1. 4 Risk mitigation
1.1. Approach
1.1.1. identify areas where regulation & policy goals lag behind practice (indicative of informal governance)
1.1.2. identify how informal spaces are governed & by who
1.1.3. How can NUP change their incentives & what can we anticipate about players avoiding compliance?
1.1.4. Also break down system into actors and further bifurcate multiple identities of these actors to identify incentives within a specific country context
1.2. Example
1.2.1. Reforms in land administration may be frustrated/blocked by politicians, community leaders acting outside office perhaps as slum lords to provide tenure security in return for payment, loyalty or electoral support.
1.2.2. One strategy would therefore be to make them benefit and a part of the process of codification of property rights of slum residents eg. property rights to slum residents in exchange for a monthly rent which is partly shared with the informal land lord from whom the municipality "purchases" the land
1.3. multi-stakeholder ownership of NUP formulation & implementation
1.3.1. General questions to identify key stakeholders
1.3.1.1. Who are the major land owners
1.3.1.1.1. Specific families?
1.3.1.1.2. Dominant communities?
1.3.1.1.3. Real estate driven by who?
1.3.1.2. Who controls the media
1.3.1.2.1. E.g. For Kenya: Aga Khan Foundation
1.3.2. Actor specific questions
1.3.2.1. Government
1.3.2.1.1. national & local
1.3.2.1.2. politicians & bureaucrats
1.3.2.2. development partners
1.3.2.3. business sector
1.3.2.4. civil society
1.3.2.4.1. NGOs
1.3.2.4.2. Research
1.3.2.5. customary authorities
1.4. Thematic Lessons that feed into NUP articulation
1.4.1. Governance
1.4.1.1. Typical challenge 1: department silos
1.4.1.1.1. Solution a: horizontal integration
1.4.1.1.2. Inconsistent procedures and separate mechanisms
1.4.1.2. Typical challenge 2: weak municipal authority
1.4.1.2.1. Solution a: vertical integration
1.4.1.2.2. Solution b: innovative financing
1.4.1.3. Opportunity 1: Raising resources
1.4.1.3.1. from green sectors & land based value capture
1.4.1.4. Questions to ask
1.4.1.4.1. Design and Adoption of Decentralization
1.4.1.4.2. Reform trajectory
1.4.1.4.3. Inter-government relationships
1.4.1.4.4. Elitist vs. pluralist influence
1.4.1.4.5. Development partners
1.4.1.5. working notes
1.4.1.5.1. A host of obstacles, including electoral challenges, bureaucratic opposition, and institutional and policy legacies, can hinder reform
2. Stakeholders
2.1. Political Partners
2.1.1. National
2.1.1.1. General
2.1.1.1.1. Ministries
2.1.1.1.2. Secretariats
2.1.1.1.3. National Commissions
2.1.1.1.4. National Sector Committee
2.1.1.2. China
2.1.1.2.1. National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)
2.1.1.2.2. Relevant Ministries: Transport, IT, Science&Tech
2.1.1.3. Mexico
2.1.1.3.1. Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT); Secretariat of Agrarian, Territorial and Urban Development (SEDATU), National Housing Comission (CONAVI)
2.1.2. Intermediate
2.1.3. City
2.1.3.1. China
2.1.3.1.1. Beijing Municipal Commission of Transport (BMCT)
2.2. Implementation Partner
2.2.1. Research Centres
2.3. Cooperation Partner
2.3.1. Universities
2.4. International Partners
3. 1 Theory of Change
3.1. Objectives
3.1.1. SDG 11 on urbanization - constant
3.1.1.1. inclusive, safe, resilient. sustainable
3.1.2. national priorities - variable
3.1.2.1. eg. attracting investment in cities
3.1.2.2. eg. correcting service deficits
3.2. Interventions
3.2.1. Legislation
3.2.1.1. NUP vision
3.2.1.1.1. horizontal integration
3.2.1.1.2. vertical integration
3.2.1.2. Legal backing
3.2.1.2.1. Acts on a) political & financial decentralization b) land acquisition by state and clarification of property rights and so on ...
3.2.2. Technical capacity
3.2.2.1. NUP trainings
3.2.2.2. Financial Plan for funding urbanization
3.2.2.2.1. sources of funding can be attracted depending on sector
3.3. Path from inputs to outcomes
3.3.1. implementation strategy
3.3.2. monitoring & evaluation
4. 2 Urban themes
4.1. Governance
4.1.1. Urban Legislations
4.1.1.1. tenure system
4.1.1.2. property rights record
4.1.1.3. land acquisition / adjustment policy
4.1.2. Municipal finance
4.1.2.1. Capacity to levy & collect tax
4.1.2.2. Land value sharing
4.1.3. Multiple Institutions (organizations)
4.1.3.1. Thematic
4.1.3.1.1. Land Administration
4.1.3.2. visibility
4.1.3.2.1. formal
4.1.3.2.2. informal
4.2. Planning
4.2.1. Regional & City Plan
4.2.1.1. urban-rural linkages
4.2.1.2. hierarchy of cities
4.2.1.3. economic growth: industries, new towns, transport corridors
4.2.2. Land bank strategy
4.2.3. Housing
4.2.4. Transport
4.3. Utilities
4.3.1. Water
4.3.2. Wastewater
4.3.3. SWM
4.4. Economy
4.4.1. Transport & Infrastructure
4.4.2. Green sectors & energy
4.4.3. Employment & Livelihoods
4.5. Sustainability
4.5.1. Environment
4.5.1.1. pollution
4.5.1.2. renewable energy
4.5.2. Social
4.5.2.1. human rights
4.5.2.2. gender equality
4.5.2.3. youth & elderly
4.5.2.4. safer cities
5. 3 Risk factors
5.1. Governance
5.1.1. Urban Legislations
5.1.1.1. incomplete financial devolution
5.1.1.1.1. central governments: structurally advantageous position for collecting public resources relative to subnational governments so
5.1.1.1.2. municipalities don't have power to raise revenue from potential urban taxes
5.1.2. Municipal Finance
5.1.2.1. limited resources
5.1.2.1.1. municipality is too weak to issue municipal bonds
5.1.3. Multiplicity of institutions
5.1.3.1. Eg. Silos in E-data management
5.1.3.1.1. departments of different ministries contract different software developers and hence data migration and operability becomes an issue
5.1.3.2. Thematic
5.1.3.2.1. Land Administration