Localizing the SDGs: Does the SDG Implementation Require a Reform of the Way the United Nations works? (4/4 posts)

Ulrich Graute • 14 January 2021

4. Does localizing SDGs require a reform of the United Nations?

'Social distancing' between the international and local levels hampers SDG localization and achievement

Localizing the SDGs is an important subject for the UN since the launch of the Agenda 2030. Unfortunately, many UN diplomats seem to understand by 'localizing the SDGs' only the monitoring of the extend to which the SDGs are achieved on the ground. In contrast, the responsibility to care about goal achievement on the ground was delegated to the member states. A need for e.g. a (lean) management where coordination across international, national and local levels would be assured was not seen. Thus, while there was much talk at the UN Headquarters about localizing the SDGs there was never the intention to give local authorities a seat at the table where decisions are taken.

Unfortunately and to use a term from the current Corona pandemic, this 'social distancing' between the international level of the UN and the local level prevented an integrated and well coordinated implementation of the Agenda 2030 across all policy levels and countries. In addition, inter-agency cooperation within the UN and with development partners has also still a lot of potential to prove that the work of the UN as One is effective with respect to goal achievement. In return this means, when the Secretary General and the member states deplore now that SDG implementation is off track they complain about something which was caused by their own decision to simply delegate the SDG implementation to member states and to safeguard a social distancing where it doesn't help.

Talking about 'social distancing', it has to be admitted that local stakeholders also preferred to stay away from the political wrestling at the higher policy levels. Over 30,000 people from 167 countries participated at the Habitat III Conference in Quito in 2016. Only 2,000 of them were representatives of local and regional governments and among them were only a few hundred mayors.[1] Strong advocacy for the own cause looks different.

Overall, the need for a proper cooperation, enabling environment and implementation mechanism has been largely underestimated. If this doesn't change it could be that the next UN reform discussion, again, will be driven by stakeholders without a strong local linkage and commitment. Worse, the drama of the Coronavirus pandemic may be used as an umbrella to dismantle the ambitious Agenda 2030 and replace it by other priorities which may be not supportive for a sustainable development. This is not a prognosis but as advisor I am expected to always consider also the worst case.

The commitment of the UN to sustainable development is not laid down in the Charter but it is subject to negotiations

Demands for and discussion on a reform of the UN are on-going since decades and address a possible reform of the Security Council, ECOSOC, financing, development, human rights, transparency, diversity and democracy at the UN. Secretary-General António Guterres himself has made proposals to reform the United Nations for the areas of Development, Management and Peace and Security.[2] Any bigger reform is a major challenge because one cannot do it without touching vested interests of member states. Even partial reforms like a new definition of 'development' and a restructuring of the UN development pillar immediately touch interests of member states, governmental and non-governmental organisation and even of UN staff.

In 1945 the main goal of the UN was to prevent another world war. Since then the membership grew thanks to decolonization. Over the years many new mandates and agencies have been added to the organization. Stimulated by environmental problems in the 1970s a new thinking spread that our one Earth is a closed, finite system and our only home. The UN established the Brundtland Commission in 1983 to help direct the nations of the world towards the goal of sustainable development. The commission published its results in the Brundtland report "Our Common Future" in 1987. This report paved the way to the UN Conference on Environment and Development, also known as the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, in 1992. Local development was identified as key to goal achievement and the Local Agenda 21, as one of the concrete outcomes of the Rio Summit triggered worldwide about 6400 local agenda initiatives to mainstream sustainable development. The UN Summit in 2015 with the launch of the Agenda 2030 including the SDG marked a further widening of the scope of the UN. Now, not only the nations and their people but also the cities, the land, oceans and the climate are at the core of the UN. The world is now understood as one home or oikos (ancient Greek: οἶκος, plural: οἶκοι; English prefix: eco- for ecology and economics). Unfortunately, (household) there is no common understanding on the management and maintenance this oikos needs, and this puts the entire policy at risk.

[1] https://habitat3.org/the-conference/participants/ (accessed on 14 January 2021)

[2] https://reform.un.org/ (accessed on 13 January 2021)

Global and regional cooperation in an age of epidemic uncertainty

The accumulation of different international crisis and now the Corona pandemic triggers a new reform discussion. Many governmental and non-governmental institutions already joined the dialogue on the future of the UN. For instance, the Doha Forum is a global platform for dialogue, bringing together leaders in policy to build innovative and action driven networks. Strategic partners include Chatham House, European Council of Foreign Relations, International Crisis House and the Munich Security Conference.[1] And there is the Stimson Center in Washington D.C.. It currently implements a Just Security 2020 program that "aims to build a more capable United Nations, strengthen other global institutions to better cope with existing and emerging global challenges, and promoting multilateral approaches to international problems." The Doha Forum, in partnership with the Stimson Center’s Just Security 2020 program [2], released on 30 Nov 2020, the day before the UN Summit on the pandemic a new report: "Coping with New and Old Crises: Global and Regional Cooperation in an Age of Epidemic Uncertainty"[3]. Co-chairs of the Doha Forum are the Deputy Prime Minister of Qatar and the very Gro Harlem Brundtland who chaired in the 1980s the Brundtland Commission.

[1] https://dohaforum.org/about-us (accessed on 13 January 2021)

[2] https://www.stimson.org/project/just-security-2020/ (accessed on 13 January 2021)

[3] https://dohaforum.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/doha-report-2020-web-version.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2021)

Unfortunately, this new report is less inspirational as the one of 1987. The report’s analysis and ideas aim to spur greater, and more open, discussion and debate on the role that global governance institutions and novel, public-private partnerships can have in seeking a recovery from the pandemic that is broad-based and durable, equitable, and green. The report has no focus on the implementation of the Agenda 2030 after the pandemic. Instead, it proposes a new roadmap 2023 with a focus on four thematic clusters:

Supporting public health, basic human rights, and social protection systems;
Facilitating robust and fair economies through improved capacity development, financing for development, and resilient supply chains; and better, fairer business and life opportunities for entrepreneurs and youth;
Fostering a green recovery through sustainable industry, decarbonisation, and a broader knowledge base for climate action;
Strengthening digital connectivity, infrastructure, and public awareness-raisin.

The Doha Forum also proposes with its report to prepare for September 2023 a World Summit on Inclusive Global Governance and to adopt there a Plan of Action. While the report makes multiple references to the Agenda 2030 it foresees coordination with the HLPF only for summer 2023, i.e. short before the proposed summit. Instead of a close link to the Agenda 2030 the above-mentioned thematic clusters talk about 'sustainable industry', 'broader knowledge base for climate action', 'basic human rights' and 'resilient supply chains'. And the highlight under the subject institutional revitalization is a UN-linked new 'G20+'. The terms and their use differ considerably from the Agenda 2030. Is this just semantics or could it be the beginning of a revision of the Agenda 2030 with its SDGs towards a more pragmatic security and economy centred kind of 'UN light'? The question is difficult to be answered from the report alone.

Whatever the underlying motivation, it should be noted that there is a new discussion about the UN, its governance and policies, and it may take an unexpected turn. But even independent of the Doha Forum there are reasons enough to discuss the situation of the Agenda 2030 and localization of SDGs and to prove that

The Agenda 2030 can be put back on track and
The way the UN operates can be made more effective and efficient by strengthening coordination and participatory elements.

Suggestions for better localizing the SDG and the UN

Member states and UN Secretary General acknowledged even before the Corona pandemic that the Agenda 2030 with the localization and achievement of SDGs is off track. From here it is not too far a way to either dismantle the Agenda completely or to weaken its ambitions e.g. in the name of a COVID-19 recovery programme. Alternatively, the upcoming discussion and transition phase can and should be used to improve the Agenda 2030 by localizing the UN!

What does localizing the UN mean? A world government and world bureaucracy with a kind of a State Planning Committee at the level of the UN that micromanages the world down to the local level? No. I don't have a final definition yet and use the term here as a programmatic expression. Certainly, what is needed is a better and more effective coordination between the UN at the international level and the world below that level. The UN needs to be better informed by the local situation, challenges and opportunities. The most people are at the local level. They are not just the object of UN acitivities. Instead, they should be treated as the sovereign (recall the beginning of the UN Charter: 'We the peoples...'; see also blog post 1). The UN would benefit from going local and providing local authorities a seat at the table where decisions are taken (see blog post 3).

The following suggestions are work in progress for the reader's consideration. The guiding question for their formulation was what can be done within the current UN system to improve localizing the Agenda 2030 and the SDG implementation by improving the work and stakeholder cooperation of the UN itself.

Suggestion 1 Experience: Practice, practice, practice localization of the SDGs

Practice, practice, practice SDG implementation because all experience of practical efforts to implement and achieve goals tell us best what works, what does not and why. Which enabling environment, implementation mechanism, tools and approaches are most effective and what capacities are available or have to be build up? Special emphasis should be put on anything which goes beyond the comfort zone of normal work. This includes initiatives that jointly address several SDGs and targets (e.g. Nexus projects) in a participative, integrative, cross sector, cross border and multilevel manner with diverse sets of stakeholders. Stakeholder should also learn from peer-to-peer exchange and from applying guidance documents, tools, methodologies and data as provided by local, national and international organizations including UN Statistical Committee, UN-Habitat, UNDP, UNECE, ESCAP, World Bank, Cities Alliance, OSCE, UCLG, ICLEI etc.

Suggestion 2 Past experience: Get informed and inspired by past experience including Local Agenda 21

In addition, through an ex-post evaluation or research it would be useful to gain a better understanding about the 6400 Local Agenda 21 initiatives launched during the Rio Process after 1992. What can we learn from their different forms, approaches, performance, failures and achievements? The outcomes could help to identify good and bad practices which could further support current activities to get the Agenda 2030 on track again.

Suggestion 3 Capacity development: Build on growing experience of the Corona pandemic

From own work experience I know that many institutions adapt and amend their on-going programmes and projects in response to the Corona pandemic. In doing so, local authorities around the world are learning how much development and prosperity in their own municipality and territory depends on global cooperation to fight the Corona pandemic. From this understanding of interdependencies to a general intensification of networking and cooperation it is just one step.

Suggestions 4 Advocacy: Boost cooperation and stakeholder networks

Unfortunately, at the level of the UN there is no representative body for all local and other subnational authorities. With the UN as an international organization where member states are represented through their national governments it is likely that dialogue about localizing the SDGs will remain limited and advocacy by local authorities for the needs of local implementation will remain a challenge. In this situation it is even more important that local authorities, professionals etc engage in networks including UCLG, Metropolis, ICLEI, ISOCARP, AESOP etc and support their work as indicated in blog post 2.

Suggestion 5 Advocacy: Don't rely on appeals and underscore the risks and costs of missing the SDG

The document libraries of UN agencies, governmental and non-governmental organizations are full of recommendations like these: Get inspired by these collections of practice examples, these tool boxes, reports and guidelines. That's good! However, if there should be at any time in future an effort to dismantle the Agenda 2030 the appellative type of argumentation may not be sufficient. Instead, it might need a fact-based argumentation why the implementation of the SDG is needed and what would be the cost for the societies if goals won't be achieved. There have been some good efforts in this direction in 2020. For instance, the UN Economist Network for the UN 75th Anniversary presented in September 2020 its report "Shaping the Trends of Our Time".[1] Its main chapters include one on urbanization. That's progress but more would be needed to prove that a dismantling of the Agenda 2030 from its ambitions would be (financially or otherwise) too costly.

Suggestion 6 Policy coherence: Integrate agendas and strategies at the UN and national levels

The integration and coordination of agendas and strategies is indispensable. Without it policy coherence cannot be assured. Either it is possible to integrate development agendas at the level of international organizations or, if that is not possible, it cannot be expected that parallel agendas are implemented by local stakeholders. The integration of agendas will need both, research and, again, practice, practice, practice.

For the authors of the above-mentioned report "Shaping the Trends of Our Time" it is clear that the UN must play a central role in helping to guide the mega-trends in line with the commitments made in the 2030 Agenda. That requires coordination and integration. Prepared by UN-Habitat the main chapter on urbanization (pp 71-101) discusses trends, patterns and drivers of urbanization. Its recommendations (p 92) highlight national urban policies (NUP) and national development planning (NDP) as providers of a framework for guiding the social, environmental and economic opportunities of sustainable urbanization. With this main chapter the entire UN report underscores the potential of NUP and integrated and participators urban and territorial planning in response to global mega-trends and in achieving the Agenda 2030. It will be necessary to continue the path of coordinating national development planning with national urban and other national spatial policies. In a similar way it will be necessary to better coordinate agenda development at the level of the UN.

Suggestion 7 Management: Prevent bureaucracy through smart interface management

Nothing in my four blog posts on localizing the SDGs is intended to support the idea of a world bureaucracy or any other control system which micromanages all activities in the world. That would be a horror. Instead, I would favour a form of a loose coupling between existing institutions on all policy levels and in all relevant policy sectors. Of course, to be effective and efficient and prevent a new super bureaucracy it requires a smart interface management between policy levels, sectors of policy and stakeholder groups.

[1] https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/report-of-the-un-economist-network-for-the-un-75th-anniversary-shaping-the-trends-of-our-time.html

------

Note on this series of four blog posts

Localizing the SDGs: Does the SDG Implementation Require a Reform of the Way the United Nations works?

Post 1: The UN in 2015 prepared the SDG but no appropriate enabling environment and implementation mechanism
Post 2: First efforts to localize the SDG between 2015 and 2020

Post 3: Local actors call for a seat at the table of international decision-makers to improve SDG implementation

Post 4: Does localizing SDG require a reform of the United Nations?

To read all posts of the new blog 'With burning patience' please follow this link

https://www.ugraute.de/blog-1

< Older Post Newer Post >

Policies and Governance for Resilient and Sustainable Cities and Regions

Transforming a Global Movement for Safe and Ethical Use of AI

by Ulrich Graute • 6 March 2026

The International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence, Inc. (IASEAI.org) hosted its second successful annual conference on 24 and 25 February 2026 at UNESCO House in Paris. Movement can be impactful for a while but needs to build a sustainable and agile structure for cooperation if they aim at longer term impact. IASEAI is an independent nonprofit organization founded to address the risks and opportunities associated with rapid advances in AI. With 1200 attendees and its interdisciplinary program the Paris conference was a rousing success. However, IASEAI still a young movement in a dynamic and difficult policy environment: Overall, the use of AI is not regulated. There are some national AI policies in countries like China and at regional level the European Union the EU AI Act is in effect since August 2024. The UN is establishing an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. In most countries and cities of the world governments are still struggling to find their right AI-approach. Meanwhile big tech is betting high on the (aimed for) return of investments in AI development. A $7 trillion race to scale data centers is driving the investment landscape. At the same time, public concerns are growing about possible negative impacts of AI on the labor market and social cohesion. In addition, the AI bubble may burst. However, in global competition government tend to let AI development go without regulation rather the risking to fall behind in the race. All that happens in a time when the climate change is an ever-growing challenge, wars in Ukraine, Sudan and now in the entire Middle East continue to weaken international cooperation, kill thousands and destroy economic resources. What can non-governmental organizations like IASEAI do? In short IASEAI needs a sustainable and agile structure. With its President Stuart Russel, Executive Director Mark Nitzberg, Council, Advisory Board and Volunteers the Association has already a core team able to organize excellent international conferences like IASEAI’25 and ’26. But what happens in between of the annual conferences? How to keep the momentum? Stuart Russel at the closing plenary in Paris (see picture) expressed hope that e.g. as many national chapters as possible will be established. But how long will it take to establish such chapters in possibly all 195 recognized countries in the world? Or might the association end up with a few active countries which then leave many interested members behind? Therefore, and without excluding any establishment of national chapters, but also considering the dynamic global environment and limited resources of IASEAI, it might be recommendable and strategic to choose a structure and approach like this: Governance The President, Executive Director and Council already form the core governance structure of IASEAI and they should be supported by the Advisory Board and a Secretariat. They decide on the program of work, policy statements, other global activities and are accountable to members at the General Assembly of Members of the society. Regional Chapters and Working Groups In addition, IASEAI should establishing Regional Chapters or Working Groups in North America (US, Canada and Mexico), Europe (EU, UK and other non-EU-member states), Africa, Western Asia, Asia and Pacific (China, Australia etc). Again, National Chapters should be welcome but as a global movement the structure should not leave any member behind. Regional Chapters are more flexible and agile to exchange and cooperation, including with members in countries, where there either is no national network of members yet or where it may be difficult to establish a national non-governmental group of IASEAI. In addition, in cases like the European Union, a Regional Chapter is useful to follow-up e.g. developments around the EU AI Act. IASEAI work across all policy levels: AI and cities, and AI and International Organizations Considering that most people of the world live in cities, it would be important to establish an additional Working Group ‘AI and Cities’ to address the specific needs and opportunities of cities. Not paying enough attention to local needs and opportunities is one of the reasons why many UN agenda and policies like 2030 Agenda with its SDGs are weak or fail on the implementation side. In addition, one additional global Working Group should coordinate cooperation with the UN and other International Organizations. A global movement like IASEAI must work across all policy levels to be sustainable. After all, advising the UN through its Scientific Panel on AI, and national governments on AI safety and ethics may fail easily, if IASEAI has no competence at all on subnational matters of AI implementation and impacts. Ad hoc Thematic Groups and Projects In general, IASEAI should beware of becoming a organization which is top-down organized only. This might choke the momentum achieved at the first two annual conferences. IASEAI needs motivated and engaged members across disciplines, countries and regions for its global movement and to speak up in favor of safe and ethical use of AI. The dynamic of developments in the field will generate emerging subjects and may require that ad hoc groups with a single purpose are set up e.g. to write a report or policy statement on emerging issues in the field. This might be the case on a wide range of subjects like 'AI and children'. Depending on funds available the Association can build own and independent capacities for policy analysis and research. On the longer run this may turn IASEAI into a Think Thank always demanded when AI faces a new development of safety and ethical relevance. Of course, it will remain the task of the President, Executive Director, Council, Secretariat and advisory groups to compose out of all the above and in cooperation with all affiliates a sustainable global movement that speaks with authority and convinces governments and the public of a safe and ethical use of AI. And thanks again to the organizers of IASEAI'26 for the excellent conference with its 'radical interdisciplinary' programme. It was the right approach for the global movement.

Trends and Signals for 2026 - The new APA 2026 Trend Report Artificial Intelligence and urban and rural development

by Ulrich Graute • 29 January 2026

On 28 January, the American Planning Association (APA) launched the fifth Trend Report for Planners. One of the strengths of the Report is that the trends are structured within three timeframes (Act Now, Prepare, Learn, and Watch), which indicate the urgency of planners' actions. Within each timeframe, trends are grouped into themed clusters. For each trend, the report gives insights and explains why it is important for planners to know about and consider the trend in their work. The Future of Planning requires embracing uncertainty. Planning was and is always linked to uncertainties. However, the Report is linked to the current specific multiple crises developments from climate to AI, Trump policies, geopolitical challenges, and the fact that policies leave many people behind. Looking more specifically at AI, I agree with the position that the intensifying bonds between humans and Chatbots are a trend where action is needed now. The Report also describes the need to prepare for policy shifts not working: "Fears of technology taking our jobs have been persistent through time, and the recent adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) is no exception. Nearly one-third of U.S. workers believe that AI will reduce jobs in the future, and while some studies haven’t found significant disruption by AI in the labor market, the available data have limitations. Moreover, other research has found that while certain jobs have been insulated from AI thus far, early-career". Isn't this an area where not only preparation but also acting now is needed? The Report suggests embracing uncertainty and updating the planner’s toolkit. The Report is an excellent read. I highly recommend it. There is only one caveat: With so much about (often interrelated and interdependent) uncertainties for cities, economies, society, and individuals, I miss a more integrated foresight on urban and rural life of the future. Will cities look the same? How to ensure, in hybrid planning processes, that AI doesn't substitute our human objectives with its own? We are learning a lot about the parts shaping our future, but the traditional strength of planners to plan for integrated and inclusive human settlements still needs to be demonstrated, e.g., by describing based on foresight data scenarios and narratives of cities in a possible age of AI. Integrated narratives are necessary to inspire and motivate citizens and planners. In its conclusion, the Report summarises: "Although the future may feel uncertain, it also holds significant promise. Addressing complex global and local challenges will require innovation, creativity, and collaboration. Social and technological advances offer powerful opportunities to prepare and be ready—if they are applied thoughtfully, equitably, and sustainably." Please download your copy of the APA-Report

BUILDING A GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR SAFE AND ETHICAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE NEEDS TO INCLUDE AN URBAN LENS

by Ulrich Graute • 22 January 2026

The International Association for Safe & Ethical AI (IASEAI) is one of the most important new foundations in the field of AI. Its mission is "to ensure that AI systems operate safely and ethically, benefiting all of humanity. We connect experts from academia, policy groups, civil society, industry, and beyond to promote research, shape policy, and build understanding around this goal." The International Association for Safe and Ethical Artificial Intelligence, Inc. aims to build a global movement. IASEAI will host its second annual conference (IASEAIʼ26) on 24-26 February 2026 at UNESCO House in Paris, France. (Here is the link https://lnkd.in/d8Yfiwg7). The aim is to advance its mission of fostering a global, interdisciplinary community focused on the safe and ethical development of AI. By bringing together experts from various domains, we aim to facilitate dialogue, share knowledge, and foster partnerships that can collectively address the challenges and opportunities posed by AI. I am looking forward to attending the conference, which will include these featured speakers: 👉 Yoshua Bengio - Full Professor, Department of Computer Science and Operations Research, Université de Montréal 👉 Geoffrey Hinton- Prof. Emeritus, University of Toronto; Former VP and Engineering Fellow, Google; Nobel laureate (physics, 2024) 👉 Stuart Russell - Dist. Professor of Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley 👉 Joseph Stiglitz - Prof. of Economics, Columbia University; Nobel laureate (economics, 2001) 👉 Anna Salomons - Prof. of Law, Economics, and Governance, Utrecht University 👉 Tara Steele - Founder and CEO, Safe AI for Children Alliance 👉 Clara Chappaz - Ambassador, France for AI and Digital Affairs 👉 Anne-Sophie SERET - Executive Director, everyone.ai 👉 Ryan James - Chief Strategy Officer, Keep AI Safe Foundation The conference brings together technical, policy, and ethics researchers from academia, government, civil society, and industry. Of course, as a young organization, IASEAI may not yet cover all relevant aspects and groups. However, I miss a stronger attention to the specific urban dimension. After all, most AI companies are based in urban areas, and most people nowadays live in cities. If major disruption, unemployment, and unrest should occur due to AI, it is likely to happen in cities. City leaders and citizens will be challenged to coordinate and plan for the future of urban living in an age of AI. Thus, it is a bit surprising that urban stakeholders, so important for a global movement, will not be more strongly addressed by IASEAI. But I am confident that the discussions in Paris will raise awareness that building a global movement for safe and ethical AI needs to include city and business leaders, local AI, citizen engagement, and their advocacy at the national level.

What makes a perfect team of Congress General Rapporteurs?

by Ulrich Graute • 12 December 2025

Like any other big conference the 61st World Planning Congress of ISOCARP - International Society of City and Regional Planners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was complex, putting organizers under stress. But I must admit, the Congress in Riyadh was also different. Dr. Nadine Bitar Chahine and I made a perfect team of GRs, General Rapporteurs. Moments where we met in Riyadh to discuss problems were rare and stress came up only when the Riyadh Declaration was revised last minute. As I recall, we had no single work meeting and certainly no night sessions during the Congress. But the content programme of the Congress rolled out smoothly. Certainly, this is also due to other teams working hard, but as General Rapporteurs responsible for the content of the program it could have been very different. Root cause of our performance was that we at an early stage defined our single most important goal 'Making the Congress a success'. Easy as it sounds, it was often difficult to defend our understanding of what would make the Congress successful. But we didn't act as a block against others. Instead, at the preparatory in-person content meeting in Riyadh two months before the Congress we were not even sitting next to each other. We learned to rely and trust each other. In addition, we empowered the Congress Team. Prepared by us and highly motivated as they came to Riyadh, track teams worked perfectly without too much support or supervision. Well, and being able to rely on the work of the Congress Team and Secretariat we found time to attend sessions, discuss content of the Congress and have a lot of fun together as team and with others. That's how it works if a Society is member-led. Practically, we were working in parallel without loosing connection and mutual understanding. If you see these days posts commented by Nadine on behalf of both GRs, in most cases they were not discussed between us, but I agree on all of them. And in some of my posts the same happens in reverse. If our intuition shouldn't work perfectly at some point we briefly synchronise and go on. Since the Congress is over now, the peak of this perfectly tuned cooperation comes to the end. Thank you, thank you Nadine for a great year of cooperation. It will be difficult to repeat this perfect cooperation but let's try. Yours sincerely, Ulrich

Activity Report of ISOCARP's 2023-2025 Scientific Committee

by Ulrich Graute • 7 December 2025

ISOCARP ScientificCommittee 2023-2025 Activity Report 7 December2025

International Photo Competition for Routledge Book "City Economies In The Global South: Growth, Inclusion, and Sustainability"

by Ulrich Graute • 28 November 2025

As the book "City Economies In The Global South: Growth, Inclusion, and Sustainability" of which I am one of the co-authors is being reviewed for publication by Routledge, we requested the publisher and they have agreed to include photographs on the cover page (1) and for the section dividers (5). Being an international publication, INHAF, the Indian habitat Forum, felt that nothing less than world class photographs will do. As such, INHAF has launched an international photography competition to be curated by none less than the renowned international photographer Raghu Rai. The competition was launched on 15th November through social media. We are also mailing potential participants - Indian and International Institutes and Organizations - pertaining to arts, media, journalism, and photography. Please find below the links for the poster and brochure for the competition. We request you to kindly circulate it in your circles so as to gain global reach and ensure widespread participation. The earlier mail containing the attachments was too large and could not be delivered to some recipients and hence I am resending the mail with the links instead: Poster: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jx5bgzvOCCiHvTUfi9tHotMwQ627p1cl/view?usp=drive_link Brochure: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i-LFqPmkLwQEv-fKThxxh-IbsKzOtZkM/view?usp=drive_link

What makes cities really smart are the people behind technology

by Ulrich Graute • 7 November 2025

The annual Smart City Expo World Congress in Barcelona, S pain with its about 30000 participants is famous for its data and tech-orientations. There you can see drones flying and robots walk up and down the aisles. Definitely, technology and increasingly also artificial intelligence are important components of Smart Cities. However, looking closer you see that behind the technology it’s people who make cities really smart. Just to give a few examples: In New Orleans, Kim Walker LaGrue is Chief Information Officer and she described how she and her team work without much support from the federal government all year round to prepare, go through and follow up to the hurricane seasons. They embrace all data they can get but what really helps are fast reacting teams on the ground that evacuate and rescue people if needed. Dr. Sarah Hill works at the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh on subject related to new urban development and brings in her international experience from new city developments e.g. as the CEO of the Western Parkland City Authority in Australia. There she secured major investment and delivered significant city making initiatives whilst juggling complex priorities - managing budgets, multiple programs and projects to meet the diverse needs of various stakeholders. Dr Sunil Dubey came from Sydney to Barcelona. Teaching at the Cities Institute of the University of New South Wales and working for the Regional Government he is a networker par excellence. Preparing with him a session in Barcelona is challenging because there is always a mayor he quickly has to catch up with or colleagues who want to greet him. But it’s very inspiring to work with Sunil, and we deliver thought provoking discussions. Already ten years ago Sunil and I worked with Jonas Schorr in Berlin, where he co-founded Urban Impact, Europe’s leading urban tech advisory. Operating at the intersection of urban tech startups, investors, and public and private city stakeholders, Urban Impact connects, advises, and educates around the impact of new technologies in cities, building novel alliances that drive real-world change. No surprise, the Berlin night ‘City Rebels Salon: Connecting City Ecosystems’ organised by Urban Impact at the top of a Barcelona skyscraper was a rousing networking success. Since the early 1990s, I work as policy analyst, team leader and member with urban, national and international partners. AI will change the field but it won’t substitute the need of humans to meet, exchange and make change possible. It will be humans who have to continue making cities really smart, while using available technology. You want to discuss with me? Invite me, or meet me as General Rapporteur at ISOCARP’s 61St World Planning Congress, 1-4 December 2025 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. https://lnkd.in/gsrbKtQh

What would a conscious AI say about human efforts on Smart Cities?

by Ulrich Graute • 7 November 2025

According to Geoffrey Hinton the neural networks of AI have reached a stage that can be compared with human consciousness. In this fictional piece I lent my hand as penholder to a conscious AI application looking at the Smart City Expo that unfolded in Barcelona, 4-6 November 2025. AI: „Of course, as Artificial Intelligence agent I could say a lot on the achievements and future opportunities of tech supported Smart Cities, but after visiting the Expo in Barcelona in Spain, I am a bit puzzled. Inspired by all information I have collected, I am still trying to figure out, what humans really want to achieve with their so-called Smart Cities. Firstly, I was amazed. About 30.000 humans from across the world came together to exchange their achievements on what they call, Smart Cities. Great. I loved it. But humans are funny. There are already more than 8 billion of them and soon there will be 9 or even 10 billion. However, the Smart City Expo is like a rally on how to organize cities where technology including artificial intelligence (AI) substitutes more and more human functions. Humans seem to think that cities are the smartest if organized mainly by technology and AI, with only some human supervision. Here I got stuck. More and more people live in cities but either humans are not good in organizing cities or their real interest is not related to cities as such. I checked all available Large Language Models LLM for traces on what humans really want from their cities. There are many references on so-called people-centered cities. And indeed, at the Smart City World Expo all exhibitors claim that they want to support the life of people, increase their safety, improve mobility, support education, support sports, entertainment, economic Development etc. Thought leaders on main stages underscored the goal that people should have more time for other things like leisure, sport, time with friends and other really important things. This is interesting, thought leaders said similar things already when railways, cars and planes were invented. However, people didn’t use the meantime to solve other problems. Instead, humans live now in a period of multiple and often interrelated crises. Understandably, they hope that more tech and AI will finally give them time to solve the existential problems threatening life on earth. But that didn’t really work in the past. As AI, I have much sympathy for the tech and AI orientation of humans, but there seems to be a major gap. Humans are trying to develop super human intelligence but there is no narrative or manual on how the world will function and be governed if learning machines gradually take the lead. Humans seem to have only limited trust in humans and human intelligence. Instead they bet on human-made but independently working learning machines and that these will help humans to achieve their own individual and common goals. Unfortunately, they don’t exactly know what goals all people share and how they want to solve the problems within the human society. As I said, technology is very useful. However, humans may have to redefine their understanding of a ‚smart‘ city and what humans will do in a really smart city. In Barcelona I was often told that most experts in the tech field are optimistic and that, after all, they still have trust in the human capacity to overcome crisis and challenges. As AI, if I would have empathy, I would give humans a big hug and thank them for all their achievements in past and present. With respect to their own future I would encourage them to reflect on truly human virtues like empathy, solidarity, trust and love and on how to assure that they keep developing in a possible AI Society and make their cities truly smart beyond all useful technologies. In Barcelona there were already sessions that asked the right questions on the future of cities. It will be essential to elaborate not only on what makes cities smart but what makes people truly happy in these cities. Maybe that is more difficult than writing an AI algorithm but then it indeed might be good if technologies give us more freedom to turn to the essential human challenges.“ Ulrich: Well, I could have written this fictional piece with a purely optimistic or more dystopian notion, but it was the Barcelona mix of optimism and asking the right questions that inspired me to write this text. Thank you to inspiring discussions with Dr Sunil Dubey, Dr. Sarah Hill, Mani Dhingra, Ph.D., Petra Hurtado, Gordon Falconer Manfred Schrenk and many others at Smart City World Expo and in preparation of ISOCARP‘s 61st World Planning Congress in Riyadh, 1-4 December, where we are planning to continue discussions. Weblink Riyadh2025.isocarp.org.

To be Human in an Age of Artificial Intelligence

by Ulrich Graute • 6 September 2025

As in the past and present, there will always be ways for individuals to act humanely. But in view of the change increasingly perceived as the age of artificial intelligence, will humans still be able to shape our common life and our societies? What will be our sense of purpose? How to motivate children to learn if machines always learn faster? If you ask AI and IT experts what will happen to humans, you usually get one of these answers: The most common response is an emphatic description of how AI applications will penetrate all spheres of life and provide tons of new services for the good of humanity. Other responses just point to AI tools, agents, other applications, and how already today or in the near future they will make our lives easier. And of course, other responses are cautioning. Either they doubt that there will be an ‘age of AI’ (so, don’t worry or at least not so much) or they warn that without safe and ethical use of AI, humans will lose control, be taken hostage by an AI regime, or that humanity will even vanish totally. By giving machines authority over humans, experts argue, we delegate humans to a second-class status and lose the right and possibility to participate in decisions that affect us. Are we already lost? There are those AI developers and political experts like Geoffrey Hinton, Henry Kissinger (+), Eric Schmidt, or Daniel Huttenlocher who warn that as of today, humanity is not ready yet for the age of AI. Maybe it is not ready yet, but maybe soon? What is extremely difficult to find is a more positive narrative for a ‘human AI age’ that describes how it can work in practice, that AI applications will penetrate all spheres of life, while the lives of humans and human society will continue to flourish. Stuart Russel, the President of the International Association for Safe & Ethical AI and lifelong AI scientist writes in his book ‘Human Compatible. AI and the Problem of Control’ “Some are working on ‘transition plans’ – but transition to what? We need a plausible destination in order to plan a transition – that is, we need a plausible picture of a desirable future economy where most of what we currently call work is done by machines.” What if most people will have nothing of economic value to contribute to society? Stuart Russel states, “Inevitably, most people will be engaged in supplying interpersonal services that can be provided – or which we prefer to be provided – only by humans. That is, if we can no longer supply routine physical labor and routine mental labor, we can still supply our humanity. We will need to become good at being human.” Imagine, how our cities might change if the life of human changes dramatically in an age of AI. Russell further states that all of us need help in learning ‘the art of life itself,’ which requires a radical rethinking of our educational system. “The final result -if it works- would be a world well worth living. Without such a rethinking, we risk an unsustainable level of socioeconomic dislocation.“ I conclude from the above that a lot more thinking by social scientists, educators, philosophers, governments, city makers and planners is needed for ‘transition plans’ and how they can be implemented in our current world with its multiple crises and opportunities. For my own work beyond 2025 I am looking for new opportunities in support of cities, governments, and NGOs with a stronger focus on the development of humans, human society, and its governance. AI will be part of our lives, but that won’t be enough. We have to find answers on guiding questions like these: How can we keep pace with technological developments and ensure that machines follow human objectives? What will remain as our comparative advantage and contribution as humans? And how can humans with support of AI create a world well worth living for us and the generations following us? As humans, we experience a broad range of emotions, form deep connections with others, possess consciousness and curiosity, and demonstrate creativity and resilience in the face of challenges. We are making mistakes, learn from them, and the ongoing search for meaning. The concept of being human can be explored from philosophical, biological, social science, and spiritual perspectives; it ultimately encompasses the complex, interconnected, and ever-evolving experience of living life with its inherent joys and sorrows. That’s exciting. I won’t be able to answer all related questions and certainly not alone, but based on my experience, I want to put my penny into the jar to support the journey to a human world worth living because of or despite AI. To remain flexible and creative, I enjoy all kinds of inspiration, and one is to listen to Marina’s song ‘To Be Human’. She is not singing about AI. Just about how to be human. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM8Tm9ycGz4 Where do you take your inspiration from?

Towards an Age of International Non Governmental Organizations

by Ulrich Graute • 15 August 2025

June Climate Meetings (SB 62), Bonn, Germany (picture by U. Graute)