2.1. Definition of sustainable urban agendas

In recent years, the term “sustainable” got quite inflationary and distinguished use in politics, science, economics, literature, and the news all over the world. Especially international agendas, like the SDGs and the NUA³, make extensive use of it. The definition seems to be key for the successful implementation of international guidelines at the national and regional levels. However, to better understand the term sustainability and sustainable development, it requires, first of all, a common definition. In the New Encyclopaedia Britannica, Meadowcroft (²⁰⁰⁷) states in the article about sustainability:

Sustainability, the long-term viability of a community, set of social institutions, or societal practice. In general, sustainability is understood as a form of intergenerational ethics in which the environmental and economic actions taken by present persons do not diminish the opportunities of future persons to enjoy similar levels of wealth, utility, or welfare. The idea of sustainability rose to prominence with the modern environmental movement, which rebuked the unsustainable character of contemporary societies where patterns of resource use, growth, and consumption threatened the integrity of ecosystems and the well-being of future generations. Sustainability is presented as an alternative to short-term, myopic, and wasteful behaviours. It can serve as a standard against which existing institutions are to be judged and as an objective toward which society should move. Sustainability also implies an interrogation of existing modes of social organization to determine the extent to which they encourage destructive practices as well as a conscious effort to transform the status quo so as to promote the development of more-sustainable activities.

According to Meadowcoft, in the contemporary debate about the term, “sustainability often serves as a synonym for sustainable development”; on further occasions, the definition is associated more exclusively with “environmental constraints or environmental performance”.

^{Sachs (1974}, p. 828), as one of the first eco-socioeconomics, observes that “environment is a dimension of development, and must therefore be internalised at every decision-making level”. His attempt to consolidate a new theory about the possibility of a different development has led to the idea of sustainable development. The most famous cornerstone in regards to sustainable development was however laid in 1987 with the Brundtland Report, introducing environmental concerns to the formal political development sphere and discussing environment and development as one single issue (^{World Commission on Environment and Development,1987}). Nonetheless, some authors identified as well contradictions in the sustainable development thesis of the Brundtland Report (^{Haavelmo and Hansen, 1991}; ^{Goodland, 1991}).

^{Sachs (1993}) further fan out the term of sustainable development into five sustainability dimensions and their respective main components and objectives (Table 1).

Several other possible compositions illustrate the dimensions of sustainability, as ^{Laura (2004}) compiles (Table 2). However, most sustainable urban agendas, including the Agenda 2030 and the NUA, comprise at least the five dimensions indicated by ^{Sachs (1993}), by promoting mutual urban development in the social, economic, cultural, ecological, and spatial fields of intervention. Therefore, this definition will be reflected in further work.

Though, latterly it has to be alluded as well, how to collaborate within intergenerational ethics and in the creation of diverse regenerative cultures adapted to the unique biocultural conditions of a place. ^{Wahl (2016}) argues that there is even a level beyond sustainability when it comes to the designing of regenerative cultures. He highlights the spectrum of human development in a gradient way, starting with conventional habits by staying within the law, green actions with a little less negative impact on environmental aspects, and sustainable rules of conduct in the centre of the range, by trying to avoid additional harm to the society. On the other side of the spectrum come restorative measures, where “humans doing things to nature” and at the far end the regenerative culture, where “humans doing things as nature” (Figure 2). He questions “how we will have to change individually and collectively to create this future” and proclaims, that “we need a collective narrative about who we are and why we are worth sustaining”.

Wahl (2016, p. 73)

Source: Figure 2: Beyond Sustainability: Designing Regenerative Cultures 

In summary, the word sustainability underwent a process of development in the last decades. The definition of sustainable urban agendas is not always convergent and depends very much on the context where it is applied. In the light of the research question about the implementation of international guidelines on a local scale, it reflects the intention to outlast short-term intervention and policies, which are often owed by short-sighted political activities, concerned about the next legislative period only. However, sustainable urban agendas rather aim to shape urban development based on long-term considerations and aligned with overarching common social, economic, cultural, ecological, and spatial values.

2.2. The New Urban Agenda

As a recently developed international urban guideline, the NUA exemplifies, how urban agendas are structured and eminently indicates how they might be implemented on regional and national levels. It is important to comprehend the link between global urban challenges and the intentions of international agendas to overcome urban deficiencies and shortcomings through the implementation.

The commitment of the agenda comprises an urban paradigm shift regarding how to plan, finance, develop, govern and manage cities and human settlements, including developing and implementing urban policies, strengthening urban governance, reinvigorating long-term and integrated urban and territorial planning and design, and supporting effective, innovative and sustainable financing frameworks and instruments. The call for action invokes all countries with their national, subnational, and local governments to implement the agenda at the regional and global levels, considering different national realities, capacities and levels of development, and respecting national legislation and practices, as well as policies and priorities (^{UN-Habitat, 2017}).

The NUA tries to internalize the new spirit of regenerative cultures with its holistic approach by the living system design, paying attention to quality & quantity, proposing effectiveness, and implementing its measures in patterns and principles, as indicated before in Figure 2.

The agenda highlights three areas of implementation: (1) Sustainable urban development for social inclusion and ending poverty; (2) Sustainable and inclusive urban prosperity and opportunities for all; and (3) Environmentally sustainable and resilient urban development. The national political stakeholders (like the Ministries of Cities) are requested to coordinate their urban and rural development strategies and programs to apply an integrated approach to sustainable urbanization for the effective implementation of the NUA to establish a supportive framework, anchor the effective implementation in inclusive, implementable and participatory urban policies, foster stronger coordination and cooperation among national, subnational and local governments, and support local governments in determining their own administrative and management structures under the umbrella of “integrated planning” (^{UN-Habitat 2017}, p. 24).

Regarding the follow-up and review of the implementation, the agenda wants to strengthen data and statistical capacities to effectively monitor progress achieved and promote evidence-based governance, using both globally comparable as well as locally generated data. The applied interfaces and actions for implementation are based and focused on the five P’s: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships (^{SDSN, 2015}). In this context, ^{Parnell (2016}, p. 532) observed, “while the UN cannot define the parameters of a new global urban agenda alone, no other body is as powerful in setting out the normative base or systems of implementation for urban change”.

3.1. A shift of driving forces implementing global urban agendas through knowledge translation

According to ^{Cociña et al. (2019}), ^{Parnell (2016}), and others, the existence of serious “global urban agendas” can be assumed, which get attention and support in all parts of the world. They base their assumption on international guidelines, charters and directives developed since the turn of the century, especially the elaboration of the SDGs and the inclusion of an explicit urban goal (Goal 11), but as well the NUA and other urban agendas. On the other hand, “local and global planning practices are in constant interaction” and “knowledge translation” in global urban agendas play a key factor for success. ^{Cociña et al. (2019}, p. 131) furthermore note that community-based actors located on the ‘margins’ of global processes have a central role in this process. They argue that “there is a growing field of inquiry catalysing around the dynamics of ‘global’ urban governance” and “different forms of knowledge circulate and influence each other”. Perception guides experience, which needs to be systematized (Kant apud^{Borges, Moreira, Martins, 1990}). The urban knowledge transfer process started already with the Club of Rome I the 1960s and the formation of the Habitat I Conference in the 1970s, and is still ongoing since then, with a recent peak in the perception and visibility due to the alignment with other sustainability agendas and environmental movements like the climate change mitigation and adaptation programs or global warming awareness-raising campaigns. The mentioned immanent knowledge transfer affects all global citizens on multiple levels and scales and is a nonlinear process. Therefore, knowledge translation should focus on methodologies, which “involve encounters between various forms of planning research and planning practice”. As one example can be named the research-practice dialogues of the Habitat III preparation policy unites and their elaboration of the 22 issue papers, which paved the road for the later on agreed NUA. The agenda itself enhances explicitly the “knowledge-sharing on mutually agreed terms”. To do so, it calls in paragraph 157 for

(…) robust science-policy interfaces in urban and territorial planning and policy formulation and institutionalized mechanisms for sharing and exchanging information, knowledge and expertise, including the collection, analysis, standardization and dissemination of geographically based, community-collected, high-quality, timely and reliable data. (UN-Habitat 2017, p. 39)

However, the classic top-down process is no longer the only and favourable way for knowledge translation. ^{Rodríguez & Sugranyes (2017}, p. 165) even accused the NUA of being “wishful thinking based neither on the present nor the past” as almost half of the world population still live in other kinds of human settlements, a challenge which requires a different set of knowledge and tools to those that emerged from the Summit’s spaces of exchange. ^{Harrison (2006}, p. 324) observed in this context, that different regions in the south are the locus of differentiated modernity. He mentions “a growing body of work that shows how the recovery and deployment of subalternised knowledge and practices materially impact the local outcome of global forces”. ^{Watson (2012}, p. 329) complemented that “planning ideas no longer move only from global north to global south and that there are many cross and counter currents, yet it seems likely that traditional north-south flow is still dominant”. Besides, ^{Parnell (2016}, p. 533) states, that “the clarion call of major southern nations led by Brazil and other Latin American nations, who are now much more prominent and powerful within the UN system than in its early years when northern powers dominated”. Bearing this in mind, also community-based actors and grass root level movements have been recognized as cornerstones for successful implementations of international urban agendas. Particularly, southern urban theories have emerged as explicitly relevant to the international discussion and development of new urban concepts (J. D. ^{Robinson and Parnell, 2011}). They are nowadays often supported not only by international government institutions like World Bank, Development Aid agencies, or UN-Organizations but also by a wide range of corporate non-governmental, philanthropic organizations, and private actors like the Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation or Habitat for Humanity. ^{Cociña et al. (2019}, p. 139) “understand knowledge translation as a space of negotiation and unveils the mechanisms through which these processes can become vehicles for challenging inequalities” and “the growing presence of the urban agenda in multilateral and global forums (…) is particularly challenging as the definitions of ‘who is a planner’ in local contexts becomes less clear”. Therefore, “in the context of growing complexities in the international setting, at the local level the of implementing ‘global’ agendas that pursue social justice needs to recognise the variety of existing knowledges”. In a nutshell, knowledge translation can’t be seen as a mere top-down or north-south process, but rather as knowledge transfer and exchange of good practices, regardless of its origin. Global urban agendas should be shaped accordingly, and internationally agreed indicators, and explicitly including indicators from the global south, can help to benchmark, monitor and follow-up the progress of implementation.

3.2. Research gap of the global south

During the bibliographic review and the search for international examples of urban agenda implementations for this article, surprisingly few sources were identified in the global south, especially narrowing down the search to journals with high impact factors. Several articles have a focus on European cities and their agendas. However, relatively little comparative researches where publicized, that stretches across the global north-south divide and through contexts of poorer cities. ^{Walton (1982}: 34) observed in his review of comparative urban research:

In the short space of the last decade urban social science has undergone a revolution. Great strides are now being made in the elaboration of a new paradigm. Most of this work, however, is not really comparative and its geographical focus has been on the advanced countries of Europe and North America.

^{Robinson (2011}, p. 2) identified in her position paper this division phenomenon of research in urban studies and appeals “for an international and post-colonial approach”. According to her, contrary to other fields of studies, urbanist researchers are still reluctant to comparative studies, although there are existing strategies and methodologies for comparing cities. She bases her theory on the privileged sites for the invention in “advanced industrial, wealthier countries” and “movement of developmentalism” withdrew on theories of modernization. It was previously assumed that the experiences of wealthy and poorer cities held little relevance for one another and wealthier cities claimed universal knowledge about all cities. However, several examples prove this assumption wrong. Researches on urban participatory budget planning, which had their origin in the global south, are nowadays worldwide explored, especially in the northern hemisphere (e.g., ^{Carolini, 2017}; ^{Crot, 2010}; Pimentel ^{Walker, 2016}). New urban transportation trends are under investigation, from cable car technologies developed in the alps and now connecting informal settlements in Bolivia and Colombia, till vehicle fleet technology changes like new Chinese e-transport alternatives (scooter, drones, etc..), spread out in cities all over the globe, indifferent of their location and current development status (e.g., ^{Álvarez Rivadulla; Bocarejo, 2014}; ^{Namdeo et al., 2019}; ^{Wey, Huang, 2018}). As globalization progress and cities, new urban sprawls, and emerging megalopolis all over the world get interconnected, the barriers and boundaries between underdeveloped and technologically advanced urban agglomerations vanish. In a conclusion, ^{Robinson (2011}, p. 19) prompts for a “revitalized and experimental international comparativism”, to diminish the research gap between the global north and global south, which is also the aim of this study. In this regard, the NUA attempts to promote in paragraph 146 specifically

(…) opportunities for North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation, as well as subnational, decentralized and city-to-city cooperation, as appropriate, to contribute to sustainable urban development, developing capacities and fostering exchanges of urban solutions and mutual learning at all levels and by all relevant actors. (UN-Habitat 2017, p. 38)

The article claims therefore to contribute and narrow down the research gap of the global south, by exploring the sample situation in Brazil and promoting alternative mechanisms for the implementation of international urban agendas in the global south.

4.1. The urban evolution and current situation in Brazil

In recent years, the world in general, and Brazil in specific has gone through a rapid process of urbanization (Figure 3) (^{Gobbi 2016}; ^{Vidal and Scruton 2007}).

Vidal and Scruton (2007, p. 1)

Source: Figure 3: World urbanization graphic 

In 2010, when the last official census of the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) was undertaken, the degree of urbanization totalled 84.4% (^{IBGE, 2011}b). These figures were consolidated in 2015 by the National Household Sample Survey (PNAD), which estimated the urbanization rate towards 85% (^{PNAD, 2015}). Consequently, most economic production is concentrated in cities. In 2018, the 83 Brazilian metropolitan regions and urban agglomerations are inhabited by more than 50% of the national population. In contrast, about 85% of the 5,570 municipalities have less than 100,000 inhabitants (^{IBGE, 2018}). Currently, the highest rates of urban growth are concentrated in medium and small cities.

The growth of cities, in number and surface, challenges the structures of administration and planning of municipalities and metropolitan areas. As a result, poor and poorly distributed technical infrastructure (energy supply, transportation, sanitation, including solid waste, communication), and insufficient public and community facilities appears, which contributes to social disparity and environmental problems. Informal settlements (slums) are often located in risk areas such as flooding banks and slopes. The 2010 IBGE census accounted for more than 11.4 million people (equiv. 6.0 % of the total population) living in subnormal agglomerations (^{IBGE, 2011}a). Though, other more recent estimates indicate that there are already about 45 million inhabitants living in precarious urban areas (e.g. ^{GIZ, 2018}).

4.3. The urban planning policies in Brazil and the adaption to the New Urban Agenda

In 1996, at Habitat II in Istanbul, urbanization was identified as an opportunity and cities as vectors of development. The Istanbul Conference was fundamental for the international recognition of the right to housing and influenced important milestones in Brazil, such as the approval of the previously stated City Statute (2001), the creation of the Ministry of Cities (2003), and then the Council of Cities (2004). According to the National Report (^{National Council of Cities, 2015}), from then on, the Brazilian government developed policies to meet the challenges of the cities, by setting public targets and massive investments in basic sanitation and urban mobility, and the expansion of housing policies led by the Minha Casa, Minha Vida (My House My Life - MCMV) Program since 2009.

According to ^{Marguti et al (2018}), important normative references were approved within the framework of the extinct Council of Cities and the cycle of national conferences, such as the National Policy of Urban Development; the construction of the National System of Urban Development; the creation of the Policy for the Prevention and Mediation of Urban Land Conflicts; as well as the attempt to integrate urban development policies into the MCMV program.

Despite the normative advances, it must be noted, however, that these references still need to be made effective. With the establishment of the City Statute, the Master Plan gained greater centrality and became the main instrument for city planning. Contrary to the technocratic and centralizing aspect that historically marked the drawing up of executive plans, after the City Statute, the Master Plan began to contemplate, in its construction, the democratic participation.

Among the issues addressed in the National Report, suggested by the issue papers or summarized in the ten policy papers, one can say that the greatest advance that Brazil has had in the last twenty years in urban development was the legal frameworks and institutions created. ^{Galindo & Monteiro (2016}, p. 29) point out that:

Although not guaranteeing the effectiveness of policies, the norms established in the period allowed the creation of a series of institutions and legal institutes, reinforcing the issue in the governmental scope and establishing participatory and democratic guidelines.

Although there is still much to be done, the institutional environment provided the empowerment of the population, culminating in conditions for greater participation in consultative and decision-making processes. Urban councils of diverse themes were created, the process of direct democratic elaboration or representative of master plans, and, in some cases, until the establishment of participatory budgets. Public hearings, oversight by external control bodies, prosecution charges, and popular pressures spread throughout the country. Through the examples cited above, it can be seen that the Brazilian urban development agenda established during the decades following Habitat II was committed to initiatives that promoted the follow-up of what was established at the Istanbul conference. It is from this point of view, that Brazil needs to lay the focus towards the coming years and establish goals that seek the structuring of policies in accordance with strategies aimed at sustainable urban development, to fully adopt the NUA and its intended recommendations for implementation.

4.4. Local challenges in Brazil in regards to international guidelines

During conversations with Rafael Greca, mayor of Curitiba, and his civil servants of the city administration in 2018/19, a lot of interest, but limited knowledge about international guidelines, like the NUA, was encountered at the local level. The same observation was confirmed during site visits of the SNDU staff within the framework of the German cooperation project ‘Supporting the National Agenda for Sustainable Urban Development in Brazil’ (ANDUS) in five pilot cities and one metropolitan region, dispersed in several regions in Brazil, in the same time interval.

Despite the advances presented by the Brazilian post City Statue guidelines, one of the central problems for urban planning is the composition of a sectoral policy model detached from the territorial pattern that characterizes the Brazilian urban model (^{Algebaile, 2008}). There is, for example, a structural misalignment regarding land use in Brazilian cities and the application of the directives proposed in the municipal Master Plans, as well as experiences of a social sectorial policy that predominates over the national territory management, materializing in 60% of the Master Plans, but they are not linked to land policies capable of granting access to land and housing policy with good urban insertion. This logic is replicated, for example, in the experiences of private and public enterprises such as the urban infrastructure investments of the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC) and the MCMV Program.

Despite that, Brazil also has very significant challenges regarding urban territorial planning. To better understand the link between, it is necessary to remember the different legal processes that cover the institutional urbanization that occurred in the last thirty years after the promulgation of the Federal Constitution of 1988 (CF/1988) and culminating in the proliferation of urban regions throughout the national territory (^{Costa, Matteo, and Balbim, 2010}). It is important to point out that the phenomenon of institutional urbanization is not accompanied by the historical process that expresses "the structure, the form and the socio-spatial dynamics, and assumes some particular features in capitalism". Thus, it can be seen that this process of recent urbanization in Brazil cannot be understood by the strict sense of the manifestation of the classical urbanization process, constituted and characterized by integration with the core city, configuring an expanded territory that shares functions of common interest. Faced with this, ^{Costa, Matteo & Balbim (2010}, p. 4) add that:

(…) in Brazil, this discrepancy between the recognition of a metropolis - that is, the identification and characterization of the process of metropolization - and the institution of an RM⁶ has been deepened, since the changes brought by CF ⁷/ 1988. The Brazilian metropolises, especially those defined as such in the 1970s, have their RM status coupled with the historical process that led to the production of the metropolitan space.

Given the particularity of the Brazilian metropolitan process of thinking about the construction of a federal metropolitan policy that goes beyond the simple combination of municipal urban policies, it is necessary to work on the articulation of plans, policies, and systems. One cannot detach itself from the regional policy, nor the policy of territorial planning for the construction of stable metropolitan arrangements. It is also necessary to overcome the practice of the "transfer desk" of the federal government for sectoral programs.

The Federal Constitution of 1988 elevated the municipalities to the condition of federated entities, with the autonomy to organize and manage a series of public services that passed their competence, transforming the responsibilities agenda of the municipalities. Currently, the political-administrative organization of the Federative Republic of Brazil comprises the Union, the 26 states, the Federal District, and the 5,570 municipalities, all of which are autonomous.

The challenges to urban spatial planning in Brazil, as stated before, gain a metropolitan dimension with the Federal Law 13.089/2015. The Metropolis Statute arises to direct the common planning of Metropolitan Regions and urban agglomerations instituted by the States, establish guidelines for the integration of actions among the municipalities that compose a Metropolitan Region. According to the Statute, the Metropolitan Regions should elaborate the Integrated Urban Development Plan as a tool for metropolitan policy and "(…) should consider all the municipalities that make up the urban territorial unit and cover urban and rural areas" (^{Planalto, 2015}).

Given this, it is understood that the development of countries is directly related to the role that their cities and metropolises play in the network of cities in the era of globalization. In the cities and metropolises, the greatest inequalities and opportunities for employment, income, and production are concentrated. In Brazil, sustainable development requires, necessarily, the equation of urban problems. In spite of the economic and social advances of the 2000s, the urban infrastructure has not presented equivalent advances, especially in the main cities of the country, since the deficit of this item remains high and requires financing and management solutions for the metropolitan regions.

The big question about urban and metropolitan planning in the country is related to the lack of organizational structures of the Brazilian municipalities and the struggle for an embracing agrarian reform in Brazil, which the Land Statute (Law 4.504/1964) could not solve. Since the 1970s, the interaction between peasant movements, the progressive church, and the transnational network of human rights has converged into the idea that land ownership is a human right, which not only has marked the character of the struggle for land in Brazil but has also influenced how the human rights movement has been constructed in the country and how it has taken its place within the transnational network of human rights activism.

The Federal Constitution of 1988 passed the task on t1o the states, to institute and manage the urban and metropolitan regions. However, although the City and Metropolis Statute are important instruments for directing urban policies in urban areas in Brazil, it is the states’ responsibility to establish the management bodies of the regions. They are, therefore, not territorial units of the Brazilian State such as the municipalities and the Units of the Federation. Although there is, in theory, a centralization of the management of these areas by the states, there is no common organization model that allows the characterization of urban policies in Brazil. This configuration makes it difficult to manage and implement development plans and projects common to the municipalities that are part of the institutionalized urban territory.

Therefore, even with concepts, laws, planning, and management tools that are well advanced in international comparison (e.g. in regards to participatory budgeting), they do not live up to the sustainability requirements of urban planning and development in Brazil, considered by the NUA. Reasons for this are, among others, are the low capacity of planning and implementation of the instruments by the municipalities and the lack of coordination mechanisms between sectors and between administrative levels.

The central challenge at the national level is, in particular, the improvement of urban planning and management tools, including urban regulation and urban interest regulation. Such a challenge should address the sustainable use of natural resources and spaces available and adapted to climate change processes, as existing regulations are incomplete, partially incoherent, and poorly operational. Mechanisms for intra and inter-institutional cooperation and within the three spheres of government need to be improved.

4.5. Recent political developments in Brazil

Unfortunately, the economic crisis that has hit Brazil since 2014 had impacted the Federal government's budget and consequently several areas of strategic planning for the country's development. The economic crisis was also accompanied by a deep political crisis that culminated in a process of presidential impeachment of Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the alteration of the Brazilian governmental structure. The advances in public policies in several areas of strategic planning, that occurred in the previous decades, have recently undergone significant changes in their structures, but still without major relevant impacts about the resumption of economic growth and urban development in Brazil. In 2019, due to the political change and election of liberal, right-wing, Jair Messias Bolsonaro in late 2018, several ministries underwent a drastic reorganization. Some ministries received a revaluation, like the Ministry of Economy, which gained the force of a “super”-ministry, absorbing the former Ministry of the Economy, Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management, Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade, and Ministry of Labour and Employment. Regrettably, also the Ministry of Cities lost its unique feature and merged, together with the Ministry of National Integration to the new Ministry of Regional Development (MDR)⁸. In 2020, the housing programs MCMV was replaced by the Casa Verde e Amarela program. The alteration of the program, as well as the extinction of the Ministry of Cities in 2019, demonstrates the urgency of the current government to break with the main projects prepared by the previous government. This restructuring and shifting of political priorities might jeopardize current urban strategies, especially all urban planning initiatives initiated under the previous centre-left wing governments since the creation of the Ministry of Cities in 2003, including the jolt implementation process of the NUA in Brazil.