session (Istanbul+5), the mandate for the implementation of youth related programmes is also derived from various resolutions. These include Resolution 17/19 of 14 May 1999 for a partnership with youth and Resolution 18/3 of 16 February 2001, inviting all key players and partners to formalize partnerships with UN-HABITAT with a view to realizing the goals of the secure tenure and urban governance campaigns.

More recently, UN-HABITAT’s work on youth issues stems from Resolution 19/13 on enhancing the engagement of youth in the work of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme. This resolution called on the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT to develop a Global Partnership Initiative on Urban Youth Development in Africa (GPI) in partnership with other United Nations agencies, and to ensure the active participation of UN-HABITAT in the Secretary General's initiative on youth employment – especially within the framework of the United Nations Millennium Declaration goal of improving the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020.

Q2. How does UN-HABITAT work with the youth?

UN-HABITAT has a two-pronged approach to the engagement of youth in its activities: Mainstreaming and integrating youth in all its programmes and promotion of youth participation through consultations on issues related to UN-HABITAT’s governance. Since UN-HABITAT will not be able to engage directly with all youth groups globally, the main thrust will be to work through major youth networks that have regional and national presence. This approach will enable the youth to participate in decision-making and implementation of activities at national and local levels.

Secondly, in terms of technical cooperation, the Safer Cities Programme of UN-HABITAT engages the youth in training and income generating activities as a way to discourage them from being sucked into crime and other anti-social behaviour. The value based water education programme also focuses on the youth as does the women housing empowerment programme which prioritized young participants.

Q&A: Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)

(draft resolution L.10)

Q1. What is the role of CSD? Does CSD adopt binding decisions?

• The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED); to monitor and report on the implementation of the Earth Summit agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. The CSD is a functional commission of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), with 53 members.

• The Commission reports to the Economic and Social Council and, through it, to the General Assembly through the Second Committee. The decisions of CSD are negotiated by members and reflect commitments from member states, like all other inter-governmental resolutions. Decisions become binding once endorsed by the GA.

Q2. What are the institutional relations between CSD and our GC, if any?

The CSD was established to oversee agenda 21 in which UN-HABITAT is the designated focal point it the implementation of Chapter 7 on Sustainable Human Settlements. In Chapter 21 on Environmentally sound Management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements has a role to Promoting environmental sound waste disposal and treatment, with regard to standard and monitoring. In Chapter 28 on Local authorities in Support of Agenda 21, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) is recognized in particular with regard to partnerships to be fostered with a view to mobilizing increased international support for local authority programmes. Habitat is called upon to strengthen services in collecting information on strategies of local authorities. The link between CSD and UN-HABITAT can therefore not be overstated.

Q3. If there is such a clear institutional link why has UN-HABITAT not featured prominently at CSD?

The problem in the past was the marginalization of UN-HABITAT in the CSD process, despite its clear mandate, mainly because of its non programme status, but also as a result of a non-assertive management style that had prevailed in the organization while it was a centre. The GA, in recognition of UN-HABITAT’s clear role and responsibility in the CSD process, and to facilitate the participation of the agency in all future CSD sessions, has now passed a resolution on patterns of conferences effectively banning a possible conflict of interest of dates between UN-HABITAT’s GC and CSD sessions. The relevant resolution is attached in Annex 8. See its operative para 4 and 5 on page 2.

Q4. What are the relations between the three themes to be considered by CSD-13?

• Human settlements provide a concrete context for action. The struggle for achieving the WSSD plan of implementation and the MDGs for water and sanitation will have to be waged in human settlements – in our cities, towns and villages, where water is consumed and wastes are generated.

• At WSSD, UN-HABITAT has introduced the concept of sustainable urbanization. At this summit, UN-HABITAT also launched its water and sanitation partnership in Asia.

Q5. What is the specific mandate of UN-HABITAT with the themes of CSD-13?

• The GA resolution 56/204 specifically lists the role of UN-HABITAT on CSD. It states, “Decides that the Programme should strengthen its collaboration with the Commission on Sustainable Development and other relevant bodies in the implementation of the Habitat Agenda as it relates to sustainable development”.

• On the MDG target 11, UN-HABITAT is mandated to monitor the achievement of this target. It has established a monitoring mechanism, which can be adapted to include CSD-13 outcomes for follow-up and monitoring.

• On Water and Sanitation, General Assembly resolution 57/275 of 20 December 2002 requested the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) to support developing countries in implementing those targets in order to increase access to clean water, sanitation and adequate shelter, and to further support the implementation of the Water for African Cities Programme, as requested by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development.

• GC 19/6 Resolution of 9 May 2003 on water and sanitation in cities, requested the Executive Director to further strengthen and promote the work of UN-HABITAT in the field of urban drinking water and sanitation and to enhance cooperation with other United Nations and international agencies, and other relevant UN-HABITAT partnerships.

• The work programme of UN-HABITAT, based on the twin goals of Habitat Agenda – shelter for all and sustainable human settlements development – incorporates all necessary elements to follow-up on the CSD-13 outcomes related to Human settlements and urban water and sanitation.

See Annex 8.

Q&A: Habitat Programme Managers

(draft resolution L.12)

General information on this resolution

The Habitat Programme Managers (HPMs) are not part of the UN-HABITAT staffing table but an innovation of the Executive Director to find a cost effective way to establish a network to sustain and enhance UN-HABITAT’s normative activities in the developing countries, with priority assigned to LDCs. HPMS are national officers, and supported as far as possible by core funds for normative activities, and earmarked contributions through global programmes. The Executive Director establishes HPM posts depending on resource availability. Unless the Governing Council wishes to formalize their status onto the staffing table, it might not be necessary to adopt this resolution in its current form. If the GC chooses to adopt the resolution, then it is advisable not to mention the numbers of HPMs as that would effectively imply formal recognition of this category of staff members on the staffing table. HPMs have UNDP contracts and are considered under the rules and regulations guiding UNDP national officers.

As a management initiative, the ED did not have to seek the approval of the GC to make this innovation, but did inform the CPR and the GC of this initiative, in her statements to those bodies, during the past two and a half years. The GA welcomed this initiative in its resolution 57/275 of 20 December 2002 and has called upon UN-HABITAT to “continue to work closely with the other organizations of the United Nations system, integrating UN-HABITAT staff as appropriate into existing United Nations country offices;” in its GA resolution 59/239 of 22 December 2004.

In approving the core budget, the GC is kept informed of developments in the placement of HPMs in a number of countries. In principle, the funds allocated are part of the normative activities of UN-HABITAT. In the absence of HPMs, the same funds would be allocated to normative and campaign activities in those countries using consultants, which would be more expensive than HPMs not to mention limited effectiveness due to the consultants’ lack of linkage to the local coordination systems of the UN and resident donors.

1. Origin of the need for establishing Habitat Programme Managers?

Following the elevation of UNCHS to UN-HABITAT (resolution 56/206) and the need for better presence and representation at the country level to advocate the relevant Millennium Development Goals and the Habitat Agenda, and to mainstream the Habitat campaigns on secure tenure and urban governance, UNDP and UN-HABITAT signed an MOU in October 2002 to establish the posts of Habitat Programme Managers. This is in line with the overall UN policy on inter-agency cooperation at country level.

2. How are the countries selected?

Utmost priority is given to LDCs. However, upon request of interested Government and UNDP Country Offices and given the importance of the UN-HABITAT portfolio and the challenge faced by the Human Settlements sector, UN-HABITAT may also select other priority developing countries.

3. How are the HPMs selected?

Following discussion with the UNDP Resident Representative/UN Resident Coordinator, the generic TOR are reviewed and amended to suit the specific needs of the country. A letter is sent to inform the UN-HABITAT focal point Ministry and the post is advertised in one or more local newspapers for 2 or 3 weeks before the Recruitment Panel conducts the interview and proposes a candidate to the Executive Director. A one-year fixed-term contract of National Officer is granted through UNDP.

4. What are the main focus areas of the HPMs?

The HPMs are generally tasked to conduct the following activities: i) mainstreaming urban development and housing issues in country level activities of the UN system such as CCA/UNDAF- and other coordinated activities such as the PRSPs .ii) promoting the global and normative mandate, programmes and campaigns of UN-HABITAT, and iii) supporting operational activities of UN-HABITAT at the national and local levels.

5. How are the HPMs funded?

The funding for the HPMs combines allocation from global programmes, earmarked contributions and general purposes resources. In addition and wherever possible, recipient countries and project funding can be utilized to cover part of the cost. Based on the MOU signed with UNDP, country offices hosting HPMs are expected to provide office space and overall administrative support valued to about 25% of their cost.

Current funding has been mobilized through the General Purpose contribution to the Foundation (US$780,000), technical cooperation overhead (US$300,000) and global programmes and projects (balance). The funding for the 45 HPM’s that are expected to be recruited by the end of this year/early next year at an estimated total yearly cost of US$2.7 million will be covered by the General purpose contribution to the Foundation (US$1.2 million per year), global programmes and projects and special purpose contributions from interested Governments. The discussion and decision on HPM funding should be addressed in resolution L1 rather than L12.

6. How is the sustainability of the HPMs to be ensured?

The programmes and projects generated at country level are expected to contribute to strengthening the financial base and the quality of work of the HPM. However, it is expected that governments in a position to do so, including from recipient countries, will continue to provide additional funding through multi-year contributions to UN-HABITAT.

7. How many HPMs have been recruited and where?

The total number of HPMs is currently 32 (as of 30 March 2005), distributed as follows:

- Sub-Saharan Africa : 20

- Arab States : 02

- Asia and the Pacific : 05

- Latin America and the Caribbean: 05

As per the current planning, 13 additional HPMs will be recruited during 2005-2006

8. Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation

The HPMs are UN-HABITAT appointed UNDP national level staff-based in Country Offices and working for all Branches, Global Programmes and Units. Administratively and politically, they are working under the UN Resident Coordinator System as members of the UN Country Team. They report to designated focal points in the Regional Offices of UN-HABITAT and to the Monitoring and Evaluation Unit in the Office of the Executive Director. This has provided a new mechanism to ensure coordination of all UN-HABITAT activities (normative and operational) at country level.

To measure the performance, efficiency and effectiveness of HPMs, an evaluation will be carried out in the second half of 2006. A table showing the current outputs of HPMs is attached in Annex 9.

ANNEX IX

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME (UN-HABITAT) APRIL 2005

Habitat Programme Managers

| | | | | | | |

|Name |Country |Contract Period|Contribution to UNDAF-UNCT |Support to Normative |Operational Activities |Mobilization of Resources |

| | | | |Activities/Campaigns | | |

|Jose Didier Tonato |Benin |01/09/2004- |MDG working group. |Urban Sector Review. |Prepare Project documents (formulation |Contacts with donors |

| | |30/08/2005 |Conference for WHD. | |of national housing policy, land | |

| | | | | |tenure, CDS etc.) | |

|Basilisa Sanou |Burkina Faso |01/11/2004-31/1|Contribution in UNDAF. |Follow up of HQ missions. |Follow up global campaigns action plan |Contacts with donors (for resource|

| | |0/2005 |Inside UNDP. | |Assist in the formulation of Cities |mobilization and preparation of a |

| | | | | |Alliance/Ouagadougou. |database) |

| | | | | |Follow up project implementation | |

| | | | | |(RUSPS, WAC,BUS) | |

|Francois Muhirwe |Burundi |01/06/2004-31/0|UNDP Annual Report on MDG/Human |Follow up of HQ missions. |Contribute in the formulation mission |Contacts with UNDP for finance |

| | |5/2005 |Settlements | |of UNDP cooperation programme. | |

| | | |Contact Group, CAP and Interagency| |Prepare TORs for the formulation of a | |

| | | |Section on resettlement. | |national housing policy. | |

| | | |Inside UNDP. | |Prepare Project Documents. | |

| | | |Conference for WHD. | |Follow up project implementation. | |

|Margaret Andoseh |Cameroon |01/01/2004-31/1|Contribution in UNDAF. |Follow up of HQ missions. |Facilitate RUSPS, WAC, etc., |Contact with donors |

| | |2/2004 |Participation in meeting of |Creation of Cameroonian Urban |activities. | |

| | | |funding agencies involved in |Forum. | | |

| | | |decentralization. | | | |

| | | |Information for WHD. | | | |

|Kanene Mudimubadu |DRC |01/04/2004-31/0|UNDP annual report on MDG/Human |Follow up of HQ missions. |RUSPS implemented by HPM. |Contact with donors |

| | |3/2005 |settlements. | |Follow up project implementation. | |

| | | |Expert groups on reconstruction | |Prepare project documents. | |

| | | |and rehabilitation of | |Member of an evaluation team on | |

| | | |infrastructures. | |resettlement and rehabilitation for | |

| | | |Network with Government and UNDP. | |UNDP. | |

| | | |Information for WHD. | | | |

|Ali El-Faramawy |Egypt |01/09/2004-31/0|Heading Urban Planning and Solid |Co-organized OICC/UN-HABITAT |Supporting the activities in the |Represented UN-HABITAT in |

| | |8/2005 |Waste Task Forces for CCA/UNDAF. |technical symposium in Dubai. |Ismailia Upgrading project. |conferences, meetings and seminars|

| | | |Leading Joint Programming on “Slum|Reviewed BP applications from |Supporting CA evaluation and SCP/BUS |in Egypt. Provides policy support |

| | | |Upgrading and LED”. |Arab States Region. |missions. |to many key institutions (GOPP). |

| | | | | |Involved in the preparation for | |

| | | | | |National Programme to up-scale | |

| | | | | |experience in Egypt. | |

| | | | | |Coordinating the implementation of the | |

| | | | | |Regional Urban Profile Study (RUSPS). | |

| | | | | |Supporting UNDP in the preparation of | |

| | | | | |the MDG report. | |

|Eyob Kahsai |Eritrea |01/11/2004-31/1| | | | |

| | |0/2005 | | | | |

|Tewodros Tigabu |Ethiopia |01/05/2004-30/0|UN Country team. |Has developed a “Project |Daily contact with Government | |

| | |4/2005 |Presentation to national |Portfolio” on Habitat projects |authorities at City Council and | |

| | | |journalists on UN-HABITAT |under implementation in |Ministerial levels. | |

| | | |projects. |Ethiopia. |Has been working with the Donor | |

| | | |MDG need assessment focal point. | |Assistance Group in order to identify | |

| | | | | |additional projects and sources of | |

| | | | | |funds. | |

|Victoria Abankwa |Ghana |01/08/2004-31/0| | | | |

| | |7/2005 | | | | |

|Fole Sherman |Liberia |01/11/2004-31/1| | | | |

| | |0/2005 | | | | |

|Monique Rakotoarison |Madagascar |01/11/2004-31/1|Strengthening partnership with |Follow up of HQ missions. |Follow up project implementation. |Negotiation with UNDP for finance |

| | |0/2005 |Government and development |Contribution to the formulation|Prepare launching of global campaigns. |(2005 activities) |

| | | |partners. |of the national policy on land |New project identification. | |

| | | | |tenure. | | |

|Jaime H. Comiche |Mozambique |01/07/2004-30/0| | | | |

| | |6/2005 | | | | |

|George Kozonguini |Namibia |01/04/2005-31/0| | | | |

| | |3/2006 | | | | |

|Johnson Falade |Nigeria |01/07/2004-30/0| | | | |

| | |6/2005 | | | | |

|Nael Salman |OPT |01/01/2005-31/1| | | | |

| | |2/2005 | | | | |

|Monique Sevumba |Rwanda |01/07/2004-30/0|Strengthening partnership with |Follow up of HQ missions. |Prepare project documents and TORs. |Contact with donors |

| | |6/2005 |Government. | |Follow up project implementation. | |

| | | |Conference for WHD. | | | |

| | | |Inside UNDP. | | | |

|Mansour S. Tall |Senegal |01/10/2004-30/0|Strengthening partnership with |Follow up of HQ missions. |Follow up global campaigns action plan.| |

| | |9/2005 |Government and development |Preparation of substantive |Follow up project implementation | |

| | | |partners. |papers. |(RUSPS, LA21,etc) Assisting the | |

| | | |Logistics for ED’s missions | |formulation of Cities Alliance/Dakar | |

| | | |Information for WHD. | | | |

|Joseph Muana |Sierra Leone |01/11/2004-31/1| | | | |

| | |0/2005 | | | | |

|Pinky Vilakazi |South Africa |01/01/2004-31/1|Participating in the UNDP |Participated in the UUDP/GTZ |Discussions with members of the South | |

| | |2/2004 |Programme Managers forum. |Evaluation workshop. |African Department of Water Affairs and| |

| | | |Participating in the UNDP |Coordinated meetings with the |Forestry. | |

| | | |Consultative Workshop with three |Urban Sector Network, a network|Discussions with members of the South | |

| | | |Regional Stakeholders. |of NGO’s working in human |African Department of Housing regarding| |

| | | |Represented UN-HABITAT at the |settlements in urban areas. |Amchud and the WHD celebrations. | |

| | | |newly established Regional Service|Participated in the |Meetings with USAID and the Belgian | |

| | | |Centre in Johannesburg. |government’s National Housing |Embassy are scheduled to take place to | |

| | | | |Research Seminar. |discuss bilateral support to programmes| |

| | | | | |which will be supported by UN-HABITAT. | |

|Phillemon Mutashubirwa |Tanzania |01/09/2004-31/0|UN Country team. |Coordinated activities on the |Discussions with members of the US | |

| | |8/2005 |Organized Public events for World |Water for Africa Cities Dar es |Congress on local settlements and their| |

| | | |Habitat Day. |Salaam Programme. |management in Tanzania. | |

| | | |Logistics for EC-UN-HABITAT 2005 |Coordinated activities on the |Discussions with Canadians on | |

| | | |Workshop. |Lake Victoria Region Water and |Sustainable Cities Initiative. | |

| | | | |Sanitation Infrastructure |Facilitated in the signing of a MOU | |

| | | | |Rehabilitation Programme. |with the Government of Tanzania for | |

| | | | |Assisted in the creation of an |Cities without Slums Initiative. | |

| | | | |agreement with Tanzania Women | | |

| | | | |Lands Access Trust. | | |

|Peter K. Wegulo |Uganda |01/01/2005-31/1| | | | |

| | |2/2005 | | | | |

|ROAP | | | | | | |

|Sue le Mesurier |Fiji |01/06/2004-31/0|UN Country team. |Assisted in the establishment |Discussions with the NZAID and NZ |Negotiations with the New Zealand |

| | |5/2005 |Supported organizing the Workshop |of a steering committee to |Police on regional safer communities |Government |

| | | |on Women’s Rights to Adequate |develop a housing policy for |initiative. | |

| | | |Housing and Land with Special |Fiji. |Discussions with the NZ Government and | |

| | | |Rapporteur. |Initiate discussions on the |ADB on Cities Alliance/Slum upgrading | |

| | | |Provided support to the Safer |implementation of a GUGC in |project for Fiji. | |

| | | |Cities Mission to Vanuatu, Solomon|Fiji. | | |

| | | |Islands and PNG. |Obtained approval of Fiji GUGC | | |

| | | | |by Commonwealth Regional Local | | |

| | | | |Government Symposium. | | |

| | | | |Recruitment of Australian Youth| | |

| | | | |Ambassador for Fiji GUGU. | | |

|Dodo Juiliman |Indonesia |01/01/2005-31/1|UN Country team. |Facilitating the preparation of|Coordinate activities with BUILD, |Contact with UNDP and NGOs |

| | |2/2005 |Supported organizing the Lake Toba|the Community-based Housing |Co-BUILD and KPEL | |

| | | |meeting in Medan. |Guidebook of Kimpraswil. |Intensive involvement in the design of | |

| | | |Participated in the National |Participating in the ASEAN |the UNDP/UN-HABITAT BRIDGE project. | |

| | | |Dialogue on MDGs and preparation |Association for Planning and |Facilitated the comprehensive | |

| | | |of CCA |Housing Seminar. |documentation of the Co-BILD and KPEL | |

| | | |Participating in meetings of the |Facilitating the documentation |projects. | |

| | | |Anti-Eviction Advocacy Group. |of forced eviction cases. | | |

|Lowie Rosales |Philippines |01/08/2004-31/0|UN Country team. |Continued support to the |Prepared Flash Appeal for emergency |Negotiated an US$800K partnership |

| | |7/2005 |Supported preparation of Common |Philippine Urban Forum (PUF). |shelter and community rehabilitation |with ADB governance fund for MDG |

| | | |Country Assessment (CCA) and |Established linkages with the |projects for typhoon affected areas. |localization. |

| | | |UNDAF. |Campaigns flagships such as the|Prepared and received approval for MDG |Designed a US$500K proposal on |

| | | |Appointed as UNCT’s focal point on|use of the Participatory Urban |Localization Project from UNDP for 12 |Neighbourhood Slum Upgrading for |

| | | |effectively localizing MDGs. |Development Decision-Making |pilot sites. |Cities without Slum Initiative of |

| | | |Attended the First Philippine |tool kit at the barangay | |Cities Alliance. |

| | | |Development Forum, formerly known |(village) level in five cities.| | |

| | | |as consultative Group (CG) and |Mainstreaming the PUDM through | | |

| | | |represented the whole UN Country |the Local Government Academy | | |

| | | |Team in the Decentralization and |into Capacity-Building support | | |

| | | |Local Governance Working Group. |cities through Urban | | |

| | | | |Development and Management | | |

| | | | |Training Programme. | | |

|Disa Weerapana/ Conrad de |Sri Lanka |01/03/2004-31/0|UN Country team. |Contributed to incorporate the |Formulated the new phase project |Served as a member of the Colombo |

|Tissera | |5/2005 |Enhanced influence of UN-HABITAT |norms and principles of Good |document of the UNDP/UN-HABITAT Urban |Mayor’s Advisory group. |

| | | |in the policies and programmes of |Urban Governance in the Key |Governance Support Project (UGSP) and |Assisted the Ministry of Foreign |

| | | |the focal ministry. |policy documents of the |negotiated increased funding. |Affairs of Japan to formulate a |

| | | |Facilitated coordination between |government such as the National|Served as a member of the Transition |national integrated framework for |

| | | |UNDP and UN-HABITAT. |Urban Policy Framework serving |Task Team of Multilateral Agencies and |all UN Agencies to participate in |

| | | |Participated in the meetings of |as a member of the National |assisted in the drafting of the Shelter|accessing resources from the Human|

| | | |the United Nations Resident |Task Force responsible for its |and Local Government sections of the |Security Trust Fund of Japan. |

| | | |Coordinator System and actively |formulation. |Transition Strategy for the North East.| |

| | | |contributed to coordinating |Assisted in the planning of the| | |

| | | |frameworks of the system. |World Habitat Day National | | |

| | | | |commemoration. | | |

|ROLAC | | | | | | |

|Fabio Giraldo Isaza |Colombia |01/01/2005-31/1|UN Country team. |Launch of National Campaign |Support to implementation of Cities |Negotiations with the Government |

| | |2/2005 |ECLAC’s expert group meetings and |with the theme “Credit for my |Alliance project in Cali. |and with the municipality of |

| | | |in multiple national conferences. |Habitat”. |Design and support to World Bank |Bogota. |

| | | |Public events for World Habitat |Urban observatories promoted |funded, UN-HABITAT executed, project on| |

| | | |Day. |with national school of public |Micro-finance for housing. | |

| | | | |administration (ESAP) |Interagency urban development project | |

| | | | | |support in Pasto and Buenaventura. | |

|Ileana Ramirez |Costa Rica |01/05/2004-30/0|UN Country team. |Establishment of Urban | |Negotiations with the Government, |

| | |4/2005 |MINURVI 2004 IN San Jose. |Observatories in EU | |EU and the municipality of San |

| | | |Central American Council of |metropolitan development | |Jose |

| | | |Housing and Human Settlements |project. | | |

| | | |Ministers. |Support for the initiation of | | |

| | | | |LA21 programme. | | |

| | | | |Initiate talks on the start of | | |

| | | | |a Campaign in Costa Rica. | | |

|Monica Davila |Ecuador |01/11/2004-31/1|UN Country team. |Assist in preparatory |Assist in the design of a project on |Negotiations with the Central |

| | |0/2005 | |activities for regional event |the strengthening of sub-national |Government and the municipality of|

| | | | |on local economic development. |authorities. |Quito. |

| | | | |Assist in completion of |Assist in the design of a technical | |

| | | | |activities related to the UMP. |cooperation framework. | |

| | | | |Support the development of a LA| | |

| | | | |21 programme. | | |

|Carline Noailles |Haiti |01/02/2005-31/0|UN Country team. |Promotion of Global Campaigns |Development of a pipeline of projects | |

| | |1/2006 |Participate in the coordination |in Haiti. |for funding in the context of the ICF. | |

| | | |group for the follow up to the | | | |

| | | |Interim Cooperation Framework in | | | |

| | | |Haiti. | | | |

|Cecilia Martinez |Mexico |01/07/2004-30/0|UN Country team |Launch of National Campaign on |Renewal of Country Programme with |Negotiations with the Governors of|

| | |6/2005 |UN Task force in monitoring of |Participatory Planning. |SEDSOL. |Veracruz and Nuevo Leon. |

| | | |MDGs. |Provided guidelines and |Support to the preparation of regional | |

| | | |Accompanied government on missions|technical assistance on Local |conference and regional follow up | |

| | | |to Washington and Madrid. |Urban Observatories. |project on urban water supply and | |

| | | |Public events for World Habitat |Provided support to the |sanitation. | |

| | | |Day 2004. |National Best Practices Award. | | |

______________________

* HSP/GC/20/1.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download