INTRODUCTION

Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) has seen its population and the number of vehicles on its roads rapidly increase over the last ten years. Today, there are close to 8 million motorbikes in the city, and over half a million cars. Recently, the Chairman of the Ho Chi Minh City People's Committee, Nguyen Thanh Phong attributed rising congestion problems to larger-than-expected population growth. Estimates that had put HCMC at 10 million inhabitants by 2025 have already been vastly exceeded, and Nguyen announced that the city is already home to roughly 13 million inhabitants. The number of motorbikes on the roads is now at 7.6 million, alongside over 700,000 cars. Recent data show that over 1,000 new motorbikes are added into traffic each day.

The city has responded in various ways to these strains on the transport infrastructure and to its growing congestion problems. Most recently, HCMC authorities, following their counterparts in Hanoi, have been considering the implementation of a motorbike ban in the urban core. Urban planning analysts have advised against such a drastic measure, citing that such a ban would exacerbate the pri

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The economic, political, strategic and cultural dynamism in Southeast Asia has gained added relevance in recent years with the spectacular rise of giant economies in East and South Asia. This has drawn greater attention to the region and to the enhanced role it now plays in international relations and global economics.

The sustained effort made by Southeast Asian nations since 1967 towards a peaceful and gradual integration of their economies has had indubitable success, and perhaps as a consequence of this, most of these countries are undergoing deep political and social changes domestically and are constructing innovative solutions to meet new international challenges. Big Power tensions continue to be played out in the neighbourhood despite the tradition of neutrality exercised by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The Trends in Southeast Asia series acts as a platform for serious analyses by selected authors who are experts in their fields. It is aimed at encouraging policy makers and scholars to contemplate the diversity and dynamism of this exciting region.

The economic, political, strategic and cultural dynamism in Southeast Asia has gained added relevance in recent years with the spectacular rise of giant economies in East and South Asia. This has drawn greater attention to the region and to the enhanced role it now plays in international relations and global economics.

The sustained effort made by Southeast Asian nations since 1967 towards a peaceful and gradual integration of their economies has had indubitable success, and perhaps as a consequence of this, most of these countries are undergoing deep political and social changes domestically and are constructing innovative solutions to meet new international challenges. Big Power tensions continue to be played out in the neighbourhood despite the tradition of neutrality exercised by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The Trends in Southeast Asia series acts as a platform for serious analyses by selected authors who are experts in their fields. It is aimed at encouraging policy makers and scholars to contemplate the diversity and dynamism of this exciting region.

Forest City, the multimillion dollar mixed development project rising out of four artificial islands in the Tebrau Straits off the southwestern coast of Johor appears by most accounts to be a bundle of contradictions. While potentially injecting millions of ringgit into, and spurring great infrastructural development in the surrounding areas, it has jarred the local property market.

New foreign exchange regulations in China add further questions to its financial viability.

While Forest City is portrayed as a role model for future cities, especially in its application of green technology and environmental sustainability, the land reclamation that underpins its existence is doing serious damage to local seagrass, mangroves and fishery habitats. Claims that the project has the potential to create thousands of jobs for the local population have been countered by those who question the wisdom of allowing such a huge influx of foreigners, both as contract workers and as residents, as well as its implications for the racial status quo.

To the general public, the saga of Forest City began in early 2014 when sand barges seemed to appear overnight to begin round-the-clock reclamation work without public notice or signage on the project. Those caught unawares included the Singapore government. It eventually lodged an official complaint with the Federal government, and Malaysia's Department of the Environment issued a stop-work order. The Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (DEIA) process revealed that some local regulations had been sidestepped. While most local leaders had already known about the project in 2013, the information and RM3 million in compensation from the developer had not yet been passed on to the affected villages.

Controversy continues to surround the project till this day and the development swings between being the victim of political positioning for the upcoming elections and the bogeyman of choice for the media and local community; obliterating all mention of other developers and developments in the area which could have as much environmental, economic and social impacts as Forest City.

In contrast to the typical tale in developed nations of project instigation, endorsement and financial support, Forest City was envisioned by a Malaysian person of prominence and modelled on the success of Shenzhen and its evolution from Hong Kong backwater to thriving metropolis. That a Chinese developer became the main actor in the project is a nod to China's re-emergence as a global player and to its strategic interests in Southeast Asia.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Untreated sewage is one of the main causes for deteriorating water bodies in urban areas of Southeast Asia, and is leading to a complete neglect of these once beautiful environments and undermining the engines of development and growth in one of the most dynamic regions of the globe. Due to climate change, increasing demand for water as a result of urbanization, and other demographic and economic trends, the available per capita water in a given watershed area is rapidly dropping in many parts of the world, including Southeast Asia.

At the same time, the production of waste water in total and per capita is significantly increasing. This problem will become even more acute if the supply of safe drinking water to households and its consumption continue to increase at the current pace. An increase in water supply will result in an increase in sewage, which, without proper treatment, will end up untreated in the nearest water body or aquifer. By now the natural self-purification processes in water bodies have been exhausted and the receiving waters have partly become open sewers.

The goal for many cities and towns is to stop the discharge of untreated sewage into water bodies by treating the sewage at the source at the household and neighbourhood level. Returning a water body to its former pristine or more semi-natural state is a challenging undertaking. There is still hope, as water fronts at large and impressive rivers have become major attractions in many cities (for example, Singapore, Phnom Penh) and are now a focus of upscale development. Smaller urban water courses are, however, severely neglected. These water bodies once provided opportunities for cultivation and fishery, recreation, open space, and areas for water storage during flood seasons, but also served as effective drainage system during heavy downpours.

River training works started early and can be dated back to at least two thousand years ago. Many rivers became harnessed on a large scale during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. More and more small to medium-sized watercourses were trained as cities expanded. This trend is still ongoing today. Excessive river training and the discharge of liquid and solid wastes into rivers have led to a significant deterioration of many water bodies, and are affecting most urban streams.

Cities are now touted as engines of development. Although this has been the role of cities since the glory days of Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and Huang Ho Plains about 4,000 to 6,000 years ago (Reader 2004), the idea of promoting cities as engines of development is a recent phenomenon.

But the gulf between wanting to promote cities as engines of development and actually achieving success is rather wide. Governance has been identified as an important factor in determining success or failure. The objective of this chapter is to discuss the realities of governance in Southeast Asian cities. The focus is on accountability as it would not be possible to cover all the characteristics of good governance in a short chapter. Besides, accountability, a basic pillar of good governance, is closely linked to transparency and rule of law, two other important pillars.

THE POWER OF CITIES

It was not long ago that cities were seen as centres of crime and moral decay. Suburban development and new towns were popular during the post-war boom days. Political economists even termed cities as “theatres of accumulation” and therefore not friendly to the working class. An example of an extreme anti-urban measure was the clearing of Phnom Penh by the Pol Pot regime in 1975, which caused great miseries and countless deaths. Lately, however, leading urban scholars have been singing the praises of cities.

But the rural poor have always known about the “prosperity” properties of towns and cities. During the Industrial Revolution, the poor of Europe flocked to the towns to be part of the engines of growth. Since then, their cousins in the developing countries in Asia, South America, and Africa have been coming to the cities to try to share in the prosperity and better quality of life. Many have made it. The sizeable and growing middle class is clear testimony to this.

However, many are left behind. Some have suffered even poorer quality of life, largely as a result of discrimination, or the couldn't-careless attitude of administrators. But for them, there is no turning back. There is hope, if not for themselves, then at least for their children. As Lewis Mumford once said, “the City is a place for multiplying happy chances and making the most of unplanned opportunities” (Mumford and Miller 1986, p. 43).

While there are diverse definitions of liveability, few would disagree that green spaces are an important contributor to liveability in urban places. In a paper published in 1987, two officers from the Department of Environmental Management of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) agreed that “there is consensus in the view that the quality of urban life depends largely on the amount and quality of green space within it or close to it” (Olembo and Rham 1987). The former mayor of Bogota, Colombia, Enrique Penalosa, went as far as to expound that “parks and other pedestrian places are essential to a city's happiness” (PPS 2003).

Indeed, many studies have shown the multiple benefits of urban green spaces for the social, environmental, and economic well-being of urban communities. The well-being of these three spheres is essential for building a liveable city. In addition, good governance and integrated planning are necessary as they facilitate programmes and policies that ensure the health and well-being of the three spheres.

Liveability is defined as the suitability to live in a place and is often associated with the city's environmental quality, health, and quality of life (Mamas and Komalasari 2008). Beyond basic needs such as sanitation and water, there are social, economic, and environmental health needs. The provision of urban green spaces is a prime example of how policy programmes can effectively augment the social, environmental, and economic liveability of a city. This chapter will explore how urban green spaces are increasingly being recognized as an important source of fulfilment of social, environmental, and economic needs in Southeast Asian cities.

ROLE OF URBAN GREENERY

The terms “urban greenery” or “urban green spaces” include everything in cities that has vegetation, also collectively known as “green infrastructure” (Gairola and Noresah 2010). It includes horticultural parks, streetscapes, green areas, and open spaces, as well as forests and other natural habitats of urban biodiversity such as riverine and coastal parks. Such a broad definition is necessary as a city's geography and history shape its urban greenscape differently. Some recent developments in horticultural parks have further blurred the divide by attempting to “recreate naturalistic landscapes … characterized by informal design, favourable maintenance to wildlife and a preference for native vegetation” (Tzoulas and James 2004). A common denominator in all is the role of these green spaces and parks as a type of urban open space.

URBANIZATION AND POVERTY IN ASEAN

The steady urbanization of Southeast Asian nations is generally viewed as a positive development in the economic history of the region. Cities are recognized as epicentres of economic growth and contribute significantly to national incomes. Because of their ability to earn more in absolute terms, urban populations are generally perceived to be better off than their rural counterparts.

All over Asia, poverty incidence is still much higher in rural areas than in urban areas. National governments will therefore tend to address rural poverty in national policy and plans, given resource limitations. It is often said that although poverty seems more visible and geographically concentrated in cities, the poor who choose to stay in urban areas are much better off than their rural counterparts. Despite having very low cash incomes, the poor in urban areas are expected to have, at the very least, more access to social services in the cities.

Because poverty has often been associated with rural areas in Southeast Asia, urban poverty issues have largely been relegated to the background in the regional policy discourse. Regional level efforts that deal with economic development as a means to address poverty often focus on investments in infrastructure and agricultural productivity in rural areas. Urban development is then largely left to market forces or private sector decisions. Moreover, rural poverty is seen as more urgent and compelling and therefore more resources and time are poured into addressing it.

However, with the rise of urban populations and, with it, an increase of urban poverty incidence, addressing urban poverty issues alongside rural poverty issues may no longer be delayed. An estimated 41.8 per cent of Southeast Asia's total population or, almost 245 million people, live in urban areas. In 1950 the urban population represented only 15.4 per cent of the total population. By 2025, the urban population of the region is expected to increase to 49.7 per cent of the total population (Yap 2010).

The rise of urban populations is expected to put pressure on the existing infrastructure and social services in cities. The informality of infrastructure and services provision in cities, as evidenced by informal settlements in rapidly expanding urban centres, is a concern of national governments. Civil society organizations and community-based non-government organizations regard informal settlements as solutions rather than problems.

Over the past decades decentralization has been adopted as a strategy among many nations in the region to promote good governance. The fundamental ideology here is democratization and people participation: in accordance with the fundamental principle of subsidiarity, decisions are most responsive to the specific and unique needs of the people if they are made as close to the people as possible. Therefore, governments must be brought closer to the people to make the delivery of public services more responsive.

The problems and challenges are even more critical for rapidly urbanizing areas. The argument here is that basic challenges — ranging from the delivery of basic services to the protection of the environment — and the imperative of regulation to address the problems brought about by congestion and a burgeoning population, are best addressed under a decentralized politico-administrative system.

This chapter discusses the relationship between and among economic growth, urbanization, and the imperative to decentralize. It adheres to the observation that growth and urbanization are mutually reinforcing. In fact it could be argued that these trends can lead to a “virtuous cycle” if managed well, or a “vicious spiral” to diminishing living standards if not harnessed properly. Decentralization is presented as both a logical and necessary response to urbanization in Southeast Asia.

The experience of three countries in the region in decentralizing their respective governments is recounted to provide a picture of how these countries pursued decentralization as a national policy, and includes a discussion of some of the issues and challenges they faced along the way. This is followed by a retelling of success stories from four local governments from the three focus countries, which demonstrate that good urban governance can flourish under a decentralized set-up. Various lessons are derived from these good practices, which can be emulated by other local governments in the region confronted by the challenge of rapid urbanization.

In the concluding section, a call is made to establish a regional body that would seek out, recognize, document, and disseminate good urban practices in the region. A regional alliance of cities is also sought to strengthen cooperation among city governments in the region through sister city and other similar arrangements.

In Southeast Asian countries, urban areas have been developed with rapid economic growth and expansion of population. The economies of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) experienced an average growth rate of 5.9 per cent between 2003 and 2008 (ASEAN Secretariat 2009). The total population of the region in 2008 was about 580 million and was projected to rise to 650 million by 2020, with more than half living in urban areas (United Nations 2007). The urban population in the region has been steadily increasing from 31.6 per cent of the total population in 1990, to about 47 per cent in 2008 (ASEAN Secretariat 2009). However, due to the rising population in major cities, the development of urban infrastructure and public services such as sewage systems, wastewater treatment facilities, and public transportation networks, has been inadequate and these services have become less effective, causing serious problems to the quality of life of residents, and obstructing sustainable growth of the ASEAN countries.

Since the introduction of decentralization efforts in several ASEAN countries in the 1990s, many local governments have been responsible for the delivery of urban services. However, their financial and administrative autonomy remains a challenging issue. The ability of local governments to raise revenue and provide adequate services continues to deteriorate as city populations grow, while their administrations are still trapped in bureaucratic traditions and lack capable staff.

Facing budgetary constraints and recognizing their inability to provide infrastructure services efficiently, governments in many countries have been rapidly adopting neoliberal approaches and a market-based economy. This has led to radical changes in the characteristics and respective roles of the public and private sectors. Coping with the new market economy requires governments to reduce the size of the public sector and give a greater role to a more dynamic private sector under public-private partnership schemes.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify issues and challenges in the area of public-private partnerships for infrastructure provision and finance at the urban and national levels in Southeast Asia. More thought will be given to discussing essential features of the regulatory and legal frameworks required to support public and private sectors to deliver urban infrastructure services effectively.