|
|
Introduction
Urban Fact Sheets: Asia and the Near East
Introduction
The urban population in Southeast Asia tends to be concentrated in its highly industrialized capitals. Some capitals have grown at a phenomenal speed: Jakarta, for example, grew to 8 million residents in 15 years, one-tenth the time it took New York City to reach the same population.11 Urban population growth rates across Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines will increase three percent annually from 2000-2015. During the same period, rural populations are predicted to decrease slightly: -0.7 percent in Indonesia and -0.1 percent in the Philippines.
As the urban populations exceed rural populations in this sub-region, cities will struggle to provide basic services, education, training and employment opportunities to its new residents. Southeast Asian cities also face outdated and inefficient infrastructure systems and public services that cannot handle the influx of people who depend on better access to shelter, health services and education to improve the quality of their lives. As these countries further their decentralization efforts initiated in the 1990s, the financial and administrative autonomy of local governments will remain a significant challenge. Effective governance at the local level, resulting in improved urban services, the stimulation of private sector investments, and community participation, represents the linchpin to better cities in Southeast Asia.
Limited Economic Growth Opportunities
The rate of job creation has not matched population growth in Southeast Asia's major cities, contributing to downward pressure on real wages, and problems of unemployment, underemployment, and poverty. This situation was aggravated by the 1997 Asian financial crisis. This macroeconomic shock severely weakened the earning capacity of the urban poor who were vulnerable to the crisis' inflation and devalued currencies. City unemployment across the region is considerably higher than national levels - 7 percent in Phnom Penh, compared to 3 percent in Cambodia; 17 percent and 19 percent in Jakarta and Surabaya, compared to 15 percent in Indonesia.
The lack of employment opportunities is further exemplified in the city of Balikpapan, Indonesia (pop. 475,000). According to 2001 statistics, only 8 percent of the urban poor households had formal employment. Sixty-two percent worked in the informal sector, while 30 percent were unemployed.12 Opportunities in the informal economy also dominate the situation of the urban poor in Phnom Penh with short-term, unstable income sources from construction sites, food peddling, market vendors, domestic help and garbage recycling.c
Decreased earning power can have serious effects on the nutritional status of urban residents who may not be able to fall back on domestic food production in times of economic hardship. Surveys conducted in Indonesia since the crisis have illustrated this connection by showing a greater degradation of nutritional status amongst poor children in urban areas than in rural areas.14 Unfortunately, increased malnutrition often leads to lower productivity rates and thus begins a cycle that can have serious long-term consequences if central and local governments do not take preventative steps.
Lack of Environmental Services and High Exposure to Environmental Hazards
As urban areas, especially megacities, expand further, increases in traffic congestion, water and air pollution, and slums and squatters settlements are expected. Growing populations have frequently outpaced the development of urban infrastructure. It is estimated that 35 percent of the urban population were squatters and slum dwellers in 1999, living in unserviced or poorly serviced communities. Most Southeast Asian cities already face an acute shortage of safe drinking water and a fivefold increase in demand is anticipated within the next 40 years.15 The Philippines' fast urban growth put substantial pressure on quality of life and efficiency on the provision of water and sanitation services. This has led to persistently high incidences of infant and child morbidity in the secondary cities of the country.
A large percentage of industrial wastes in Southeast Asia, including hazardous chemicals, are discharged without treatment. These wastes directly affect the poor residents living near factories who are most vulnerable to these environmental hazards. Many urban waste disposal systems are also inadequate. Disposal of untreated wastewater is spreading water-borne diseases and damaging marine and aquatic life throughout the sub-region.
Decentralization
Despite significant efforts to devolve responsibilities and funding to local governments in recent years, the existing institutional arrangements for managing the urban sector in Southeast Asia are fragmented and weak. The Philippines has one of the most decentralized governance structures among developing countries with fully elected chief executives and legislative members at the local level.16 However, its cities, like many in Indonesia and Cambodia, lack the financial and human resources needed to provide appropriate governance for its population, especially in regards to subsidized services to its impoverished inhabitants. In addition, local governments can significantly improve its management of municipal employees and its ability to engage and involve community stakeholders.
In May 1999, Indonesia decentralized control over 11 vital services (including environmental, education and health services) to local governments. In January 2001, Indonesia transferred two million public sector workers from central to local government payrolls. This devolution of responsibility poses both the potential of great benefit in terms of increased efficiency and community-level participation and, if mismanaged, potential risks to the quality provision of services. Development professionals must work hand-in-hand with the central government, local governments and community groups to ensure that we see positive benefits from this transition. The legal and regulatory framework for providing basic services under the decentralized system and for involving the private sector needs improvement. Cost functions need to be adjusted to ensure that resource poor local governments are able to provide vital services to their constituents. Laws need to be passed encouraging local governments to find new ways of financing infrastructure development and services delivery. Local governments must also be given the skills necessary to properly plan, budget and manage the delivery of services in a participatory and sustainable manner.17
It is clear that overly centralized government systems can hamper the efficient and transparent delivery of services at a local level. Southeast Asian countries have learned this lesson and are now on a path towards implementation of a more rational distribution of responsibility between levels of government.
Role for USAID Assistance
Economic Growth: Efforts to facilitate housing loans and micro-credit loans to improve the livelihoods of urban poor have a direct, positive impact on economic growth. We can also support partnerships between NGOs, local governments and community groups that work with urban poor populations to increase skill and education levels.
Public Services: Private sector and community participation should be the key principles to improve the urban service delivery, along with the appropriate regulatory functions by the public sector. It is essential to develop a framework that provides appropriate incentive to the private sector participation in terms of both financing investments and operating services efficiently.
Decentralization: Effective planning and management at all levels of government must be promoted and institutionalized. Integral to this action is the enhanced revenue mobilization and financial management at the local government level. Further local government strengthening is required in the areas of planning, performance measures, financial and contractual management, regulation and land management, and regional approaches to the provision of urban services by several local governments to achieve economies of scales and efficiency.18
11 (UNESCAP/ ADB 1995)
12 http://infocity.org/F2F/poverty/ urban_poverty_profiles.htm
13 ibid
14 Helen Keller Foundation: National Sample Surveys 1998-2001
15 http://infocity.org/F2F/poverty/ urban_poverty_profiles.htm
16 http://www.adb.org/Documents/COSSs/INO/ino102.asp
17 ibid
18 http://www.worldbank.org/External/Urban/ UrbanDev.nsf/East+Asia+&+Pacific
|
|
