The Role of Local Authorities in the New Urban Agenda: Progress or Illusion ?

By Frédéric Vallier, Secretary General of the International Association of Francophone Mayors

In October 2016, the adoption of the New Urban Agenda (NUA) at the Habitat III conference in Quito (Ecuador) marked a historic turning point. For the first time, the international community explicitly recognised the central role of local authorities in building sustainable, inclusive and resilient cities. The NUA, a document comprising 175 paragraphs, proclaims that “achieving sustainable urban development depends on the ability of local governments to play a key role” (NUA, §13).

The outcome of advocacy by networks of local and regional governments brought together within the Global Task Force, and of the determination of UN-Habitat Executive Director Joan Clos, a former mayor of Barcelona, this text was intended to lay the foundations for a new, more participatory, inclusive and ambitious approach to the development of cities facing rapid population growth and, at times, development that is difficult to control.

Yet, ten years after Habitat III, the question arises: has this recognition translated into genuinely improved capacities, greater autonomy and tangible resources for local governments? Or does the NUA remain a statement of intent, with no transformative effect on institutional and financial realities?

This article offers a critical analysis of the progress made since 2016, highlighting symbolic and operational advances, but also the persistent gaps between stated ambitions and effective implementation. We will examine:

• The commitments made in support of local authorities.

• The mechanisms created to support them.

• The structural obstacles (financial, legal and political) that limit their action.

Habitat III and the New Urban Agenda: a symbolic turning point in addressing the challenge of urbanisation

Some initial reference points :

• 60% of the world’s population lives in cities, a figure expected to reach nearly 70% by 2050.

• 70% to 80% of CO₂ emissions are produced by urban areas, according to the IPCC.

• More than 1 billion people live in “informal settlements” (previously referred to as “slums”), according to UN-Habitat.

Faced with these challenges, Habitat III aimed to rethink urban governance worldwide. Unlike the previous conferences (Habitat I in 1976 and Habitat II in 1996), which focused primarily on the role of states in urban development, Habitat III placed cities and local authorities at the heart of the discussion.

The NUA’s key commitments to local authorities

The NUA enshrines several fundamental principles for local governments :

Principle	Excerpt from the NUA	Implications
Political recognition	“We recognise the role of local and regional governments in implementing the New Urban Agenda.” (§13)	Greater international legitimacy.
Decentralisation	“We encourage the decentralisation of responsibilities and resources.” (§38)	Transfer of powers from central governments.
Financing	“We call for innovative financing mechanisms for cities.” (§100)	Access to dedicated funds.
Participation	“We emphasise the importance of local actors’ participation.” (§11)	Involvement in decision-making.
Institutional capacity	“We will support capacity-building for local governments.” (§14)	Training, data and tools for action.

As an ambitious normative framework, the NUA rests on three pillars:

• A political vision: “Leave no one and no place behind” (leave no one and no place behind) (the principle of inclusion).

• An operational framework: 175 commitments organised around 6 priorities (housing, mobility, the environment, etc.).

• A monitoring mechanism: the World Urban Forum (WUF) and national implementation reports.

On the tenth anniversary of its adoption, an analysis of the results is needed, or at least we should examine whether the principles have been followed and the tools put in place.

Concrete progress: recognition, tools and initiatives

Since 2016, local authorities have gained legitimacy, visibility and representation

Local and regional governments are increasingly recognised as actors in their own development, rather than merely as implementing bodies or management authorities.

Their networks have organised themselves within the Global Task Force to become credible interlocutors for the UN and its agencies.

An advisory group on the future of the United Nations, established by the UN Secretary-General, included a substantial delegation of senior elected officials, including the mayors of Paris (President of the International Association of Francophone Mayors), Rabat and Montreal, and the President of the Nouakchott Region (President of UCLG Africa), who served as co-rapporteur of the group.

Participation in UN bodies: mayors and local elected officials are now invited to contribute to discussions on implementing the SDGs (particularly SDG 11), notably at the annual High-Level Forum in New York.

Limitations in implementing the NUA at state level :

Despite these advances at the global level, it must be acknowledged that very few countries have reformed their laws to align their local governance with the NUA. UN-Habitat reports show that fewer than half of governments have implemented reforms incorporating the NUA’s expectations into their legislation. Worse still, in some countries, financial, climate, political and security crises are being used to justify the recentralisation of decision-making and the concentration of funding at state level. As a result, very few local governments have the financial capacity to pursue sustainable urban development policies. Added to this is a lack of human capacity in cities, due to shortages of resources and qualified staff.

The financing question:

As the lifeblood of action, financing remains a major sticking point. Yet several financial mechanisms have been created: the Green Cities Fund (Green Cities Fund), the Sustainable Cities Fund (Sustainable Cities Program) and urban resilience funds.

It must be acknowledged that these funds remain far too inaccessible to cities: many are captured by states, which do not always ensure their distribution to their local and regional governments, and many are simply not mobilised. According to the World Bank, only 1–2% of international climate funds are directly accessible to local governments.

In practice, states capture 80% of funding before redistributing it (or not) to local governments.

Co-financing is also an issue: cities often have to co-finance 20–30% of projects, which is very difficult, if not impossible, for municipalities with limited own-source resources.

Lack of capacity: many cities in developing countries face a severe shortage of human resources available to prepare funding applications and also require capacity-building to implement projects. This situation creates a further injustice: accessible funding is captured by cities that already have the greatest capacity, while those that need it most cannot access it.

Enormous needs, insufficient resources

Urban financing needs are estimated by the World Bank at USD 4.5 trillion per year by 2030, comprising USD 1 trillion per year for affordable housing, USD 1.5 trillion per year for adaptation to climate disruption and USD 2 trillion per year for infrastructure. Yet the funds available fall far short of meeting these needs.

Budget centralisation

In many countries, local authorities are financially dependent on central governments :

Country	% of local budget controlled by the state	Cities’ fiscal autonomy	Example
France	60%	Low	Municipalities depend on state grants.
Brazil	70%	Moderate	Municipalities receive federal transfers.
India	80%	Very low	Cities have almost no own-source resources.
Germany	20%	High	The Länder and municipalities have extensive fiscal autonomy.
South Africa	50%	Moderate	Metropolitan municipalities have greater room for manoeuvre.

→ In centralised countries, local authorities remain dependent and have little autonomy; in developing countries, local governments’ financial autonomy is very limited and the resources allocated by national authorities are very scarce.

North–South inequality

Of the 100 cities receiving the most World Bank financing (2020–2024), 80% are in high-income countries (reference: World Bank, 2024).

Governance: between decentralisation and recentralisation

Uneven reforms

While some countries have embarked on decentralisation reforms, many announcements remain without genuine implementation. Decentralisation is sometimes confused with the deconcentration of state services across territories. Overall, the lack of willingness on the part of central governments is glaring, and we are even seeing policies being recentralised in the name of efficiency or cost rationalisation.

Yet some examples show that successful decentralisation policies have an impact on poverty reduction and economic development; more detailed studies of the correlation between decentralisation and economic development could usefully strengthen the case for a genuine decentralisation policy.

Participation: an illusion?

The NUA promotes the participation of local actors, communities and the population in general, but in practice this participation is very limited. For example, women’s representation on municipal councils remains very low.

Similarly, although young people sometimes account for more than half of the population, they are not involved in decisions that affect them and their future. Yet Gen Z demonstrations have shown that they know how to mobilise and that their expectations are high.

At the international level, although local and regional governments and civil society are consulted, they do not participate in decision-making or negotiations on climate or the implementation of the SDGs, for example.

Capacity: persistent shortages of human and technical resources

Lack of local data

• 60% of cities in the Global South have no data collection system (UN-Habitat, 2022).

• Only 30% of municipalities have disaggregated data (by gender, age and income).

• Some cities are growing so rapidly that it is difficult, or even impossible, to know their exact population (Lagos, Kinshasa, etc.).

→ Without data, it is impossible to plan, evaluate or advocate for funding. The tools available should make it possible to address this gap, notably through satellite data, but these resources come at a cost that developing countries, and even more so local and regional governments, struggle to absorb.

Lack of technical expertise

As I have already mentioned above, municipalities’ lack of capacity hinders their development and their access to existing funding and support programmes. On the one hand, skills are lacking; on the other, training for local government staff comes at a cost.

It is a vicious circle: low pay for local government staff prevents the recruitment of sufficient numbers of qualified personnel, and once trained, staff tend to seek better-paid positions. Finally, patronage also occurs in many local governments because recruitment procedures are insufficiently structured. Thus, in 2023, the World Bank noted that 40% of cities had no department dedicated to urban planning and that only 20% of African cities employed engineers or urban planners.

→ Result: without in-house resources, many cities depend on external consultants or organisations that are expensive and sometimes disconnected from local realities.

An imbalance between ambitions and resources

The NUA is an ambitious text, but its implementation faces three major obstacles: lack of financing, the absence of decentralisation and lack of capacity:

Obstacle	Cause	Consequence
Lack of financing	Budget centralisation by states and a lack of overall resources.	Cities lack the resources to implement the NUA.
Political centralisation	Because of a lack of trust in local capacities, central administrations and governments struggle to delegate responsibilities and resources to local authorities.	Local authorities remain dependent on the willingness of central authorities.
Limited capacity	Lack of data, expertise and human resources.	Many cities struggle to plan or evaluate their actions properly.

Consequently, the New Urban Agenda is a useful normative framework, but not a lever for transformation.

The actors: how, and with whom, can the obstacles be overcome ?

City networks :

• Advocacy for more direct financing of cities.

• Co-financing and support for cities in their development projects and investments.

• Example: the International Association of Francophone Mayors’ (AIMF) Cooperation Fund raised 50 million between 2020 and 2025, including 18 million in own funds, to finance 70 investment projects in cities.

Funders :

• World Bank, development agency, EU, Green Climate Fund: financing urban projects.

• Example: the Green Cities Fund finances projects in African cities; the French Development Agency is the first agency to finance city-led projects directly.

Citizens :

• Mobilisation of civil society organisations (e.g. Slum Dwellers International, Habitat for Humanity, etc.).

• Social movements (spontaneous Gen Z movements, networks of locally elected women such as REFELA, etc.).

Has the New Urban Agenda reduced North–South inequalities?

The NUA was intended to reduce inequalities, but in practice the wealthiest cities capture the majority of available funds and have the capacity to implement the recommendations set out in the urban agenda, while the poorest cities struggle to find financing and organise themselves to implement sustainable development policies.

Outlook and recommendations

For local authorities

Recommendation	Concrete action
Strengthen networks	Support advocacy by networks participating in the GTF and networks that support cities’ development, such as AIMF.
Improve data collection	Invest in local data systems (with UN-Habitat’s assistance, for example).
Innovate in financing	Establish a cadastre to enable the collection of local and land taxes.
Involve citizens	Establish advisory councils (neighbourhood, youth and elders’ councils, etc.). Where possible, introduce participatory budgeting.

For states

Recommendation	Concrete action
Decentralise responsibilities	Transfer responsibilities for urban planning, local economic development, housing and transport to cities.
Decentralise financing	Allocate at least 20% of the national budget to local governments.
Simplify access to funds	Remove co-financing requirements for cities with limited resources.
Combat corruption	Strengthen transparency and citizen oversight mechanisms.
Create the conditions for trust between the state and local and regional governments	Establish mechanisms for consultation and the joint development of development policies.

For the international community

Recommendation	Concrete action
Increase direct financing	Allocate at least 20% of climate funds directly to cities.
Create flexible mechanisms	Adapt financing criteria to the realities of cities without own-source resources.
Strengthen local capacity	Finance training programmes for municipal employees.
Involve cities in global governance	Give city networks consultative status at the UN comparable to that of parliamentarians.
Rethink global governance	Fundamentally reform the governance of the UN, its agencies and international institutions to include local and regional governments and civil society. The example of the Francophonie could provide inspiration in this regard.
Increase development aid financing	Establish sustainable financing for networks supporting cities and local and regional governments, such as AIMF.

Conclusion

As it stands, the NUA remains an unfulfilled promise: strong symbolic recognition, but implementation that is still far too limited. The ball is now in the court of states, financial institutions and cities themselves; ten years remain before the adoption of a new urban agenda to turn this illusion into reality. This will require greater consideration of cities’ needs, but also the strengthening of UN-Habitat, the agency responsible for monitoring and supporting cities. A symbolic success but an operational disappointment, the success of the New Urban Agenda requires more decentralisation (power + money), more direct financing (20% of climate funds), more local capacity (data, expertise and human resources), and more coordination across all levels of decision-making to create the conditions for trust. Without these changes, the NUA will remain an illusion rather than a reality.