Habitat III is the first UN global summit after the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. Augusto Barrera, former mayor of Quito, was the one who came with the idea of hosting Habitat III. The idea was supported throughout Latin America, a region that has witnessed rapid urbanization, rural-urban migration and a concentration of resources and services in the cities. Plans for the conference continued even as the country suffered a massive earthquake measuring 7.4 on the Richter scale less than six months ago.

 “Change comes from the heart of the world” – the Habitat III slogan literally reflects Quito’s geographical location at the center of the world, at latitude zero. The slogan is accompanied by an emphasis on outlining an ‘inclusive’ urban agenda for the next twenty years, an objective which feels slightly ironic when one notices the fenced-off El Arbolito Park where the conference takes place.

Getting there

My journey to Habitat III started in Bolivia on Friday, after the worst trip ever! Twenty four hours and 4 airports later, I finally arrived to the city declared as a UNESCO world heritage site. Beautiful roses, people dressed in traditional outfits and posters greeting the approximately 45,000 participants from around the world.  The city sprouted new road signs, and brand new bike paths along some streets. I had landed in a Quito quite different from the one I had spent the last 20 years living in, I felt.

The atmosphere was a different story. Quito has witnessed several protests in the recent past against the current mayor, Mauricio Rodas, driven by the lack of participatory decision-making in ‘development’ projects such as the new metro system, highways and overpasses – infrastructure which led to the eviction of people in poor neighbourhoods, and reflected the lack of a comprehensive urban mobility plan. Inclusivity and organisation took another hit when I found myself facing a 10-block long queue to enter the conference premises. Five hours under the relentless Quito sun didn’t do much for my enthusiasm. Of course, there was a special queue for international participants – not quite sure if I can say this is ‘equity’.

National president Rafael Correa – also presiding the conference assembly – was quick to deflect the long queues to the UN’s responsibility to arrange logistics. His colleagues in the US Congress would have been proud of him –  Blame the UN if things go wrong!

Habitat III between hope and scepticism

By the time you read this, Habitat III will have culminated with the adoption of the ‘Quito declaration on sustainable cities and human settlements for all’, also known as the ‘New Urban Agenda’. This agenda has raised both hope and scepticism. Most observers hope that the agenda will lead to real political commitment and transformative urban development. Yet quite a few have their doubts. The London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) – particularly engaged in the urban agenda ever since the preparation of Habitat I in the 1970’s – described the draft New Urban Agenda (June 2016) as one that “lacks both an overarching vision (…) and a consistent approach to implementation”. To correct this, the IIED advocated for “an explicit overarching vision that promotes sustainable and just urbanization (…) This vision has to recognise (…) above all, the systemic conditions that threaten the very possibility of a sustainable future”. Whether that clearer vision emerged during the conference, well…

Even then, scepticism remains. As reported in the Inter Press Service earlier this week, many experts fear that Habitat III “will only pay lip service to commitments that will quickly be forgotten, as occurred after the first Habitat conference (…) and the second”. The Guardian was even more critical and described  “sustainable, inclusive and resilient” as “the conference’s favourite buzzwords”.

From a public health point of view, the meagre attention to health in Habitat III was striking. In the draft New Urban Agenda, health is mentioned 12 times (cities should “allow people to live healthy”) but nowhere developed. Among the hundreds of events on the Habitat III calendar, barely a handful were dedicated to health: a UNFPA session on health and empowerment on the opening day, a WHO session also on Sunday, and two side events on Thursday (I don’t count ‘Implementing urban health and wellbeing by taking a systems approach’, co-organised by an ITM public health unit but cancelled at the last minute). Besides being remarkable, this is a lost opportunity. Whatever ideology people adhere to – like hedonism striving to maximise health and wellbeing, or eudaemonism optimising the path to health and wellbeing – most experts today regard health as a core part of wellbeing. If we want our future cities to be ‘sustainable, inclusive and resilient’, then health and wellbeing are essential ingredients. Yet curiously, the Habitat III jargon got stuck in ‘shared prosperity’, and hardly used the term ‘wellbeing’. A pity.

 “The city that we want or the city that they want?”

During the high-level round table “Leave no one behind” on Monday, speakers addressed the challenges towards the path to ‘shared prosperity’. Poverty reduction and access to basic services were elements common across discussions. Equity and inclusion were indeed the mantra of the conference, yet many groups felt excluded. Jean-Yves Duclos, Canada´s Minister of Families, Children and Social Development highlighted the exclusion of LGTBI groups, particularly criticizing the move to exclude the LGBTI community from urban development plans by 17 countries a few months ago. In the shadow of Habitat III, women, cyclists, pedestrians, indigenous people, students, LGTBI people and evicted locals organised a parallel event, Resistance Habitat III, and planned a march on Thursday (while this blog was being written).

‘People’ were to be at the heart of the new urban agenda. This was one of the key messages of the sessions I attended. I was pondering this when suddenly a caramelera (woman who sells candies and snacks) in the Arbolito park surrounding the venue brought me back to reality. “What is this for?”, she asked, as she struggled with a toddler on her back. I thought of echoing some of the nice slogans I had heard at the Conference, such as ‘diminish poverty’, ‘increase access to services’, ‘decrease inequity’… Then I realized that we cannot achieve this dream of inclusive, safe and sustainable cities, if we remain blind to the ‘invisible’ in our streets. It reminded me of Eduardo Galeano´s poem, The Nobodies:

“…The nobodies: the sons of no one,

the owners of nothing.

The nobodies:  treated as no one,

running after the carrot, dying their lives, fucked,

double-fucked.

Who are not, even when they are.

Who don’t speak languages, but rather dialects.

Who don’t follow religions,

but rather superstitions. 

Who don’t do art, but rather crafts.

Who don’t practice culture, but rather folklore.

Who are not human,

but rather human resources…”

But probably those nobodies will not be invited to the closing cocktail.

Progressive, long-term investments in the health sector, including increasing the health budget and strengthening the health system, over the last decade by the current government, allowed swift response in the face of a major natural disaster. The representative for Ecuador of the Pan American and World Health Organization (PAHO-WHO), Gina Tambini, recognized the immediate mobilization of professional teams to evaluate the availability of infrastructure and medical care to the affected population. The resident coordinator of the United Nations system in Ecuador, Diego Zorrilla praised the government for its quick and effective response.

And yet, the opinion of the people, towards their government might defer. Political ambivalence brought on by an economic crisis, low credibility of the government at multiple levels, have led to decreasing popularity of President Correa and an uncertainty about the future in the face of an economic crisis. Ecuador, the smallest member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has had a tough year.  Oil prices – the most important revenue – steadily declined. Production costs of a barrel of oil are around 39 USD, yet the country gets only 30USD, affecting the overall budget. Correa’s government has been criticized for its economic policy, which resulted in “unsustainability of the public spending pace”, and for new tax regulations; the government has announced austerity measures for 2016 to face the crisis. “It is the worst moment to face such a catastrophe,” said Maggie Barreiro, an economist at San Francisco University in Quito. “The fiscal accounts are empty, and we are having huge problems of liquidity.” Against this economic backdrop the popularity of Rafael Correa is the lowest ever, and elections are just around the corner (February 2017).  According to an opinion poll conducted on January 2016, Correa had a 34% of vote intention, down from 47% in October 2015. An error of judgement or not, a video of Correa during his visit to the disaster zone, in which he was quoted saying, “No one loses calm, no one shouts or I will put them in jail, whether old, young, male or female. Nobody mourns or complaints, unless for loved ones who have been lost…” went viral.  And so, despite an effort to personally coordinate disaster relief efforts by his cabinet, including a visit to the affected areas – all alongside another important visit to the Vatican – the above quote which was captured on video affected his public image.

Disasters test a nation’s response systems (health, risk management, social protection, public safety, etc.) Some experts from the Red Cross and other humanitarian (UN + international NGOs) emphasize a good national response system risk management has a combination of existing health system capacity and decentralized administrative rationality.

In Ecuador, disaster response is coordinated by the National Secretary for Risk Management (created in 2008), with a decentralized model through the structures of the Emergency Operations Committees (COE) at the national, provincial and county levels.  Within 10 thematic tables (these are like working groups) there are actors from various sectors (including private sector, civil society and NGO´s) for the issues mentioned above. In the wake of the earthquake, a state of emergency was declared in the country. Investments in health over the past decade paid off in the system’s ability to respond better to an emergency. The director of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Carissa Etienne, acknowledged this as “impressive” progress in a short time by Ecuador. During her visit, coincidentally one week before the earthquake, she was quoted as saying, “I want to emphasize the increase in the health budget, in these nine years the state public health investment has reached record levels according to the constitutional mandate.” She highlighted how between 2007 and 2014 the budget has quadrupled  (2,5 billion USD ,)together with the commitment of the authorities of the Ministry of Public Health in the management and efficient use of those resources, and highlighted the construction between 2011 and 2014 in 10 hospitals, 51 first line health centers, the renovation of eight other hospitals and the addition of nearly 300 ambulances nationwide.

At present, in terms of financing the relief efforts, the national government through the National Assembly, will present new fiscal and tax regulation in order to collect and pool a solidarity fund to face the disaster: 1. An increase of two percentage points in the VAT (from 12% to 14%), for a year; 2. A one-time contribution of an additional 3% on profits; 3. A contribution of 0.9% of individuals with an inheritance greater than one million US dollars; 4.  Contribution of a day’s wages by those with a monthly income of greater than 1,000USD, two for those with an income of more than 2,000USD. Those with an income of more than 5000 USD will have to contribute five days of salary, (one day’s wages over five months). This will not apply on the disaster zones, subsidies and taxes exemption will be planned for this region.

Recently, on Saturday the 23^rd, President Correa, explained the proposal during his weekly report to the nation, stating that even as donations were important, “cans of tuna not will rebuild the roads”. This led to a national debate on the redistribution of wealth, (initially ignited on 2015, due inheritance tax bill), charity and solidarity.

The earthquake spun the country on its axis. It has weakened the legitimacy of the Government and appears to have driven society in the opposite direction, leading to a fresh dilemma against the backdrop of the crisis – government vs. society. The ongoing debate reflects the current political situation in Latin America. After two decades of progressive trend projects, called “Socialism of the 21st Century” (Heinz Dietrich, 1996), government and society present divergent points. Polarization is not free of political interests. It is not the dialectic rationality among elements of the State; it is a debate of actors in view of the forthcoming elections. One would imagine disaster response bringing people together towards a collective goal; it has, on the contrary, brought the risk of deinstitutionalization. The debate on the size of the State, the utility and the limits of social investment may be necessary, but it is also a reflection of the ethical crisis faced by political actors in Ecuador. The modernization of the State has not gone hand in hand with the shifts in society, and politics of amidst tragedy remains a shameful practice which unfortunately tends to be effective.

At present, the focus is on saving lives. And it has opened the new stage in providing social protection to victims of a disaster, which requires going through a planned system of shelters, as well as the activation of several aspects of a health system’s response: health surveillance, vector control, containment, risk reduction in shelters, etc. Reconstruction is a process that requires planning and requires a comprehensive and public health approach. Even if it is in the middle of a potential, future political crisis.