Better jobs, higher salaries and improved access to basic services – the bright lights of cities seem to promise these and more.
Sri Lanka and Maldives share much more than the tag of tourism hot spots, beautiful beaches, and similar cultural traits. Both island nations have a range of unique environments that are rich in biodiversity and serve a myriad of ecosystems functions.
Both countries are home to rich wetlands with a variety of fauna and flora that benefit the ecosystem, including flood protection, water purification, and natural air conditioning and provide food and support to local communities.
Sri Lanka has actively been working to ensure these essential ecosystems are protected. The Maldives has too commenced such great work. This work has produced a wealth of knowledge and innovations on how to manage and conserve wetlands.
Managing wetlands in Sri Lanka and Maldives
The wetland management and land use planning effort undertaken in Colombo under the World Bank-financed Metro Colombo Urban Development (MCUDP) project showcases resilience in urban land use planning and highlights how a city can become more livable by intermingling green spaces to its urban fabric. All this, while protecting wetlands and reaping the benefits of their natural ecosystem functions.
The MCUDP used robust strategies and sustainable economic models, such as wetland parks, to help save urban wetlands from threats such as encroachment and clearing. Through the Climate Change Adaptation Project (CCAP), funded by the European Union and the Government of Australia, Maldives has also taken steps to manage threats to its largest wetlands.
While the approaches to wetland management in both countries have been different there are many key lessons that can be shared.
Também disponível em português.
While bus services are often planned and coordinated by public authorities, many cities delegate day-to-day operations to private companies under a concession contract. Local government agencies usually set fares and routes; private operators, on the other hand, are responsible for hiring drivers, running services, maintaining the bus fleet, etc. Within this general framework, the specific terms and scope of the contract vary widely depending on the local context.
Bus concessions are multimillion-dollar contracts that directly affect the lives of countless passengers every day. When done right, they can foster vigorous competition between bidders, improve services, lower costs, and generate a consistent cash flow. However, too often the concessions do not deliver on their promise and there is a perception across much of Latin America that authorities have been unable to manage these processes to maximize public benefits.
As several Latin American cities are getting ready to renew their bus concessions—including major urban centers like Bogotá, Santiago de Chile, and São Paulo—now is a good time to look back on what has worked, what has not, and think about ways to improve these arrangements going forward.
- value for money
- Competition policy
- Public Procurement
- Public Service Delivery
- mass transit
- public transport
- public-private partnerships
- urban mobility
- urban transport
- sustainable mobility
- sustainable cities
- Sustainable Communities
- Public Sector and Governance
- Labor and Social Protection
- Law and Regulation
- Urban Development
- Latin America & Caribbean
Globally, 30% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner (IPV) during their lifetime. IPV prevalence is likely higher during humanitarian crises, when women and girls, men and boys, are more vulnerable to violence in the family and community, and during displacement. In fact, a growing body of evidence suggest that IPV is the most common form of violence in humanitarian settings but that it often receives less attention than non-partner sexual violence during conflict or humanitarian crisis.
Chronic depression affects about 20 percent of Nigerian heads of households, according to the most recent results of the Nigerian General Household Survey (GHS) Panel, which measures indicators from agriculture, welfare, and other areas of life in Nigeria once every two to three years. This statistic is linked to an additional finding that nearly 2 out of 5 Nigerian respondents have been affected by at least one negative event, such as conflict and/or the death of a household member.
The Internet of Things (IoT) heralds a new world in which everything (well, almost everything) can now talk to you, through a combination of sensors and analytics. Cows can tell you when they’d like to be milked or when they’re sick, plants can tell you about their soil conditions and light frequency, your fridge can tell you when your food is going bad (and order you a new carton of milk), and your elevator can tell you how well it’s functioning.
At the World Bank, we’re looking at all these things (Things?) from a development angle. That’s the basis behind the new report, “Internet of Things: The New Government to Business Platform”, which focuses on how the Internet of Things can help governments deliver services better. The report looks at the ways that some cities have begun using IoT, and considers how governments can harness its benefits while minimizing potential risks and problems.
In short, it’s still the Wild West in terms of IoT and governments. The report found lots of IoT-related initiatives (lamppost sensors for measuring pollution, real-time transit updates through GPS devices, sensors for measuring volumes in garbage bins), but almost no scaled applications. Part of the story has to do with data – governments are still struggling how to collect and manage the vast quantities of data associated with IoT, and issues of data access and valuation also pose problems.
‘Are we there yet?’ On a long road trip, perhaps you’ve asked or heard this question.
Let’s direct this question to the state of urban flood risk management in Pacific Island countries. In this case, the ‘destination’ is flood-resilient communities.
For Pacific Island countries, no, we’re not there yet, but are we heading in the right direction?
As we approach the 9th World Urban Forum in Kuala Lumpur next week, one of the essential challenges in implementing the New Urban Agenda that governments are struggling with is the provision at scale of high quality affordable housing, a key part of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 of building sustainable cities and communities.
When I worked on affordable housing in Latin America, one consistent piece of advice we would give our clients was that it is not a good idea for governments to build and provide housing themselves. Instead, in the words of the famous (and sadly late) World Bank economist Steve Mayo, we should enable housing markets to work. Our clients would always respond by saying, “But what about Singapore?” And we would say the Singapore case is too sui generis and non-replicable.
[Learn more about the World Bank's participation in the World Urban Forum]
Now, having lived in the beautiful red-dot city state for two and half years, and
Singapore’s governing philosophy has famously been described as “think ahead, think again and think across.” Nowhere is this more apparent than how the founding fathers designed the national housing program, and how it has adapted and evolved over the years, responding to changed circumstances and needs.
It is hard to believe today but in 1947 the British Housing Committee reported that 72% of a total population of 938,000 of Singapore was living within the 80 square kilometers that made up the central city area. When Singapore attained self-government in 1959, only 9% of Singaporeans resided in public housing. Today, 80% of Singaporeans live a government built apartment. There are about one million Housing and Development Board (HDB) apartments, largely clustered in 23 self-contained new towns that extend around the city’s coastal core.
At the risk of over-simplification, there seem to be four essential ingredients to this astonishing success story:
Cities across Nepal—and in the developing world—produce more waste than ever before, due to a spike in population and a surge in new economic activity and urbanization. Properly disposing and managing solid waste has thus become urgent for city municipalities.
As a result, landscapes and public spaces in Nepal’s urban centers are deteriorating. Less than half of the 700,000 tons of waste generated in Nepal’s cities each year is collected. Most waste is dumped without any regulation or oversight and several municipalities do not have a designated disposal site, leading to haphazard disposal of waste—often next to a river—further aggrevating the problem.
With urbanization rising, the costs of inaction are piling up and compromising people’s health and the environment. In most cases, the poor suffer the most from the resulting negative economic, environmental, and human health impacts.
It is these countries plagued by near-constant political and economic instability that are often the ones most in need of private investment. Yet they are also the places few private investors are willing to go. The risks seem to outweigh the rewards.