Capital Cities and Urban Sustainability examines how capital cities use their unique hub resources to develop and disseminate innovative policy solutions to promote sustainability. Cities are taking a leading role in defining a sustainable future at a time when national, state, and regional governments in several countries do not provide sufficient leadership. Capital cities stand out among cities as likely leading drivers in the effort to empower sustainable innovation as they provide a hub for connecting a variety of key constituencies. While acknowledging the successes capital cities have achieved, the international, multi-disciplinary contributors to this work discuss how there is room to do more and improve. The promotion of specific sustainability policies in crucial areas such as clean water provision, high tech innovation, public procurement contracting, and improving flood control in capital cities is examined through various global case studies. The examples range from relatively rich capital cities, such as Copenhagen, where the well-financed hub would be expected to succeed in generating sustainable policies, to poorer cities such as Phnom Penh, where such an optimistic outcome can seem less likely.

Global conversations around financing urban development typically neglect the importance of coordinating the activities of different stakeholders behind a shared vision for their city. In particular, low-income and other marginalized groups must be seen as entrepreneurs and partners in service delivery to enhance the efficacy of resource use and to reduce poverty. This paper explores the creation of non-traditional business models and alliances to invest in informal settlements. It presents examples from India, Kenya, Pakistan, Thailand and Zimbabwe, where local authorities, commercial banks and other formal actors have co-financed and co-delivered urban plans, housing and infrastructure through collaborations with organized groups of the urban poor. These groups make three critical contributions: financial resources, detailed information on the composition of informal settlements, and capabilities for collective decision-making and action. These contributions are underpinned by the financial and social capital developed through collective saving, and enable the delivery of complex urban improvements at scale.

Cities are assets, solutions and drivers of economic and social development. Cities possess huge untapped economic potential that can and should be leveraged to create wealth and economic opportunities for all. This requires good urban planning that supports urban compactness, integration, and connectivity. However, even the best urban plans risk ending up unused if they are not accompanied by financial and regulatory strategies for implementation. Strategic public investments must go hand in hand with strategic funding mechanisms and supporting governance systems. The report also identifies successful governance mechanisms for efficient and equitable provision of public services in metropolitan areas of developing countries, and shares experiences and methods to making public service provision more viable in peri-urban areas of large cities and in smaller urban centres of these countries.

The United Nations (UN) has of late been debating the new international development framework that will replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) post–2015. This process has been popularly referred to as the post-2015 development agenda. It is a fact that many of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) that have been identifi ed will impact on the role and responsibilities of local government, namely, poverty reduction; access to water and sanitation; health; education; economic growth; development of cities and human settlements; and resilience to climate change. A critical issue that was highlighted when the MDGs were introduced in 2000 was the implementation modalities as it was felt that the process and goals were primarily top down (CLGF 2014:3). Consequently, there has been strong advocacy for local government to be a key implementation partner in the achievement of the new sustainable development goals that would have been finalised in September 2015 (www.worldwewant2015.org/ localising2015; CLGF 2014:3; www.capacity.undp.org; Slack 2014:1). Key aspects of the debate and discussion to date have been how to localise the new development framework, evaluate the local impact of the future SDGs and ensure that the local dimension is prioritised and successfully implemented (UNDP 2014a:3). There is a firm belief that the issue of localisation has to extend beyond national, provincial/state/regional implementation and there should be a focus on how the new development agenda will be implemented locally and the implications for the local level of government in this regard. According to the UN, localisation denotes the “process of defining; implementing; and monitoring strategies at the local level for achievable global, national and subnational sustainable goals and targets” (UNDP 2014a:3). This process would involve the utilisation of distinct tools, mechanisms, strategies, platforms and innovations to ensure that the development agenda is effectively translated into firm action and concrete results at the local level to benefit communities. It is envisaged that it will be an inclusive process and will move beyond the municipal jurisdiction to draw in relevant stakeholders to create a strong and capable local authority. Viewed in this context, localisation is an integral part of the multilevel governmental system and more so in terms of attaining the sustainable development goals that will be shortly adopted by the international community (CLGF 2014:3).